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

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by 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.

The Constitution explicitly prohibits taking of propery without compensation. Even freeing slaves by amendment (absent the fun and games and power politicking of reconstruction and military occupation) would not eliminate their status as property at the time of their asquisition. The bankers were too politically influential to suck up those loans, and they collateralized on land, since land outlasted slaves (well treater or, most likely, otherwise). Since we're talking about Yankee political support for a peaceful abolition of slavery, "property compensation" whether popular or not, morally repugnant or not, is an essential legal issue that would have had to be resolved - and this time, one which affected politically influential elites on both sides of the line, and not just unskilled laborers and farmers.

"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.

The difference is that the rhetoric of freeing slaves was a lot more palatable than the brute practical economic effects in the conxtext of Federal powers and revenues and the regulatory climate of the time. The concepts of massive taxation, economic aid, etc., just didn't exist. So getting people fired up was one thing, but for most, they would be more concerned with the practical effects on their lives.

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!

Hood can't be blamed for his failures in Tennessee. He pointed out his own lack of qualification for independent command, made his medical condition clear (as if it wasn't to everyone around) and only accepted command because he was ordered to do so.

And to call that statement drivel, you really have to work hard at ignoring Pope's being routed off the field at Second Manassas, Hooker's loss of manhood at Chancellorsville, and dozens of other examples which went to explain why the sound of the Rebel yell put the Yankee latrines to overflowing.

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. ;-)

Unfairly, as in how exactly? By using timing, concentration, knowledge of the ground, and superior march discipline?

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.

Chamberlain whould have had his ass enfiladed off of little round top if Hood hadn't been wounded. Col. William C. Oates' 15th Alabama owned Round Top, in accordance with Hood's orders, but when Oates' brigade commander (Law) assumed command of the division, he countermanded Hood's orders and pulled Oates and the rest of his brigade (split in two elements who couldn't coordinate due to intervening terrain) back off Round Top and proceeded to assault the flank on LRT. Had Hood not been wounded and taken off the field, two batteries of Hood's divisional artillery would have been up on Round Top, in position to enfilade the entire Yankee left and center all the way up to Cemetary Hill, and all the Yankee artillery reserve in the world couldn't have done anything about it.

First Minnesota made a gallant little countercharge, but by that time, Barksdale's brigade was nearly spent from sweeping the better part of three Yankee divisions from the field. First Minnesota's countercharge would have been a footnote in futility if the echelon attack hadn't broken down because of Richard H. Anderson's reticence because he hadn't gotten written orders from Hill (who assumed that Anderson was under operational control of Longstreet since the echelon attack originated from Longstreet's Corps and at Longstreet's directive. Pender was riding over to put a fire under Anderson's ass and order Anderson's brigades to move out in support of McLaw's division when he was hit by a fragment of a prematurely exploding shell that nearly took his leg off at the thigh.

"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.

The expression originated with northeastern regiments with a lot of Irish immigrants. If the Yankees didn't need so many poor people, why did they pass the Homestead Act to spur immigration, and why did Carl Schurz later get plummed with the Secretary of the Interior's job (most lucrative in the government after War and Treasury) for his contribution in "social engineering" German immigrants into the Yankee army?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by 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 .

If reverse attrition is "smart" you can have it. Jackson's tactics are still studied, Grant's aren't.

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

Oh, I didn't forget that one. Let's see. Try it this way, get your asses kicked. Try it that way, get your asses kicked. Try to run the river, get your asses sunk. Dig a ditch, aaah, fergit it, let's try to sneak around this way instead. Damn! He finally figgered it out!

Practice makes perfect, they say.

[chequita guevara]

What else is there to Souther Heritage/Pride etc. except white supremacy? Who today foundly reminices about the struggle against tarrifs?

[Lord_Davinator]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What else is there to Souther Heritage/Pride etc. except white supremacy? Who today foundly reminices about the struggle against tarrifs?

