USAians: What are you doing on this loooong MLK weekend?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Honestly where do you get this stuff.

Oh you know, the history books you haven't read, the primary sources you haven't consulted.

How is it that white politicians could call for the disenfranchisement of black citizens in the 1890s if all was peachy in the society of the South ?

Because in the 1880s and early 1890s, black voters and poorer white voters had voted against the state Democratic power brokers.

In response, the 'colouring book' history of the Gallant South and Reconstruction was created- where Griffiths dew his inspiration for the 'chivalrous' Klan knights in 'Birth Of A Nation' saving the tender flower of Southern womanhood form the lusty paws of Negro Union soldiers- oh the horror!


So in spite of the Fifteenth Amendment, Southern states (beginning with Mississippi) denied black citizens the vote- and along with political discrimination came a rise in physical intimidation and lynchings.

Southern states enacted poll taxes and the infamous literacy tests, which although they applied to both blacks and whites, disproportionately affected the black population, many of whom had been freed from slavery lacking property and/or an education.

In any case, voter registrars in the South still denied the vote even to literate black citizens.

[Patroklos]

No, he isn't.

It is an imperfect example, but still useful. He is a government rebel, and he does have statues.

Your war of independence example is also imperfect, because at no point in the development of colonial government was any subject of the colonies' sworn loyalty to anything other than the crown.

It was not an uncommon, hell it was probaly more common than not, view before the Civil War that the states were voluntary partners in the Federal system, not contracted subordinates like they are now. That is simple fact my friend, and if you believed that like Lee, your allegiance was to your state and whatever allegiance you had to the Federal government was through the state.

[Patroklos]

How is it that white politicians could call for the disenfranchisement of black citizens in the 1890s if all was peachy in the society of the South ?

Because in the 1880s and early 1890s, black voters and poorer white voters had voted against the state Democratic power brokers.

In response, the 'colouring book' history of the Gallant South and Reconstruction was created- where Griffiths dew his inspiration for the 'chivalrous' Klan knights in 'Birth Of A Nation' saving the tender flower of Southern womanhood form the lusty paws of Negro Union soldiers- oh the horror!

When any of that has any relevance to what I have said in this thread, get back to me.

Is this where you try to be clever, maybe throw in some irrelevant pictures (hell, Mr. Fun had to point that out to you) in the hopes of invoking an emmotical reaction?

Or is it where you consult your thesarus to appear scholarly without actually providing everything of substance?

HINT: The racial opinions of Southerners from 1880 to whenever have no bearing the opinions and lives of those as they lived in 1860, before suffereing a crushing defeat in a slash and burn war.

Lee died in 1870, the racial opinions of Southerners form 1880 to whenver have less relevance to him, since we know exactly what he thought.

I never said the Confederacy was not racist.

I never said Southerners of the 1800s/good portion of the 1900s were not racists.

[molly bloom]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Patroklos [

Hint: History gets better with age, not the books about it.

Hogwash. Good and bad history books have nothing to do with the age they're written in.

The techniques for writing history have changed ever so slightly since the days of Xenophon, Thucydides and Livy.

Modern historians (with some exceptions) tend not to be writing panegyrics for their own side or blithely ignoring essential information about economics, technology, population, agriculture, et cetera.


One hardly goes to Xenophon for a breakdown of the social structure of the Achaemenid Empire or its trading links with China.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The racial opinions of Southerners from 1880 to whenever have no bearing the opinions and lives of those as they lived in 1860, before suffereing a crushing defeat in a slash and burn war.

However it may have an impact on the histories written of the time period.

[Patroklos]

One hardly goes to Xenophon for a breakdown of the social structure of the Achaemenid Empire or its trading links with China.

When I say you should study Rome exclusively through Livy or Tacitus, then you can pretend you have a point (Though it should be noted how heavely modern sources have to rely both of those).

I didn't say that. Studying Rome only through such sources would be as stupid as studying it only through modern sources.

[Patroklos]

However it may have an impact on the histories written of the time period.

It would, if the ones I am talking about were not from land grant colleges in Michigan. And I am not saying they are not biased. What isn't biased? They, however, definetly had more primary material available to them.

Again, when I say study the Civil War solely through such sources feel free to scorn me for it. Until then, I am critisizing Mr. Fun for only providing modern sources when asked where his opinions of the war came from (and then trying to pass them as from an academic course of study).

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Patroklos


It is an imperfect example, but still useful.

About as useful as comparing Lee with Trotsky.

