SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

 

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Is the Confederacy making a comeback?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4489
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 29 2013, 12:33 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

What kind of a sicko would erect a monument to this coward?

QUOTE
The modest public profile of the Burkle house stands in stunning contrast with the monument in the center of Memphis to native son Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest, who is buried in Forrest Park under a statue of himself in his Confederate general’s uniform and mounted on a horse, is one of the most odious figures in American history. A moody, barely literate, violent man—he was not averse to shooting his own troops if he deemed them to be cowards—he became a millionaire before the war as a slave trader. As a Confederate general he was noted for moronic aphorisms such as “War means fighting and fighting means killing.” He was, even by the accounts of those who served under him, a butcher. He led a  massacre at Fort Pillow in Henning, Tenn., of some 300 black Union troops—who had surrendered and put down their weapons—as well as women and children who had sheltered in the fort. Forrest was, after the war, the first grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. He used his skills as a former cavalry commander to lead armed night raids to terrorize blacks.

Forrest, like many other white racists of the antebellum South, is enjoying a disquieting renaissance. The Sons of Confederate Veterans and the West Tennessee Historical Commission last summer put up a 1,000-pound granite marker at the entrance to the park that read “Forrest Park.” The city, saying the groups had not obtained a permit, removed it with a crane. A dispute over the park name, now raging in the Memphis City Council, exposes the deep divide in Memphis and throughout much of the South between those who laud the Confederacy and those who detest it, a split that runs like a wide fault down racial lines....

...But Forrest is only one of numerous flashpoints. Fliers reading “Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Wants You to Join” appeared in the mailboxes of white families in Memphis in early January. The Ku Klux Klan also distributed pamphlets a few days ago  in an Atlanta suburb. The Tennessee Legislature last year officially declared July 13 as Nathan Bedford Forrest Day to honor his birthday. There are 32 historical markers honoring Forrest in Tennessee alone and several in other Southern states. Montgomery, Ala., which I visited last fall, has a gigantic Confederate flag on the outskirts of the city, planted there by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Confederate monuments dot Montgomery’s city center. There are three Confederate state holidays in Alabama, including Martin Luther King/Robert E. Lee Day. Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Mississippi also honor Lee’s birthday. Jefferson Davis’ birthday is a state holiday in Alabama and Florida. And re-enactments of Confederate victories in the Civil War crowd Southern calendars...

...Achilles V. Clark, a soldier with the 20th Tennessee Cavalry under Forrest during the 1864 massacre at Fort Pillow, wrote to his sister after the attack: “The slaughter was awful. Words cannot describe the scene. The poor deluded negroes would run up to our men, fall upon their knees, and with uplifted hands scream for mercy but they were ordered to their feet and then shot down. … I, with several others, tried to stop the butchery, and at one time had partially succeeded, but General Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs and the carnage continued. Finally our men became sick of blood and the firing ceased.”


http://www.truthdig.com/report....0130128
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 29 2013, 5:31 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I'm not sure I would call him a coward. Evil, yes. A vicious bigot, of course. A traitor, unquestionably. Deserved to be hanged--no doubt.

But I won't question his bravery simply because that bravery was part of a villainous character in the service of a morally indefensible cause.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 3
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25921
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 29 2013, 6:13 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Jan. 29 2013, 2:31 pm)
QUOTE
I'm not sure I would call him a coward. Evil, yes. A vicious bigot, of course. A traitor, unquestionably. Deserved to be hanged--no doubt.

But I won't question his bravery simply because that bravery was part of a villainous character in the service of a morally indefensible cause.

We are products of our society.  Careful about using today's standards to judge people who existed in centuries past.  At the time of breakup, Lincoln himself didn't see the continuance of slavery as any kind of an impediment at all -- The South certainly could continue to hold slaves, if it would just return to the fold...

Obviously, the standards of the past cannot be used wholesale today either.  Shame on anyone today who is still racist at heart!

As for unquestionable traitor?  In terms of seceding... while I certainly hold our union with great affection and pride... I never view human creations ("things") as sacred  -- and thus, I hold the view that folks should be allowed to switch out if they wish.  Indeed, I believe this is the case today.  As for taking entire states with them -- I say let there be peaceful referendums.   God bless America -- but going forward, if enough people want to leave -- I'd rather see a Czechoslovakian than a Sudanese style separation!


