Don't Kid Yourself -- "Southern Heritage" Is All About Race

[MichaeltheGreat]

I don't count them for much - people who talk about "heritage" but don't know anything about it. There's plenty of them to go around, not all of them down home, either.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Not that you could use them, but those 100,000 or so you boys left for us on the battlefield just in 1862 alone were fit enough for service.

True, the confed troops had more experience than their northern counterparts... what with putting down slave rebellions and all. Gunning down slaves armed with farming tools was excellent target practice.

-Arrian

[DanS]

Damn you, you longposting bastard! I'll have to take it in chunks.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Actually, it was more from varmint huntin' (very similar to shooting Yankees ) and getting a little supplemental protein via some good ol' rabbit or possum stew.

Besides, it wasn't shootin' that was the problem - it was your boys couldn't run fast enough and carry those big, heavy, manly muskets.

Remember the original triathlon, the Yankee triathlon: march south, run north, swim the Potomac.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DanS
Damn you, you longposting bastard

You called down the thunder, now reap the whirlwind!

I think that is the longest post of his I've ever seen. I wonder how close it got to the limit.

[DanS]

"Let's be practical for a moment (and un-PC as all hell ), and assume there was no secesh and no little war. That Sumter was just a fireworks show for the enjoyment of the citizenry, and Major Anderson and Captain Doubleday were the guests of honor.

Do you really think the north was going to free six million slaves, and tell everyone "ok, you're free, so the bossman has to pay you cash wages, and if you don't like what he pays, you're free to move about anywhere you want?"

This is a very fair question, and parts of the North to this day are inhospitable to blacks (but not to American Indians, or Indians, or Chinese oddly, at least in the part of Ohio where I'm from). I would only point out that much/most of the South feared that they were on the losing end of the question politically. Otherwise, there was no reason to secede.

Do you think that these fears were unjustified?

[Shi Huangdi]

"Moral abolitionists" (those opposed to slavery purely on the grounds of rights, as opposed to those opposed to it because it was the underpinning of the southern economy and the key to breaking the backs of the cotton producers) were a very small minority on the political scene in 1860."

Actually moral abolitionism was bigger then that. When Uncle Tom's Cabin came out, it got the North very angry at slavery. It helped inspire anti-slavery fighters in bleeding Kansas. It helped cause the North to try to subvert the fugitive slave law. It was the cause of the raid on John Brown's raid on Harper Fairy.

Of course the North was going to stop slavery outright once the war had started. Maryland(albeit due to authoritarian political tactics), Delaware, and Kentucky all had slaves when war started. If Delaware and Kentucky had seceded it might have changed the course of the war, and while Maryland might not have been in a position to secede, they could have been insurrections, more support of CSA forces or inssurections in the Maryland miltia. I think the North definitely did want to ban slavery but they realized it was more prudent to wait until after the war to do so.

"(after all, we still kicked your asses in anything close to a standup fight ) "

*cough* Gettysburg *cough*

The South did have an advantage at first because it was on the defensive for the most part, at the civil war certainly was advantageous to the defender, and for the early part of the war our generals sucked. Once Grant and Sherman got established though, the South got it's asswhooping.

And in any case, now adays the Confederate Flag, at least the CSA battle flag, has come to be associated with the efforts to perserve Jim Crow and current White Supremisict movements. That seems like reason enough to ban it from schools where it could indeed be viewed as intimidating.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
"Let's be practical for a moment (and un-PC as all hell ), and assume there was no secesh and no little war. That Sumter was just a fireworks show for the enjoyment of the citizenry, and Major Anderson and Captain Doubleday were the guests of honor.

Do you really think the north was going to free six million slaves, and tell everyone "ok, you're free, so the bossman has to pay you cash wages, and if you don't like what he pays, you're free to move about anywhere you want?"

This is a very fair question, and parts of the North to this day are inhospitable to blacks (but not to American Indians, or Indians, or Chinese oddly, at least in the part of Ohio where I'm from). I would only point out that much/most of the South feared that they were on the losing end of the question politically. Otherwise, there was no reason to secede.