The American colonies revolted (partly) because of grievances against the British Crown/British rule, but in Franklin's words because:

(the American provinces were )... so many distinct and separate states'... the British Parliament/Crown ...'had usurped an authority of making laws for them, which before it had not '.

Benjamin Franklin, 1770.

This was simply propagandist nonsense, since Parliament had indeed been passing laws affecting the colonies since 1688.

However the principle of asserting the rights of citizens against arbitrary (monarchical or Parliamentary) rule or usurped rights is clear- and if you knew anything about Cromwell and the Parliamentarians you wouldn't have used him as a parallel for Lee.

There were revolts in the United Kingdom- such as the main Jacobite uprisings in 1715 and 1745, and earlier more localized revolts in Cornwall and the Rising of the North in Tudor times.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It would, if the ones I am talking about were not from land grant colleges in Michigan. And I am not saying they are not biased. What isn't biased? They, however, definetly had more primary material available to them.

Again, when I say study the Civil War solely through such sources feel free to scorn me for it. Until then, I am critisizing Mr. Fun for only providing modern sources when asked where his opinions of the war came from (and then trying to pass them as from an academic course of study).

I'm sure the modern sources refer to the primary sources extensively. Why should you criticize those sources without reading them? And I'm not sure I get your criticism about them being from an academic course of study... Foner, for one, is a highly respected historian of the late 1900s in the US.

[Patroklos]

I'm sure the modern sources refer to the primary sources extensively.

And is it not odd that they come to the exact opposite conclusions? Having read a good bit of modern Civil War history, (a good bit of it shoved down my throat during my own college history studies, it is one of my majors) I am fully aware of the liberties in interpretation and selective blindness (example: Confederate personal correspondences) that goes on in pop history.

I level the same criticisms at those modern pop history books that portray the South as some happy day care center, or insinuate that the war had nothing to do with slavery.

And I'm not sure I get your criticism about them being from an academic course of study... Foner, for one, is a highly respected historian of the late 1900s in the US.

He dropped his masters degree in there like it was a two of spades, and then listed his reading material (which I assumed meant from his course work, and his latter post confirmed was his intention) as if it came from an academic course of study instead of the bargain book table at Borders.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Patroklos


When any of that has any relevance to what I have said in this thread, get back to me.

Gosh, who was it who brought up 'the colouring book' version of history ?

Seems you missed out the mythic 'colouring book' version of Reconstruction expounded across the South- where a violent conflict over the principles of ownership of human beings and discrimination based on ethnicity or race metamorphises into a (fictional) epic battle for 'States' Rights' and noble principles.

Eyewash and hooey.

To quote someone who had more direct experience of the reasons for war than you:

...the most execrable measure recorded in the history of guilty man'

Jefferson Davis on the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation.


As Lincoln succinctly put it:

One section of our country believes slavery is right while the other believes it is wrong .

Is this where you try to be clever, maybe throw in some irrelevant pictures

Aaah, how sweet. You think I have to try to be clever. I fail to see how a picture of a lynching of two black men is irrelevant in any discussion of race, M.L.K. Day and the American Civil War. So the lynching took place in a Northern State ?- Well, so what ? Does this mean the South didn't institutionally discriminate against black citizens post-Reconstruction, excluding them from the franchise and government ?

Or that lynchings and race murders didn't take place all across the South ? Of course not, but you hold tight to whatever pathetic scrap of hope that misattributed picture gives you.

Or is it where you consult your thesarus to appear scholarly without actually providing everything of substance?

Some of us have quite an expansive lexicon- and don't require a thesaurus. I've provided dates, relevant quotes, primary sources- you and Benny are big on opinion and assertion (frequently emotive) but short on facts.

I never said the Confederacy was not racist.

Because presumably such an elementary mistake would appear laughable ?

I don't recall ever making any point about you whitewashing the Confederacy's views on race. A mite paranoid, perhaps ?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
And is it not odd that they come to the exact opposite conclusions? Having read a good bit of modern Civil War history, (a good bit of it shoved down my throat during my own college history studies, it is one of my majors) I am fully aware of the liberties in interpretation and selective blindness (example: Confederate personal correspondences) that goes on in pop history.

I level the same criticisms at those modern pop history books that portray the South as some happy day care center, or insinuate that the war had nothing to do with slavery.

Actually I don't think its odd at all. Historical study being more removed from the event allows a better view of the event.