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
big_load Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 23869
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 29 2013, 6:55 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Jan. 29 2013, 6:13 pm)
QUOTE

(TehipiteTom @ Jan. 29 2013, 2:31 pm)
QUOTE
I'm not sure I would call him a coward. Evil, yes. A vicious bigot, of course. A traitor, unquestionably. Deserved to be hanged--no doubt.

But I won't question his bravery simply because that bravery was part of a villainous character in the service of a morally indefensible cause.

We are products of our society.  Careful about using today's standards to judge people who existed in centuries past.  At the time of breakup, Lincoln himself didn't see the continuance of slavery as any kind of an impediment at all -- The South certainly could continue to hold slaves, if it would just return to the fold...

An unquestionable traitor?  In terms of seceding... while I certainly hold our union with great affection and pride... I never view human creations ("things") as sacred  -- and thus, I hold the view that folks should be allowed to switch out if they wish.  As for taking entire states with them -- I say let there be peaceful referendums.   God bless America -- but going forward, if enough people want to leave -- I'd rather see a Czechoslovakian than a Sudanese style separation!

Is being a founding father of the KKK also on your not-so-bad list?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25921
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 29 2013, 6:59 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Hmmm... your quote excluded the middle sentence in my post above.  It was a later edit -- but still, that was done a while ago...

--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2268
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 29 2013, 7:09 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
Is the Confederacy making a comeback?


Nah. They are a conquered people who 150 years later, still work for northern corporations and farm lands owned by carpetbaggers.

Despite the fact that they can't afford the poor quality health care offered in their communities, they still believe their Republican elite and oppose Obamacare. Even today, the surest way to recognize a resident of a Confederate state is to their unhealthy complexion, limping or other sign of untreated broken bones and uncontrolled diabetes, and their decaying and missing teeth. Most are poor and barely literate. Their life expectancy is much lower too.

Most sport Confederate flags on their aging pickup trucks and are convinced that the Civil War was "the war to free the slaves". It never occurs to them that Confederate wealth was seized, their gold and silver and land - and that the slaves were an afterthought. So they continue to segregate themselves according to race and blame each other for their poverty.

It is inconceivable that the Confederacy will ever make a comeback to the wealthy and highly educated status of 155 years ago. The wealthy few lawyers and politicians of today pale in comparison to the the 1850's.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 11:51 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Jan. 29 2013, 3:13 pm)
QUOTE

(TehipiteTom @ Jan. 29 2013, 2:31 pm)
QUOTE
I'm not sure I would call him a coward. Evil, yes. A vicious bigot, of course. A traitor, unquestionably. Deserved to be hanged--no doubt.

But I won't question his bravery simply because that bravery was part of a villainous character in the service of a morally indefensible cause.

We are products of our society.  Careful about using today's standards to judge people who existed in centuries past.  At the time of breakup, Lincoln himself didn't see the continuance of slavery as any kind of an impediment at all -- The South certainly could continue to hold slaves, if it would just return to the fold...

Obviously, the standards of the past cannot be used wholesale today either.  Shame on anyone today who is still racist at heart!

I'm not applying today's standards; I'm applying standards that were common currency in the 1860s. Slavery was considered an abomination at the time, by virtually everyone who didn't have a vested interest (whether material or emotional) in its continuation. England had outlawed it nearly 30 years earlier; even Russia emancipated its serfs in 1861.

And Lincoln did in fact view slavery as an abomination. He was prepared to allow its continuation to head off the extremity of secession--to preserve the Union--but that doesn't mean he condoned it in a moral sense.  There's a lot of gray area and a lot of nuance between the positions of, say, Garrison and Buchanan.  

By the way: Forrest wasn't just a general in an army fighting for the continuation of slavery (the morally indefensible cause to which I refer); he also happened to be a slave trader (which is a still further depth of moral degeneracy) and, as big_load mentions, a founder of the Ku Klux Klan. I have a great deal of contempt for "Confederate" officers in general, but Forrest is a special case even within that cohort.

QUOTE
As for unquestionable traitor?  In terms of seceding... while I certainly hold our union with great affection and pride... I never view human creations ("things") as sacred  -- and thus, I hold the view that folks should be allowed to switch out if they wish.  Indeed, I believe this is the case today.  As for taking entire states with them -- I say let there be peaceful referendums.   God bless America -- but going forward, if enough people want to leave -- I'd rather see a Czechoslovakian than a Sudanese style separation!