I agree with you completely. I say its equal in stature to a german walking around with a swastika symbol claiming it to be german pride...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I thought the Republican Party (abe's) was founded on the belief that slavery was wrong because it was unfair competition for the "free white working man."

Chamberlain whould have had his ass enfiladed off of little round top if Hood hadn't been wounded. Col. William C. Oates' 15th Alabama owned Round Top, in accordance with Hood's orders, but when Oates' brigade commander (Law) assumed command of the division, he countermanded Hood's orders and pulled Oates and the rest of his brigade (split in two elements who couldn't coordinate due to intervening terrain) back off Round Top and proceeded to assault the flank on LRT. Had Hood not been wounded and taken off the field, two batteries of Hood's divisional artillery would have been up on Round Top, in position to enfilade the entire Yankee left and center all the way up to Cemetary Hill, and all the Yankee artillery reserve in the world couldn't have done anything about it.

First Minnesota made a gallant little countercharge, but by that time, Barksdale's brigade was nearly spent from sweeping the better part of three Yankee divisions from the field. First Minnesota's countercharge would have been a footnote in futility if the echelon attack hadn't broken down because of Richard H. Anderson's reticence because he hadn't gotten written orders from Hill (who assumed that Anderson was under operational control of Longstreet since the echelon attack originated from Longstreet's Corps and at Longstreet's directive. Pender was riding over to put a fire under Anderson's ass and order Anderson's brigades to move out in support of McLaw's division when he was hit by a fragment of a prematurely exploding shell that nearly took his leg off at the thigh.

Chamberlain whould have had his ass enfiladed off of little round top if Hood hadn't been wounded. Col. William C. Oates' 15th Alabama owned Round Top, in accordance with Hood's orders, but when Oates' brigade commander (Law) assumed command of the division, he countermanded Hood's orders and pulled Oates and the rest of his brigade (split in two elements who couldn't coordinate due to intervening terrain) back off Round Top and proceeded to assault the flank on LRT. Had Hood not been wounded and taken off the field, two batteries of Hood's divisional artillery would have been up on Round Top, in position to enfilade the entire Yankee left and center all the way up to Cemetary Hill, and all the Yankee artillery reserve in the world couldn't have done anything about it.

First Minnesota made a gallant little countercharge, but by that time, Barksdale's brigade was nearly spent from sweeping the better part of three Yankee divisions from the field. First Minnesota's countercharge would have been a footnote in futility if the echelon attack hadn't broken down because of Richard H. Anderson's reticence because he hadn't gotten written orders from Hill (who assumed that Anderson was under operational control of Longstreet since the echelon attack originated from Longstreet's Corps and at Longstreet's directive. Pender was riding over to put a fire under Anderson's ass and order Anderson's brigades to move out in support of McLaw's division when he was hit by a fragment of a prematurely exploding shell that nearly took his leg off at the thigh.

To make the long story short, the confeds lost
Maybe Hood shouldnt have exposed himself to enemy fire
Maybe he should have had better subordinates
Are you saying that Hood was the only person who knew what to do in that situation?
What happened to the great generalship and tactics of the south?

and BTW, Grant was a tactical dumbass. Sherman won the war for the North. Grant was only a genius in that he invented a new form of warfare: a war of attrition, which he knew that he could win because he had more people .

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What else is there to Souther Heritage/Pride etc. except white supremacy? Who today foundly reminices about the struggle against tarrifs?

What is there to any "heritage" or pride in one's origins, personal, local, or regional history?

Funny, all over the US, I've seen different historical sites preserved, local museums, etc. Battlefield monuments (a la Bunkers Hill), and various local history organizations.

It seems it's only with southerners that the race card gets pulled out, as if racism (or other forms of exploitation) *cough* Pullman strike *cough* Grangers *cough* Anti-Chinese Leagues *cough* Molly Maguires and coal miners in general *cough* weren't part and parcel of history of other parts in the US.