Do you think that these fears were unjustified?

Politically, the only thing that the north could do absent war (and some playing with states rights ) was to enact laws affecting the interstate sale or transportation of slaves. It would be a hell of a long time before you could annex enough free states to have a 3/4 majority for amendment ratification, and the fact still remains that the north was socially and economically unwilling to accept allowing six million former slaves the ability to move about freely and compete in primarily unskilled and rural labor markets. Marginalized northern whites in direct economic competition with the newly freed slaves would have raised unholy hell over the issue.

Practically, a large number of blacks would have been stuck in the same sort of sharecropping arrangements as in the Jim Crow south, which was slavery in all but name anyway. There was no minimum wage laws, no workplace safety ;aws, hours of work laws were soon to be tested (the baker's strike and the 100 hour workweek), and employment law was as laissez-faire as you could get, so freedom in that context would have been pretty token.

Although preservation of slavery was the rallying call for the landed elite, I think the overall issue goes deeper than that, to a power struggle between elites on both sides of the line, due to the economic value of cotton, and the division of profits between producers and manufacturers. There was an effective trade war, of which slavery was a key ingredient, but the issue for the economic elites was not really about the "rights" of a bunch of kidnapped Africans and their descendants.

That was seen pretty clearly by the Yankee soldiers who saw gentrified clowns and politicians become instant colonels and generals, and who referred often to the conflict as "a rich man's war and a poor man's fight."

[DanS]

I think what you just said is that the fear was unjustified. No?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"Moral abolitionists" (those opposed to slavery purely on the grounds of rights, as opposed to those opposed to it because it was the underpinning of the southern economy and the key to breaking the backs of the cotton producers) were a very small minority on the political scene in 1860."

Actually moral abolitionism was bigger then that. When Uncle Tom's Cabin came out, it got the North very angry at slavery. It helped inspire anti-slavery fighters in bleeding Kansas. It helped cause the North to try to subvert the fugitive slave law. It was the cause of the raid on John Brown's raid on Harper Fairy.

Those were still minority actions, and I was referring more to political influence. Uncle Tom's Cabin brough some of the horrors of slavery to the popular attention, but indignation among a literate audience doesn't translate to active political support to suffer financial and economic consequences on behalf of freed slaves. A lot of people wouldn't have minded slavery going away, as long as ex-slaves didn't become their problem. I distinguish that general lump of the populace (and psychotic bastards like Brown, who was more looking for an excuse for killing, and had a bit of a messiah complex), from those who actively devoted themselves to helping ex-slaves with education and craft training so they could support themselves as free men.

Of course the North was going to stop slavery outright once the war had started.

Not according to ol' Abe as of September, 1862. Any southern states who came to daddy before the end of the year were to be allowed to keep their slaves.

"(after all, we still kicked your asses in anything close to a standup fight ) "

*cough* Gettysburg *cough*

The Yankees had a 5 to 4 numerical advantage, defensive ground, cavalry on the scene, and still barely won. The only reasons the Yankee army didn't collapse on the first day were Stuart's getting cute over 400 wagons, Rodes' mishandling his first division command, Baldy Ewell being *****-whipped, and ol' Jubilee's hemmorhoids acting up. Even given those advantages, on the second day, it was random luck (exploding shells overhead) causing severe injuries to Dorsey Pender and John Bell Hood, taking them out of the fight at critical junctures.

The South did have an advantage at first because it was on the defensive for the most part, at the civil war certainly was advantageous to the defender, and for the early part of the war our generals sucked. Once Grant and Sherman got established though, the South got it's asswhooping.

The south spent most of the war on the strategic defensive, but the only first half southern defensive victory in the east was at Fredericksburg, and that because of Burnside's stupidity. At First and Second Manassas, the Seven Days, Jackson's Valley Campaign, Chancellorsville, and even at the breaking up of the Yankee assaults at Sharpsburg, it was southern attacks which carried the day.