Your philosophy is irrelevant. What the "Confederate" states did is defined as treason in Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution, and that is the definition I'm using here.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 8
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 12:35 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Jan. 29 2013, 6:13 pm)
QUOTE

(TehipiteTom @ Jan. 29 2013, 2:31 pm)
QUOTE
I'm not sure I would call him a coward. Evil, yes. A vicious bigot, of course. A traitor, unquestionably. Deserved to be hanged--no doubt.

But I won't question his bravery simply because that bravery was part of a villainous character in the service of a morally indefensible cause.

We are products of our society.  Careful about using today's standards to judge people who existed in centuries past.  At the time of breakup, Lincoln himself didn't see the continuance of slavery as any kind of an impediment at all -- The South certainly could continue to hold slaves, if it would just return to the fold...

Obviously, the standards of the past cannot be used wholesale today either.  Shame on anyone today who is still racist at heart!

As for unquestionable traitor?  In terms of seceding... while I certainly hold our union with great affection and pride... I never view human creations ("things") as sacred  -- and thus, I hold the view that folks should be allowed to switch out if they wish.  Indeed, I believe this is the case today.  As for taking entire states with them -- I say let there be peaceful referendums.   God bless America -- but going forward, if enough people want to leave -- I'd rather see a Czechoslovakian than a Sudanese style separation!

+1

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
hikerjer Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10911
Joined: Apr. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 12:41 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Bass @ Jan. 29 2013, 7:09 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Is the Confederacy making a comeback?


Nah. They are a conquered people who 150 years later, still work for northern corporations and farm lands owned by carpetbaggers.

Despite the fact that they can't afford the poor quality health care offered in their communities, they still believe their Republican elite and oppose Obamacare. Even today, the surest way to recognize a resident of a Confederate state is to their unhealthy complexion, limping or other sign of untreated broken bones and uncontrolled diabetes, and their decaying and missing teeth. Most are poor and barely literate. Their life expectancy is much lower too.

Most sport Confederate flags on their aging pickup trucks and are convinced that the Civil War was "the war to free the slaves". It never occurs to them that Confederate wealth was seized, their gold and silver and land - and that the slaves were an afterthought. So they continue to segregate themselves according to race and blame each other for their poverty.

It is inconceivable that the Confederacy will ever make a comeback to the wealthy and highly educated status of 155 years ago. The wealthy few lawyers and politicians of today pale in comparison to the the 1850's.

Whoa, talk about sweeping generalizations.  I know a lot of really fine folks who live in Dixie who do not come anywhere close to the statements you have made.  I think some apologies are in order.  Moreover, the type of people you describe can be found all over the country.  I'm always amazed at the number of Confederte flags I see in my area and I'm nowhere near the South.

--------------
"Too often I have met men who boast only of how many miles they've traveled and not of what they've seen."  -  Louis L'Amour
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25921
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 4:05 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Jan. 30 2013, 8:51 am)
QUOTE
Your philosophy is irrelevant. What the "Confederate" states did is defined as treason in Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution, and that is the definition I'm using here.

To slaughter human beings because they want to leave the union -- which is nothing more than an artificial, political, human creation -- THAT is morally reprehensible -- a term you seem to like using a lot.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 6:02 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Jan. 30 2013, 4:05 pm)
QUOTE

(TehipiteTom @ Jan. 30 2013, 8:51 am)
QUOTE
Your philosophy is irrelevant. What the "Confederate" states did is defined as treason in Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution, and that is the definition I'm using here.

To slaughter human beings because they want to leave the union -- which is nothing more than an artificial, political, human creation -- THAT is morally reprehensible -- a term you seem to like using a lot.

I've always thought that they should have just let them go. 600,000 lives wasted to preserve as you said this non sacred human creation. And I don't mean to suggest that slavery should have been preserved. That was a dying institution, and much was being done to end it. Huge trade between the south and France and England would have won them their support had the war not been declared to be about slavery, but most people know (especially then) that it was about states rights. It's not about article three section three when the federal government is violating the terms of the union to begin with.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
CajunHiker Search for posts by this member.
GEAUX TIGERS!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 22816
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 6:50 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Jan. 30 2013, 10:51 am)
QUOTE
And Lincoln did in fact view slavery as an abomination.

