Re: not if they knew what was good for them...

Confederate Revisionist History

tmac9wr · 2015-07-19T16:22:28.755Z

This was a pretty interesting read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/01/why-do-people-believe-myths-about-the-confederacy-because-our-textbooks-and-monuments-are-wrong/ Usually the comments of any internet story are terrible, but thanks to one commentor, hstguy (I assume that's snort for history guy), it's actually worth it to read the comments. He gives very balanced & informative information.

apextiger

All-TigerNet [11934]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 16363

Joined: 1998

Vermont/validity

Jul 19, 2015, 10:25 PM [ in reply to Re: ^^^ This ... and especially one from Vermont*** ]

Well, for one thing, people from that part of the country (you're from Massachusetts I see) seem more than willing to perpetuate the myth that while the people of the South were undeniably racist, the people of the North generally were not.

They want to have us believe that the vast majority of the population of the North were ardent Abolitionists, when in fact nothing could be much further from the truth.

This New England sociologist, like so many others, takes pride in pointing out the obvious ... that the Southern cause was principally the perpetuation of slavery. Duh!! No reasonable individual South or North denies the validity of this stance.

But, not satisfied with that accurate portrayal of the South, they want us to also believe that the Northern motivation at the time was a widespread desire to see the abolition of slavery.

That notion is, and always will be pure BS.

Before, and well into the war, abolition of slavery was an extremely unpopular cause throughout the country. It's an uncomfortable fact, but make an effort to study exactly what the rank & file in Boston did to rare individuals like William Lloyd Garrison and others who tried to create enthusiasm for abolition.

This is another incontrovertible fact: As a result of political expediency and little else, the focus of the conflict was shifted away from simply restoring and preserving the Union, to a crusade to free the slaves. Not because there was any great sentiment on the part of the Northern population to see the black man raised up, but simply because freeing the slaves denied the Confederacy of an important resource.

And this guy like many others, also seems not to be able to comprehend the intense divided loyalties that existed in the Border States ... they were called "Border States" for a reason and he curiously ignores still another important fact: that Lincoln did NOT emancipate the slaves in the Border States ...

As a Southerner by birth, heritage, and choice, I have come to accept that authors such as this fellow will use the broadest possible brush to paint the South in the most unflattering way possible. It's okay. Have at it. We probably deserve it.

But, at the same time what makes me so angry over these types of biased op-ed articles is that in their rush to stamp out any flickering ember of pride that Southerners might cling to over their heritage, the writers gloss over the virulent racist attitudes that were common throughout the nation as a whole in the days before, during and after the Civil War.

This is the sort of unapologetic and high-handed revisionist agenda, that most rankles those of us in the South who are and have been more than ready to move forward.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

> -and mind-set to boot, and not about to change. I do
> not condone the ideas of slavery, but to say it was
> all about that is small indeed. Certainly states'
> rights had been a major issue since the formation of
> the United States. John C. Calhoun (also a slave
> owner) spent almost his entire career arguing the
> idea of states' rights. There were other economic,
> trade & tariff issues along with the slavery issue.
> The loss of cheap labor(slavery)was,of course, a
> formidable concern, but all these things together
> affected the southern reaction. I am neither naive
> enough to dismiss slavery as the cause, but neither
> am I disposed to dismiss the other attendant factors.
> But to pretend states' rights was not a very
> attendant concern is most disingenuous of the writer.
> Slavery was wrong wrong wrong and we all know that.
> But we cannot change history and neither should the
> writer try. At least one of my great great great
> grandfathers owned two slaves but I do not vilify him
> or disown him because of it; it was just a very wrong
> happenstance that cannot be changed. That is why we
> call it 'history'.

There were other marginal issues, but the ability to keep slavery as an institution was THE states right they were fighting for. You mentioned "The loss of cheap labor(slavery)was,of course, a formidable concern...". The loss of slavery would have absolutely devastated the southern economy. It is of no small import, nor an additional concern. The SC statement of secession mentions slaves or slavery 26 times.

The idea that the Civil War was about states rights is only a half truth. What the southern revisionists want everyone to believe is that states rights itself was a central issue, one that Calhoun foisted and argued for. What the southern revisionist DONT want you understand is that the retention of slavery was the primary state right in question.

Confederate Revisionist History

and what do you believe this gentleman is doing now?***

Re: and what do you believe this gentleman is doing now?***

there's other interpretations of the now, thank goodness.***

I know, why believe anybody, right?

ignorance? you seem to be leading the pack...

Think so huh? Misinformation believed everywhere

what in the good lord's name are you running on about now?

I hear you, and you make good points

i'm glad, we all should, far too many it seems are along for

Settle down, Howard Zinn***

Rule #1 of history. Never trust a Sociologist to write it.***

^^^ This ... and especially one from Vermont***

Re: ^^^ This ... and especially one from Vermont***

Rule #1: Stupid people are stupid for a reason.

Vermont/validity

Re: Rule #1 of history. Never trust a Sociologist to write it.***

His facts were cherry picked and skewed to make his point.***

Re: Rule #1 of history. Never trust a Sociologist to write it.***

Theft by Taxes — Lincoln assured Confederate states

Re: Theft by Taxes — Lincoln assured Confederate states

Re: Confederate Revisionist History

Re: Confederate Revisionist History

Do you believe EVERYTHING you read on the internet. So

Re: Do you believe EVERYTHING you read on the internet. So

i like felix, but if he uses "we" again as if he could

Re: i like felix, but if he uses "we" again as if he could

you've used "we" before in speaking of the south in general.***

Re: you've used "we" before in speaking of the south in general.***

haha, might, maybe? my ex-wife said those things when

Re: haha, might, maybe? my ex-wife said those things when

yes, she is and now working on her 3rd marriage...

Re: yes, she is and now working on her 3rd marriage...

not if they knew what was good for them...