In Boston, in the same cemetary where Sam Adams and Ben Franklin are buried, is the grave of a 16 year old Quaker girl, who was hanged by the Puritans for supposedly proselytizing her quaker beliefs. Descendents of the Puritans aren't generally tarred with the brush of their ancestors' murderous fanaticism, nor are pioneer organizations in various states tarred much with the fact that their pioneering settlement came about as a result of long-term genocide against the majority of the natives already present.

It's real fashionable for people to ignore the ugly side of their history, and only point to the south. Sorry, but most of the Klan and active white supremacists are elsewhere now (according to the FBI), and racism exists everywhere in the US, not just south of the Mason-Dixon line.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Maybe Hood shouldnt have exposed himself to enemy fire

You can't lead from behind.

Are you saying that Hood was the only person who knew what to do in that situation?

Hood was in command at the time, executing his own plans contrary to orders because he was able to see the terrain and the (lack of proper) disposition of the enemy, something his seniors could not physically see.

Hood was creating the plan as he went along, and any forced change of senior command in the heat of battle creates severe problems.

What happened to the great generalship and tactics of the south?

There was plenty of it, before and after. Otherwise, the south wouldn't have been up in Pennsylvania 27 months after the start of hostilities.

[DanS]

"It seems it's only with southerners that the race card gets pulled out, as if racism (or other forms of exploitation) *cough* Pullman strike *cough* Grangers *cough* Anti-Chinese Leagues *cough* Molly Maguires and coal miners in general *cough* weren't part and parcel of history of other parts in the US."

Oh, here we go. Try to divert attention from the real issue at hand.

The issue at hand is that some white southerners want to prominently display the reb battle flag and other confederate effects and some black southerners are offended or may feel threatened by it.

I'm saying that those whites who feel so strongly about it are being too cute by half in associating it with the good parts of Southern Heritage. It's about like Lott "slipping up" and insinuating that segregation was AOK by him. Oh wait, that was just a lighthearted comment for his friend.

Everyone else in the US should call a spade a spade and not stand for it. At the very least, it's being unneighborly of those who push it.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by DanS
It's about like Lott "slipping up" and insinuating that segregation was AOK by him. Oh wait, that was just a lighthearted comment for his friend.

And where were these people that cried foul now back when Lott said what he said first time around? Need I remind you that democratic leaders have said far worse, not to mention the party platform before FDR.

That whole situation was caused because Democrates have no agenda.

Oh, and for the record, I'm a reg. Independent. So you can't say I have a right wing agenda.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
Oh, here we go. Try to divert attention from the real issue at hand.

I didn't realize that southern racism was the "real issue." I would think we'd be concerned about racism and human rights in general, regardless of the region of origin of those who practice it.

The issue at hand is that some white southerners want to prominently display the reb battle flag and other confederate effects and some black southerners are offended or may feel threatened by it.

I don't support shoving it in people's faces. On state buildings, in state flags, nope, nosirree, ain't necessary. In museums related to the war and the Confederacy, in cemetaries, during batlle reenactments, etc., it has its appropriate place in its historical context. On private property, it ain't nobody's business.

If your concern was about flag displays, why then did you entitle the thread "'Southern Heritage' is all about race?" (my emphasis)

I'm saying that those whites who feel so strongly about it are being too cute by half in associating it with the good parts of Southern Heritage. It's about like Lott "slipping up" and insinuating that segregation was AOK by him. Oh wait, that was just a lighthearted comment for his friend.

Lott's been nothing but consistent in his history and attidudes, so why the sudden flap now? 'Cause he said it at a time when it was memorable from a political point of view?

Everyone else in the US should call a spade a spade and not stand for it. At the very least, it's being unneighborly of those who push it.

Pushing it is one thing (and is more than a tad unneighborly), First Amendment rights are another. What sorts of other unpopular symbols are we going to regulate?

[SnowFire]

Hooker's loss of manhood at Chancellorsville

Yeah, well, um, oh yeah?!