Except that he allowed slavery to continue in the parishes along the Mississippi River (from the Emancipation Proclamation, which says "except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans").  Why?  Because the occupying forces needed the staples supplied by the plantations, the sugar economy was too important, and most of the enslaved people were Catholic French or Creole speakers who could not be easily conscripted and integrated into the Union Army, so they were more useful to the North actually staying on the plantations as slaves to work.

Just adding a little more history to the mix.  (Of course, I'm from a Confederate state, so I must be illiterate and racist and have an unhealthy complexion.  Right??)


--------------
"Mardi Gras is the love of life. It is the harmonic convergence of our food, our music, our creativity, our eccentricity, our neighborhoods, and our joy of living. All at once." - Chris Rose
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25921
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 7:02 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Cajun:

Thank you for adding in the additional background material to illustrate how the war wasn't just a straight out "right v wrong / good v evil" episode -- as so many here tend to view events and people nowadays.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
SW Mtn backpacker Search for posts by this member.
Born to hike, forced to work ...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7289
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 7:25 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(hikerjer @ Jan. 30 2013, 10:41 am)
QUOTE
..Whoa, talk about sweeping generalizations.  I know a lot of really fine folks who live in Dixie who do not come anywhere close to the statements you have made.  I think some apologies are in order.  Moreover, the type of people you describe can be found all over the country.  I'm always amazed at the number of Confederte flags I see in my area and I'm nowhere near the South.

Yeah, kind of like not realizing California has it's fair share of Republicans.  Remember, Mitt held some fund-raisers in San Francisco area - not really the epicenter for Mormon family entertainment, so serious $$$ talks.  I can say I don't care for most of the current crop of Southern politicians but it's an ecological fallacy (map terminology) to assume everyone in a red district is Republican or in a blue district is a Democrat. The Deliverance banjo jokes are funny but then so are the Los Angeles jokes (silicon, traffic, and just to die for scripts), the Cheesehead (Wisconsin) jokes - especially when you see a blood screen and ask if they just had a cheese IV before drawing blood (heh), Detroit jokes (even though Detroit is no joke), the Brokeback mountain jokes, and the New Jersey/NYC rivalry, etc...

...All part of Americana, just as I've heard British city dwellers raz on other cities (though they all need a dentist).

Add that as the Confederacy dragged on, Richmond had to be become more autocratic to get troops and supplies from their wealthy.  Not sure Texas would be really keen on supporting the rest presently.


--------------
Usually Southwest and then some.

In wildness is the preservation of the world. - Henry Thoreau
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
Drake Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1097
Joined: Jul. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 7:43 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The Confederacy will never make a comeback as most of the States in that part of the country are way too dependent upon the Federal Guv'ment for money.  They generally get back more money and services than the taxes they contribute.

Same is true for most of the Red States in the breadbasket of the Nation.

Yeah, secession.  Sure.  Like that Rick feller in charge of Texas.  Probably peddled soap door-to-door in high school, too.

Drake
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2268
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 9:30 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Montecresto
QUOTE
most people know (especially then) that it was about states rights


True, but it was also about a poor urban population working in sweatshops and envying how wealthy southerners lived. Although only the a small portion of the southerners were wealthy and owned slaves, the standard of living much better than that of the factory workers and recently immigrated Irish in northern cities.

So a big part of that invasion was about taking that wealth. There was even a term coined to make the theft seem more acceptable - "foraging". Then Sherman began a program of burning the fine homes and buildings after he had looted them. He also killed the starving slaves that attempted to follow his army and escape to freedom. He executed confederate prisoners as another way to instill terror in his enemies.

In short, there was nothing "nobel", like "states rights", about that war. The victors even lingered for more than a decade afterward in order to find and plunder any wealth and valuables missed by the invading troops.

Even after 150 years, the result is a poverty stricken population that works for northern companies at very low wages. The profits go north. The average wage, like the life expectancy, is much lower. They are a conquered people.

They hunt and fish and live in trailers because they can't afford the finer things in life - and because they need the food. They die much earlier than their northern counterparts. They die of strokes and heart disease and diabetes brought on by their poverty and cheap fried foods - and because they can't afford medical care.