If you look at Grant's and Sherman's casualty figures compared with Lee's and Johnston's, it was hardly an asswhomping. More like a progressive meatgrinder, with the two Yankee butchers realizing they had more meat to throw into the grinder. Sherman only made real headway when Davis got so pissed off at Johnston (again) that he put a laudanum-stoned double amputee in charge of the Army of Tennessee.

And in any case, now adays the Confederate Flag, at least the CSA battle flag, has come to be associated with the efforts to perserve Jim Crow and current White Supremisict movements. That seems like reason enough to ban it from schools where it could indeed be viewed as intimidating.

I agree - until enough southerners take action to divorce the generic battle flag from white supremacist actions and general racism, it is inappropriate.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
I think what you just said is that the fear was unjustified. No?

The hotheads should have armed up and trained armies first, and come up with a decent cabinet before seceding.

[SnowFire]

Having the Federal government take over the debt of plantation owners

Why would they want to do this? If you've based your wealth on slaves, excuse me while I fail to weep when you aren't compensated for your "loss." If that's what you're trying to say with this. If you're referring to the banks who loaned money to the plantationers, well, too bad for them too, although it's more understandable. Sometimes there's a price to be paid for something good.

And by the way, your general point about the North not abolishing slavery on its own is correct. After all, back then the South controlled almost half of the government being that it had a vote, and the North was far too split on the issue to ever coalesce against it. It was a darn lucky thing you Southerners forced the issue back then! I guess there is something I respect the Rebs for!

"Moral abolitionists" (those opposed to slavery purely on the grounds of rights, as opposed to those opposed to it because it was the underpinning of the southern economy and the key to breaking the backs of the cotton producers) were a very small minority on the political scene in 1860."

So called "Christian conservatives" were actually quite a minority back in the late 70's and 80's, when they started coming to prominence. That was what the Democrats kept telling themselves, at least, and I'm willing to believe it was true. That said, they were a minority that was far more influential than their numbers ever told. And they still are more influential than they "should be" based on strict numbers alone.

I suspect it was much the same with the abolitionists. Numerical insignificance does not always translate to political insignificance.

after all, we still kicked your asses in anything close to a standup fight

And yet oddly enough, when the CSA used a general who actually believed this drivel (like, say, Hood over Johnston in Georgia), they got whupped! Fascinating!

The reason that the CSA had better generals much of the war was precisely because they fought unfairly, which I applaud 'em for- 'cause in a fair fight, we all know what happens to the puny little Confederates. ;-)

Even given those advantages, on the second day, it was random luck

Hey, it wasn't all Confederate mistakes that caused y'all to lose. Everybody remembers Chamberlain and his actions on Little Round Top, but how about the 1st Minnesota's little charge? It takes 2 to fight a battle.

I think that is the longest post of his I've ever seen. I wonder how close it got to the limit.

You need to read more classic MtG.

"a rich man's war and a poor man's fight"

I won't argue with you that maybe this was used in the North too, but I'm sure this was a Southern expression, being that they had the same issue with rich people getting exempted from army service. The difference is, the South had a lot fewer people, so lots more poor people were required.

[Imran Siddiqui]

More like a progressive meatgrinder, with the two Yankee butchers realizing they had more meat to throw into the grinder.

You mean they were smarter than the Southern generals? Who would have thunk it .

And you forgot that masterful taking of Vicksburg by 'butcher' Grant.

[DanS]

Well, shoot. It seems like we have nothing else to discuss besides Southern valor and Northern drunken meatgrinding mathematicians.

Where's the controversy when you need it?

Who here is going to argue that "Southern Heritage" as it is now conceived and perceived is not about race?

[Chris 62]

Not bothering to read the Reb's long winded excuses, States Rights is a smoke screen for small minded bigots who wanted to keep cheap labour, and dress it pretty.

The South lost, on both the moral side and the pshyical side, the South didn't win a battle after 1863 that mattered, and all the US Western Army EVER saw was the backsides of the Butternuts running for their lives.

Lee was lucky Grant didn't show up till 1864.