Okay, point granted on that one.

Unfairly, as in how exactly? By using timing, concentration, knowledge of the ground, and superior march discipline?

Yup. All that makes for an unfair fight. A fair fight is a proper British style thing on a nice flat plain where both sides can get good and ready, and both sides simultaneously charge each other, or something. I mean, if I concentrate my force of 20,000 and unfairly take out an unorganized group one small piece at a time, that's hardly fair, eh?

Pender was riding over to put a fire under Anderson's ass and order Anderson's brigades to move out in support of McLaw's division when he was hit by a fragment of a prematurely exploding shell that nearly took his leg off at the thigh.

Now that bit I didn't know. Interesting. Good work to the boys in the artillery though.

Moving on to a more relevant topic, what's this new Georgia governor going to be like? On one hand, he's shaking up a 100 years of Democratic domination, and might be able to shake out a few corrupt positions that are just leeches on the government (or then again, he might choose to replace 'em with his own people). I'm slightly worried about this flag referendum deal, though- I suppose I don't have a problem with the referendum, as long as the CSA flag loses. Also, will his positions be sold out to the rednecks who wanted the referendum?

Don't know enough about the guy or his campaign to say, but it will be interesting to see how it turns out...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


What is there to any "heritage" or pride in one's origins, personal, local, or regional history?

Funny, all over the US, I've seen different historical sites preserved, local museums, etc. Battlefield monuments (a la Bunkers Hill), and various local history organizations.

It seems it's only with southerners that the race card gets pulled out, as if racism (or other forms of exploitation) *cough* Pullman strike *cough* Grangers *cough* Anti-Chinese Leagues *cough* Molly Maguires and coal miners in general *cough* weren't part and parcel of history of other parts in the US.

In Boston, in the same cemetary where Sam Adams and Ben Franklin are buried, is the grave of a 16 year old Quaker girl, who was hanged by the Puritans for supposedly proselytizing her quaker beliefs. Descendents of the Puritans aren't generally tarred with the brush of their ancestors' murderous fanaticism, nor are pioneer organizations in various states tarred much with the fact that their pioneering settlement came about as a result of long-term genocide against the majority of the natives already present.

It's real fashionable for people to ignore the ugly side of their history, and only point to the south. Sorry, but most of the Klan and active white supremacists are elsewhere now (according to the FBI), and racism exists everywhere in the US, not just south of the Mason-Dixon line.

Very good points. Thanks for saving me the trouble.

[monolith94]

"The monolith argument is as full of BS as any of the southern revisionists' claims."
Whoah whoah whoah! Leave me out of this!
And if I heard you correct, MtG, you said that blacks were officially property at the time of the emancipation proclamation...
Well, that's the whole thing about the emancipation proclamation, I gathered, was that it was declaring something NOT property. If the North had stolen the Confederate slaves, and used them for its own persons, THEN it would've been THEFT. If you wish to persist with this antiquated metaphor of slaves as property, then I would say that the emancipation proclamation would be similar now to the government saying "yes, now all toasters are free, they can no longer be ruled by you!"

[Sikander]

Originally posted by monolith94
"The monolith argument is as full of BS as any of the southern revisionists' claims."
Whoah whoah whoah! Leave me out of this!
And if I heard you correct, MtG, you said that blacks were officially property at the time of the emancipation proclamation...
Well, that's the whole thing about the emancipation proclamation, I gathered, was that it was declaring something NOT property. If the North had stolen the Confederate slaves, and used them for its own persons, THEN it would've been THEFT. If you wish to persist with this antiquated metaphor of slaves as property, then I would say that the emancipation proclamation would be similar now to the government saying "yes, now all toasters are free, they can no longer be ruled by you!"

"That's right. I burned your toast. What you going to do about it b!tch?"

[Chris 62]

And since some people may have forgotten, some nice views of the Civil war:



Not all southerners think pride equals racism, but there are some that still do.