So the idea that the Confederacy could make a comeback is laughable.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2268
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 9:33 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

hikerjer
QUOTE
Whoa, talk about sweeping generalizations.  I know a lot of really fine folks who live in Dixie who do not come anywhere close to the statements you have made.  I think some apologies are in order.


I do owe some apologies. There are a LOT of overgeneralizations in my posts.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
hikerjer Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10911
Joined: Apr. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 11:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Bass @ Jan. 30 2013, 9:33 pm)
QUOTE
I do owe some apologies. There are a LOT of overgeneralizations in my posts.

Thank you.  We're all guilty of it at times, I'm afraid.

--------------
"Too often I have met men who boast only of how many miles they've traveled and not of what they've seen."  -  Louis L'Amour
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
smokehiker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 228
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 8:33 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Bass @ Jan. 29 2013, 7:09 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Is the Confederacy making a comeback?


Nah. They are a conquered people who 150 years later, still work for northern corporations and farm lands owned by carpetbaggers.

Despite the fact that they can't afford the poor quality health care offered in their communities, they still believe their Republican elite and oppose Obamacare. Even today, the surest way to recognize a resident of a Confederate state is to their unhealthy complexion, limping or other sign of untreated broken bones and uncontrolled diabetes, and their decaying and missing teeth. Most are poor and barely literate. Their life expectancy is much lower too.

Most sport Confederate flags on their aging pickup trucks and are convinced that the Civil War was "the war to free the slaves".
So they continue to segregate themselves according to race and blame each other for their poverty.

Surely you aren't serious with these remarks??
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 5:58 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Jan. 30 2013, 1:05 pm)
QUOTE

(TehipiteTom @ Jan. 30 2013, 8:51 am)
QUOTE
Your philosophy is irrelevant. What the "Confederate" states did is defined as treason in Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution, and that is the definition I'm using here.

To slaughter human beings because they want to leave the union -- which is nothing more than an artificial, political, human creation -- THAT is morally reprehensible -- a term you seem to like using a lot.

We've wandered a fur piece from the original topic (the character of Nathan Bedford Forrest), but what the heck--I'll bite.

There are two enormous problems with this comment. The first is that you don't really engage the specifics of the history.  As with so many subjects you comment on, you have a frame you want to apply to the subject--a frame you are absolutely convinced applies to it--and you don't know (or don't bother to look at) enough detail to see whether that frame actually fits.

The second is that you arrive at your conclusion by applying completely different (and conflicting) standards to different parties, when consistent application of any standard would render your conclusion impossible.

Now, let's assess the damage.

You skew things by applying a quasi-anarchist standard (in which a nation-state is "nothing more than an artificial, political, human creation") to the Union, while implicitly accepting the Confederacy as the legitimate embodiment of its people (identifying that self-styled nation-state simply as "human beings" who "want to leave the union").

But if nation-states have no right to act to preserve their existence (which is to say, in effect, that they have no right to exist in the first place), then the CSA ("nothing more than an artificial, political, human creation") is just as illegitimate as the USA--and thus had no right to conscript its people into military service, or slaughter human beings in the Union army, or use any violent or coercive means to assert its institutional existence. Conversely, if you assert that the CSA had any right at all to act as it did (to assert its institutional existence), then you also accept that the Union had every right to act as it did (to preserve its institutional existence).

That's the double standard you apply in order to frame this as simply a matter of self-determination. Beyond that contradiction, though, the notion of "self-determination" in this case is fatally undermined by internal contradictions and historical reality. The first problem is: at what level does "self-determination" reside? Is it the "right" of an "artificial, political, human creation" such as states? Or does it inhere in the people governed by those "artificial, political, human creation[s]"? Because the historical reality here is that those two criteria were in conflict: in most or all of the Confederate states, it's fairly certain that most of the people living there did not support secession. Secession was declared by state legislatures rigged to represent the slave-owning class exclusively (in South Carolina, for example, assembly districts were were apportioned by property value as well as population), at the expense of everyone else (white and black). In that context, the notion that the Confederacy was just "human beings" who "want[ed] to leave the union" is completely nonsensical.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 21
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 7:49 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Jan. 30 2013, 3:02 pm)
QUOTE
I've always thought that they should have just let them go. 600,000 lives wasted to preserve as you said this non sacred human creation. And I don't mean to suggest that slavery should have been preserved. That was a dying institution, and much was being done to end it.