I mean its similar to say, the book "1491", where different conclusions were reached because of a further removal from biases (the view that the US was moral beacon had led a lot of interesting opinions on the size and sophistication of Native American communities)

He dropped his masters degree in there like it was a two of spades, and then listed his reading material (which I assumed meant from his course work, and his latter post confirmed was his intention) as if it came from an academic course of study instead of the bargain book table at Borders.

Why exactly do you assume it isn't from an academic course of study? I'd hope that anyone studying the society of the late 19th Century would read Foner. Do you have any proof that those books are not used in academic study of the period?

[Patroklos]

Molly, why do you have such a hard time discussing what everyone else is?

I've provided dates, relevant quotes, primary sources- you and Benny are big on opinion and assertion (frequently emotive) but short on facts.

You mean primary Civil War sources from nonparticipants 20-100 years after the war?

Or you pictures that are not actually from the South?

Actually I don't think its odd at all. Historical study being more removed from the event allows a better view of the event.

It also lets contemporary biases that have zero relevance to the actual event creep in.

Again, the "it was all about slavery" crowd are actually trying to tell us what people thought, when those people already told us what they thought themselves (again through correspondences before and during the war, not 20 years later in retrospect)

"Oh I know what they said, but this is what the REALLY meant"

Why exactly do you assume it isn't from an academic course of study?

Because it wasn't used in HIS academic course of study, as Kid confirmed after the fact, so the book isn't validated by being included in his masters program like he wanted us to think.

More to the point, it was published in 2006, which is why I called him out on it. I am pretty sure he graduated before that, and he listed it as a text.

Do you have any proof that those books are not used in academic study of the period?

Is there a reason I should? I really don't care if it is, nor think it shouldn't. But when asked where you got your opinion of the Civil War it is not hard to understand why it is what it is if those are the only texts he bases them on.

[MrFun]

First of all, yes, when I was a graduate student, we took a historiography course as a requirement. I enjoyed taking this course, and would have taken it as an elective anyway; it was crucial for our academic and professional development in the study of history.

And, as I mentioned before, two of the books I listed actually were used in one or two of my graduate history courses. Foner is one such prominent historian and we used more than one of his books in our studies. Also, those four books I have listed are a small, incomplete clipping of all books used during my courses and studies in my entire graduate school years.

The fact that I failed to list primary sources does not mean that we never used primary sources in our courses. Our history professors emphasized the importance of primary sources for our own research papers, and we would use primary sources in our courses on discussions concerning specific topics. I remember when I took my very interesting course on American foreign diplomacy course in graduate school, and we went through a number of primary sources and then we discussed our perspectives of whatever issues those documents covered during that relevant time period.


Also, Molly and I posted pictures of racist-motivated lynchings to drive home the point that too many people in United States today are ignorant about the history of our country's race relations. This is one of the reasons why we STILL have race relations problems today; you cannot begin to help heal relations between blacks and whites without knowing our country's history in this regard.

When I post pictures of lynchings, I make sure I explain the context of the pictures as I have done in this thread rather than merely googling pictures of lynchings without knowing the background of said lynchings and then posting them left and right.


And let's get back to Pattycake's point about historiography. During the early twentieth century, the white South had essentially won the war over the memory of the Civil War, when white Northerners came to accept the white supremacist vision of the history of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Thankfully, scholarly research in 1950s and especially during 1960s began to seriously challenge the white supremacist's "Lost Cause" storybook version of Civil War and Reconstruction.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It also lets contemporary biases that have zero relevance to the actual event creep in.

Again, the "it was all about slavery" crowd are actually trying to tell us what people thought, when those people already told us what they thought themselves (again through correspondences before and during the war, not 20 years later in retrospect)

"Oh I know what they said, but this is what the REALLY meant"

But it appears that in all the arguments for secession, slavery was the main point raised. That the North would take away slavery. Now, that may not be what the common man fought for, but that was why the common man had to fight; because his leaders decided slavery was good enough to fight for.

This comes from primary sources (the speeches for secession in state houses across the South).

Just because they'd try to justify to others that it was really about some philosophical ideals of states rights was made up after the fact to make it seem better.

And the whole "Lost Cause" thing, which was just bull.

We do "this is what they really meant" all the time and no one bats an eye. It's because people try to portray themselves in the best possible light.

Because it wasn't used in HIS academic course of study, as Kid confirmed after the fact, so the book isn't validated by being included in his masters program like he wanted us to think.

Apparently it was (as Mr Fun points out in his last post). I'm not sure why you'd think you know what was in his academic course of study better than him, though.