Look at the trajectory of pro-slavery ideology over the first half of the 19th century, from claiming slavery was a necessary evil to declaring it a positive good.  Look at the impact of the cotton boom, which made slavery hugely profitable. Look at efforts in the 1850s to expand the institution, not just into new territories but into Cuba and Nicaragua and other Latin American nations. Look at the aggregate value of enslaved people as an asset--second in value only to the land itself. Look at Lincoln's attempts at compensated emancipation in Kentucky and Missouri, which were emphatically rebuffed by slaveholders there.

No, slavery was not a dying institution, and whatever was being done to end it (by good people like Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison and John Brown) was fiercely resisted every step of the way by people with a vested interest in its continuation. Slaveholding interests would not have given up peacefully under any circumstances.

ETA: And given that reality, 600,000 dead resulting in the freedom of 4 million isn't that huge a price to pay. It's unfortunate that so many on the Union side had to die, but ultimately it was worth it.

QUOTE
Huge trade between the south and France and England would have won them their support had the war not been declared to be about slavery, but most people know (especially then) that it was about states rights. It's not about article three section three when the federal government is violating the terms of the union to begin with.

If "most people know" that, then most people are dead wrong. Just look at the secession declarations, which put slavery front and center as their casus belli. Look at what people like Alexander Stephens said when they were pushing war (as opposed to their self-serving rationalizations after they had lost it).  Look at the conflict leading up to the war, which was entirely about efforts to expand slavery into new territory.  

And then that takes you into the whole ridiculous "states' rights" canard. The reality is that "states' rights" is never actually a principle, and always merely a pretext; it was true in the early '60s (when it served the interests of segregationists) and it was true 100 years earlier (when it served the interests of slaveowners). If it had been about states' "rights", the slave powers would not have done everything in their power to bend non-slave states to their will--from the Fugitive Slave Act to the Dred Scott decision (the logical end result of which would have been to extend slavery throughout the United States--regardless of the wishes of any individual state).

No, the Confederate states didn't secede because they weren't allowed to do what they wanted (in fact, as of 1861 there hadn't been a single serious proposal with any real support to curtail slavery in those states); they left because they were unable to force the rest of the country to do what they wanted.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 22
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25921
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 7:49 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Tom - It seems (from your past posts) you can see quite easily the abuses of churches and religion (to use as a comparison) but quite blind to the same when committed by nation states!

Makes little sense (to me) how someone can condemn (rightfully) the burning of people at the stake just because of different religious ideas -- but then yell "treason" and support the firing squad just because some people choose to hold different civic ideas.

That you would quote the "section of the law" as justification for condemning traitors troubles me the same way a religious would quote "chapter and verse" out of the bible or koran to condemn "heretics"!

My own view:  churches have their positive roles, but are sometimes abused, and abusive.  Ditto for nation states.  Including our own.

Am I espousing anarchy?  Of course not.  Nation states play a critical role in maintaining peace and security, for example.  But as above, "treason" is no big deal -- if the act hasn't caused the deaths of others and is nonviolent in nature.  I would like to see a day when no one is persecuted just for holding different beliefs (or even changing their minds) -- be they civic or religious -- so long as no acts of violence is committed.

Imagine a world where it is easy for nation states to keep the civic peace -- but hard to start wars.  And considering how most wars are dubious anyway... that would be a very good thing.  My two cents, of course.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25921
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 8:12 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Jan. 31 2013, 4:49 pm)
QUOTE
No, the Confederate states didn't secede because they weren't allowed to do what they wanted (in fact, as of 1861 there hadn't been a single serious proposal with any real support to curtail slavery in those states); they left because they were unable to force the rest of the country to do what they wanted.

This is a new one to me, Tom.  Sounds like revisionist history -- at least to me.

My understanding of US History is that many in the North wish to wipe out slavery (no argument from me as far as the cause was concerned) -- and needed to accumulate a solid majority in Congress.  Hence you have episodes like "Bleeding Kansas" -- the argument over whether new states / new territories ought to be "free" or "slave legal"...

The South -- to maintain its traditions -- including the ownership of slaves -- did everything they could to prevent or at least prolong the fate of becoming an ever smaller minority.

Last I checked, the South was patently not interested in forcing New Yorkers or New Englanders to own slaves...


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
buzzards Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2042
Joined: Apr. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 1:41 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Jan. 31 2013, 5:49 pm)
QUOTE
And then that takes you into the whole ridiculous "states' rights" canard. The reality is that "states' rights" is never actually a principle, and always merely a pretext; it was true in the early '60s (when it served the interests of segregationists) and it was true 100 years earlier (when it served the interests of slaveowners). If it had been about states' "rights", the slave powers would not have done everything in their power to bend non-slave states to their will--from the Fugitive Slave Act to the Dred Scott decision (the logical end result of which would have been to extend slavery throughout the United States--regardless of the wishes of any individual state).

Well, Tom, I was agreeing with most of your post, but you went off the rails right there.
Prior to the Civil War, most Americans did not call themselves Americans. They called themselves Virginians, New Yorkers, or whatever. This fealty to one's "home" state was especially pronounced in the South.
The war changed all that. Some say the Gettysburg address changed all that. We were no longer the United States of America, we became The United States of America.
Some, especially in the south, still think to this day that that is a bad thing. I'm sure you have heard of the Lost Cause movement.
IMHO, if we had not become "The" USA, we would not have made it out of the 20th century as an intact nation.
BTW, I am amazed that the CSA had men such as Lee and Longstreet serving under the same banner as Forrest and Quantrill. That tension between noble men fighting an ignoble cause and mass murderers allegedly on the same side might have been one of the reasons for eventual Union triumph. My .02, YMMV.


--------------
Now shall I walk or shall I ride?
Ride, said pleasure,
Walk, Joy replied,
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 9:55 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Jan. 31 2013, 7:49 pm)
QUOTE

(Montecresto @ Jan. 30 2013, 3:02 pm)
QUOTE
I've always thought that they should have just let them go. 600,000 lives wasted to preserve as you said this non sacred human creation. And I don't mean to suggest that slavery should have been preserved. That was a dying institution, and much was being done to end it.

Look at the trajectory of pro-slavery ideology over the first half of the 19th century, from claiming slavery was a necessary evil to declaring it a positive good.  Look at the impact of the cotton boom, which made slavery hugely profitable. Look at efforts in the 1850s to expand the institution, not just into new territories but into Cuba and Nicaragua and other Latin American nations. Look at the aggregate value of enslaved people as an asset--second in value only to the land itself. Look at Lincoln's attempts at compensated emancipation in Kentucky and Missouri, which were emphatically rebuffed by slaveholders there.

No, slavery was not a dying institution, and whatever was being done to end it (by good people like Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison and John Brown) was fiercely resisted every step of the way by people with a vested interest in its continuation. Slaveholding interests would not have given up peacefully under any circumstances.

ETA: And given that reality, 600,000 dead resulting in the freedom of 4 million isn't that huge a price to pay. It's unfortunate that so many on the Union side had to die, but ultimately it was worth it.

QUOTE
Huge trade between the south and France and England would have won them their support had the war not been declared to be about slavery, but most people know (especially then) that it was about states rights. It's not about article three section three when the federal government is violating the terms of the union to begin with.

If "most people know" that, then most people are dead wrong. Just look at the secession declarations, which put slavery front and center as their casus belli. Look at what people like Alexander Stephens said when they were pushing war (as opposed to their self-serving rationalizations after they had lost it).  Look at the conflict leading up to the war, which was entirely about efforts to expand slavery into new territory.  

And then that takes you into the whole ridiculous "states' rights" canard. The reality is that "states' rights" is never actually a principle, and always merely a pretext; it was true in the early '60s (when it served the interests of segregationists) and it was true 100 years earlier (when it served the interests of slaveowners). If it had been about states' "rights", the slave powers would not have done everything in their power to bend non-slave states to their will--from the Fugitive Slave Act to the Dred Scott decision (the logical end result of which would have been to extend slavery throughout the United States--regardless of the wishes of any individual state).

No, the Confederate states didn't secede because they weren't allowed to do what they wanted (in fact, as of 1861 there hadn't been a single serious proposal with any real support to curtail slavery in those states); they left because they were unable to force the rest of the country to do what they wanted.

There are historians that would disagree with your assessment. It's who and what one chooses to believe I suppose. Always does come down to that.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
Lamebeaver Search for posts by this member.
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 19348
Joined: Aug. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 5:30 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Run Forrest, Run!
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 02 2013, 12:01 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(buzzards @ Jan. 31 2013, 10:41 pm)
QUOTE

(TehipiteTom @ Jan. 31 2013, 5:49 pm)
QUOTE
And then that takes you into the whole ridiculous "states' rights" canard. The reality is that "states' rights" is never actually a principle, and always merely a pretext; it was true in the early '60s (when it served the interests of segregationists) and it was true 100 years earlier (when it served the interests of slaveowners). If it had been about states' "rights", the slave powers would not have done everything in their power to bend non-slave states to their will--from the Fugitive Slave Act to the Dred Scott decision (the logical end result of which would have been to extend slavery throughout the United States--regardless of the wishes of any individual state).

Well, Tom, I was agreeing with most of your post, but you went off the rails right there.
Prior to the Civil War, most Americans did not call themselves Americans. They called themselves Virginians, New Yorkers, or whatever. This fealty to one's "home" state was especially pronounced in the South.
The war changed all that. Some say the Gettysburg address changed all that. We were no longer the United States of America, we became The United States of America.
Some, especially in the south, still think to this day that that is a bad thing. I'm sure you have heard of the Lost Cause movement.
IMHO, if we had not become "The" USA, we would not have made it out of the 20th century as an intact nation.

Buzzards, I think we're talking about two (or maybe three) different things here. There's the identification with a state rather than with the nation, which is what you're referring to. There's the notion of "states' rights" as a legal principle, which is something separate from that. And then there's the thing I'm talking about, which is the way the idea of "states' rights" is used in practical politics--which is entirely separate from the question of whether it has any validity in the abstract.

And, just look at the record. In the early '60s a lot of people started talking loud and long about "states' rights" as a way to perpetuate white supremacist policies. A few years ago a lot of people suddenly started talking about "states' rights" because they didn't like the guy who was elected President. Leading up to the Civil War, people embraced "states' rights" as a way to perpetuate white supremacist policies, and because they didn't like the guy who was elected President. In each of these cases, if you look at the practical policy positions of the people talking "states' rights", it's clear that it was never a consistent principle for them--that it was never more than a pretext.

QUOTE
BTW, I am amazed that the CSA had men such as Lee and Longstreet serving under the same banner as Forrest and Quantrill. That tension between noble men fighting an ignoble cause and mass murderers allegedly on the same side might have been one of the reasons for eventual Union triumph. My .02, YMMV.

I think Lee's nobility is hugely overstated by his fans, but with that caveat I agree that there's an enormous character gap between someone like Lee and someone like Forrest.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 28
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2268
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 02 2013, 1:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

TehipiteTom
QUOTE
I think Lee's nobility is hugely overstated by his fans, but with that caveat I agree that there's an enormous character gap between someone like Lee and someone like Forrest.


Don't forget to include the character of General William Tecumseh Sherman. Sherman went far beyond the invading army's directive to steal the gold and silver and wealth from the Confederate civilians. What he couldn't steal, he ordered destroyed and burned. And in order to instill terror in the minds of the Confederates, he ordered Confederate prisoners shot and freed slaves, black women and children, drowned.

Then, after that successful invasion, as a HERO he was sent to destroy the Sioux. He is famous for ordering his troops to kill Sioux children in that war. He is quoted as saying, "knits make lice" as his troops rode into Sioux encampments to kill sleeping women.

So it is kinda hard to be impressed with the nobility of that war at all. Comparing people like Lee and Forest and Champ Ferguson and Jack Hinson to butchers like Sherman and Vlad the Impaler only shows that the true object of that invasion was to rape and kill and plunder. Booty - "to the victor goes the spoils" were the only objective.

"States rights" and "the war to free the slaves" are only rewrites of history to justify that invasion. There was nothing noble involved.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4489
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 02 2013, 2:32 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Sherman was definitely a nasty dude too.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25921
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 02 2013, 2:41 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

Nasty?  We haven't even begun to touch on all them 'Indian Wars'...

--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
29 replies since Jan. 29 2013, 12:33 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


 
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Is the Confederacy making a comeback?
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions