Confederate Heroes' Day - Jan 19

[Guest]

6 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Oh go fuck yourself. He was a traitor. It’s not more complicated than that. 

A rather celebrated one, if your point of view stands as fact.  It is a fascinating dichotomy/ dilemma because of the Union efforts towards reconciliation and healing our nation. I think that perspective has not really come out in this thread. It's not quite as simple as some make it sound. Some smart, dignified motherfuckers are still dealing with this whole mess, and they are certainly not Confederate sympathizers.  Here's some readin...

https://mwi.usma.edu/west-point-robert-e-lee-problem/

Edited January 7, 2022 by slorch

[Bateshorn 9905]

31 minutes ago, slorch said:

A rather celebrated one, if your point of view stands as fact.  It is a fascinating dichotomy/ dilemma because of the Union efforts towards reconciliation and healing our nation. I think that perspective has not really come out in this thread. It's not quite as simple as some make it sound. Some smart, dignified motherfuckers are still dealing with this whole mess, and they are certainly not Confederate sympathizers.  Here's some readin...

https://mwi.usma.edu/west-point-robert-e-lee-problem/

Did you actually read this whole article, Slorch?  It basically says he should be remembered within the context of West Point’s history, but not celebrated. 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Did you actually read this whole article, Slorch?  It basically says he should be remembered within the context of West Point’s history, but not celebrated. 

Yep.  I did. But i did feel the article gave a very objective discussion of the situation. The point was that the solution is anything but binary, or as simple as some on here would have it.

Edited January 7, 2022 by slorch

[Bateshorn 9905]

Well, it’s a bit like Ft. Davis.  The Fort and surrounding town was named after Jeff Davis before the Civil War, as he was a prominent leading politician.  To rename it would be stupid and weird.  But stuff named after Jeff Davis in, say, the 1920s, should be rebadged. 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Bateshorn

[Underdog 28457]

15 hours ago, Lobo said:

He was not well hanged. 

Somewhere, Gil Bang is disappointed hearing of this. 

[atomheartbevo 89449]

Just a reminder that we are coming up on a good time to repost this

DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861
A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union.
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html

Quote

The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former as one of the co-equal States thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Quote

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. 

Quote

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

Quote

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

 

[Chad Fuck 17567]

11 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Just a reminder that we are coming up on a good time to repost this

DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861
A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union.
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html

 

tl/dr - When people tell you who they are, listen to them.

[Ghost of LL 15492]

13 hours ago, Lobo said:

Yes, which is why I brought him up.  1000 brilliant tactical and strategic Wehrmacht senior officers.  Many of whom never joined the party or knew of the Final Solution to the Jewish Question.  And rightfully so, they have all been stricken from the record of time.  Known only for their crimes, they are but footnotes of history...barely acknowledged by the nation that birthed them. 

And what does the American South do?  Erects statues, cenotaphs, and museums to every two-bit fucking Lt. Colonel that ever wanted to defend the notion of owning other human beings.  Not in the biblical era, in the middle century of the American Republic.  

Every last Confederate statute comes down and every last Confederate sympathizer is hung because it is right and it is just.  Piss on Lee's grave.  Rommel endures for one simple reason...he conspired to end the evil madness.  All these Oakley wearing, two-bit shitheap Southern fuckheads would have done was help Jefferson Davis kill those who weren't loyal.  

Rommel was afforded his historical legacy because he was a token offering that should this happen again, even the most brilliant military tacticians who questioned the evil purpose should be recused.  One of the last nations on Earth to acknowledge that owning humans was wrong...and we think to spare Lee or anyone else on that side...let alone erect monuments in their honor? 

These "Confederate Heroes" had their moment, they were wrong, they were hate-filled, and they lost.  You can do one of the three...but not all three.  If you do, you should be vanquished from the Earth and your existence erased from the record except to serve as a warning as your village is burned to the ground and your skull is mocked in public as we shit on its way down the scaffold.  Know when you're wrong, know you're defeated, that your children may live to correct your errors. 

See this, @Brisketexan--this is how you fucking rant.

2 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

This.  Once Lee failed to gain the heights at Gettysburg, it was clear the battle was lost by anyone who has viewed the battlefield.  That he dragged it out for 3 more days instead of strategically retreating, as Longstreet implored him to do, is the clearest indicator of his lack of true tactical acumen. 
 

There’s a reason it’s Sherman, not Lee, who is still widely taught at Military academies as the true genius of the war.  The fact that we still discuss Lee in terms other than him being a traitor and oathbreaker is a prime example of how we’ve re-historied (I.e. The Dunning School) the Civil War. 
 

It’s why historians urge Americans to incorporate race as one of the lens we view our past.  It drives many aspects of our culture.

And that's right.  The systemic denigration of Grant as a military leader and the promotion of the Myth of Lee was all part of the Southern attempt to rehabilitate their treason after the war.  And that was all prompted by the Southern resistance to civil rights and full emancipation of the former slaves.

[safe sex 11684]

Ron Chernow's biography of Grant is just stunning. Everyone should read it. One of the best of America.

[Saint Austin 745]

Good to see that Godwin's law is in full effect today.

[StassneyHorn 6540]

Semi off topic

We have assholes in this city who run around tagging everything on the south side with Communist Revolution shit, but not one of them will man up and hit the Confederate statues in front of the Capitol with some yellow paint.

Force the state to publicly defend spending money “archiving,restoring”Confederate statues in 2022. I want to watch them squirm

Edited January 7, 2022 by StassneyHorn

[Guest Lobo]

16 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

Good to see that Godwin's law is in full effect today.

actually, it's kinda the opposite (not directing this post at you) .  Even German resistance leaders like Beck and Oster are still washed away from history, despite their best efforts to utilize their lore and popularity as brilliant military leaders to upend the Third Reich and restore peace while it was still possible.  

Where the United States (particularly the South) is almost uniquely alone in the world is that not only does it not condemn its seditionists and military losers...it actually celebrates them by erecting eternal monuments to them.  We are almost all alone in that regard.  

If one were to drive through Munich with a Nazi flag waving out the back of their "truck" screaming, "It ain't about hate, it's about heritage"...they would be imprisoned and possibly executed by extrajudicial means.  If one were to drive through Dallas with a Confederate Battle flag waving out of the back of their F-250 screaming "It ain't about hate, it's about heritage"...they would most likely be named Realtor of the Year and be asked to run for State Senate.  

Nobody's bringing up Hitler.  This isn't Godwin's Law.  We're discussing the kind of people that Hitler and Davis used to further their own ends.  I'll hold my breath while I wait to hear about the Southern Generals who conspired to kill Lee before he lost them so much they could not ask for conditions at surrender.  I'll give the Confederacy and its modern enablers this much.....on the ropes and staring at defeat for months and giving up didn't occur to them.  For the very simple reason, they knew once their way of life was over...there'd be nothing left to live for.  150 years later, we've rebuilt Japan, Europe twice, parts of the Middle East and Africa even.....but we can't make the education or legal systems of Alabama work functionally?  Why do you think that is?  It's not a coincidence.  A people should know when they've been conquered, but every few decades...somebody comes along...and gives them hope.  

[Guest]

totally irrelevant, yet still made me laugh while thinking of the thread today.

 

[956 Worldwide 34444]

It’s a bullshit holiday. We started recognizing it in 1931, during Jim Crow to reinforce that set of laws and to advance the Lost Cause mythology. We rebranded it in the 1970s, partly as a middle finger to Texans who wanted to mark MLK Day.  It needs to go in the garbage or be rebranded as “Texas Victims of Chattel Slavery and State Sanctioned Racial Violence Remembrance Day.” 

[Bateshorn 9905]

4 hours ago, Saint Austin said:

Good to see that Godwin's law is in full effect today.

As the resident Godwin’s Law invocator, when I’m paying attention, I’m going to have to deny this ruling. References to Nazi Germany in a specific and cited historic manner do not equal general and lazy Hitler/Nazi comparisons. 

[Gatorubet 30116]

Oh go fuck yourself. He was a traitor. It’s not more complicated than that. 

Go fuck yourself????

Of course it’s more complicated than that. Do not descend to the stupidity of MAGA-ism, where every complex issue is reduced to simple good/bad, black/white dichotomies. The intellectual sophistry that says to use our current science, culture and education and assume that all of it should have been injected into the minds of people born in 1807 - and accepted - is stupid.

It is common for Surly posters to discuss older family members who have antiquated ideas - some rather loathsome - with a partial pass given to them because they grew up in the 1930s or 40s. It is often said how loving and nice they are save their attitudes on ____.

Now imagine being raised in the 1810s and 20s. The concept of the “United States” as an entity was almost not considered - if primary allegiance to government was concerned. People were defined - by themselves - as citizens of their state. The fact Texans of all people seem to struggle with this baffles me.

Mostly, I hate the anti-intellectualism that creates a simplistic modern evaluation of past events using a modern lens. The kind of stupidity that leads to the greatest anti racism American novel being banned because it has pre-civil war Southerners using “nigger” as a common term. Huck’s internal thought struggle (“All right, then, I'll go to hell” ) to turn in Nigger Jim or not is one of the great and freeing lessons of the masterpiece.

Saying, “Ban Huckleberry Finn. He used the word nigger - It’s not more complicated than that” is about as accurate as your Lee thought process. It’s lazy revisionist thinking using modern metrics that at best are unfair, or at worst antithetical to the point you are trying to make. Lee was not without much deserved blame, but he was no evil cardboard character.

If the men and military leaders he fought against held him in esteem, it might be worth a deeper look. That said, not a fucking statue of him should be in a public square. The UDC can go fuck itself. See again, fuck false revisionist history. UDC is the worst.

[956 Worldwide 34444]

35 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Go fuck yourself????

Of course it’s more complicated than that. Do not descend to the stupidity of MAGA-ism, where every complex issue is reduced to simple good/bad, black/white dichotomies. The intellectual sophistry that says to use our current science, culture and education and assume that all of it should have been injected into the minds of people born in 1807 - and accepted - is stupid.

It is common for Surly posters to discuss older family members who have antiquated ideas - some rather loathsome - with a partial pass given to them because they grew up in the 1930s or 40s. It is often said how loving and nice they are save their attitudes on ____.

Now imagine being raised in the 1810s and 20s. The concept of the “United States” as an entity was almost not considered - if primary allegiance to government was concerned. People were defined - by themselves - as citizens of their state. The fact Texans of all people seem to struggle with this baffles me.

Mostly, I hate the anti-intellectualism that creates a simplistic modern evaluation of past events using a modern lens. The kind of stupidity that leads to the greatest anti racism American novel being banned because it has pre-civil war Southerners using “nigger” as a common term. Huck’s internal thought struggle (“All right, then, I'll go to hell” ) to turn in Nigger Jim or not is one of the great and freeing lessons of the masterpiece.

Saying, “Ban Huckleberry Finn. He used the word nigger - It’s not more complicated than that” is about as accurate as your Lee thought process. It’s lazy revisionist thinking using modern metrics that at best are unfair, or at worst antithetical to the point you are trying to make. Lee was not without much deserved blame, but he was no evil cardboard character.

If the men and military leaders he fought against held him in esteem, it might be worth a deeper look. That said, not a fucking statue of him should be in a public square. The UDC can go fuck itself. See again, fuck false revisionist history. UDC is the worst.

I think if you want to have a sophisticated and nuanced discussion on Lee and his place in the public landscape, you should begin by asking where he fits in and why he’s there.  According to a monument audit, Lee is the sixth most memorialized person in the United States, behind Washington, Lincoln, Columbus, and MLK.

https://www.mellon.org/media/filer_public/c3/b7/c3b7a161-57b3-478b-9313-8138c5753649/monumentlab-nationalmonumentaudit.pdf

So, why are there so many memorials to this man? Is it because he was a brilliant and effective battlefield commander and Americans celebrate military genius? If so, why are figures like Dwight Eisenhower or Chester Nimitz, who commanded armed forces on behalf of their county and won the war that created the United States as a superpower.

Could it be, possibly, that we erected so many memorials and holidays to this man not because we appreciated his military genius, but because people were desperately searching for a palatable figure to be the face of efforts to whitewash the cause he fought for? 

[JimmyJames 12271]

I think any nuanced discussion regarding general Lee should start with the dukes of hazard and go from there. 
 

[JimmyJames 12271]

[hobbes2702 12846]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

Go fuck yourself????

Of course it’s more complicated than that. Do not descend to the stupidity of MAGA-ism, where every complex issue is reduced to simple good/bad, black/white dichotomies. The intellectual sophistry that says to use our current science, culture and education and assume that all of it should have been injected into the minds of people born in 1807 - and accepted - is stupid.

It is common for Surly posters to discuss older family members who have antiquated ideas - some rather loathsome - with a partial pass given to them because they grew up in the 1930s or 40s. It is often said how loving and nice they are save their attitudes on ____.

Now imagine being raised in the 1810s and 20s. The concept of the “United States” as an entity was almost not considered - if primary allegiance to government was concerned. People were defined - by themselves - as citizens of their state. The fact Texans of all people seem to struggle with this baffles me.

Mostly, I hate the anti-intellectualism that creates a simplistic modern evaluation of past events using a modern lens. The kind of stupidity that leads to the greatest anti racism American novel being banned because it has pre-civil war Southerners using “nigger” as a common term. Huck’s internal thought struggle (“All right, then, I'll go to hell” ) to turn in Nigger Jim or not is one of the great and freeing lessons of the masterpiece.

Saying, “Ban Huckleberry Finn. He used the word nigger - It’s not more complicated than that” is about as accurate as your Lee thought process. It’s lazy revisionist thinking using modern metrics that at best are unfair, or at worst antithetical to the point you are trying to make. Lee was not without much deserved blame, but he was no evil cardboard character.

If the men and military leaders he fought against held him in esteem, it might be worth a deeper look. That said, not a fucking statue of him should be in a public square. The UDC can go fuck itself. See again, fuck false revisionist history. UDC is the worst.

I don’t care what year it is, owning people should be a simple thing to be against.

[Pig Bellmont 8692]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

Go fuck yourself????

Of course it’s more complicated than that. Do not descend to the stupidity of MAGA-ism, where every complex issue is reduced to simple good/bad, black/white dichotomies. The intellectual sophistry that says to use our current science, culture and education and assume that all of it should have been injected into the minds of people born in 1807 - and accepted - is stupid.

It is common for Surly posters to discuss older family members who have antiquated ideas - some rather loathsome - with a partial pass given to them because they grew up in the 1930s or 40s. It is often said how loving and nice they are save their attitudes on ____.

Now imagine being raised in the 1810s and 20s. The concept of the “United States” as an entity was almost not considered - if primary allegiance to government was concerned. People were defined - by themselves - as citizens of their state. The fact Texans of all people seem to struggle with this baffles me.

Mostly, I hate the anti-intellectualism that creates a simplistic modern evaluation of past events using a modern lens. The kind of stupidity that leads to the greatest anti racism American novel being banned because it has pre-civil war Southerners using “nigger” as a common term. Huck’s internal thought struggle (“All right, then, I'll go to hell” ) to turn in Nigger Jim or not is one of the great and freeing lessons of the masterpiece.

Saying, “Ban Huckleberry Finn. He used the word nigger - It’s not more complicated than that” is about as accurate as your Lee thought process. It’s lazy revisionist thinking using modern metrics that at best are unfair, or at worst antithetical to the point you are trying to make. Lee was not without much deserved blame, but he was no evil cardboard character.

If the men and military leaders he fought against held him in esteem, it might be worth a deeper look. That said, not a fucking statue of him should be in a public square. The UDC can go fuck itself. See again, fuck false revisionist history. UDC is the worst.

Went with the full n word multiple times while arguing that Lee should be granted a nuanced view by history. Wow. Ok buddy 👍

[South Austin 52144]

More like Confederate Zeros, amirite?

[Poe It Up 126]

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Go fuck yourself????

Of course it’s more complicated than that. Do not descend to the stupidity of MAGA-ism, where every complex issue is reduced to simple good/bad, black/white dichotomies. The intellectual sophistry that says to use our current science, culture and education and assume that all of it should have been injected into the minds of people born in 1807 - and accepted - is stupid.

It is common for Surly posters to discuss older family members who have antiquated ideas - some rather loathsome - with a partial pass given to them because they grew up in the 1930s or 40s. It is often said how loving and nice they are save their attitudes on ____.

Now imagine being raised in the 1810s and 20s. The concept of the “United States” as an entity was almost not considered - if primary allegiance to government was concerned. People were defined - by themselves - as citizens of their state. The fact Texans of all people seem to struggle with this baffles me.

Mostly, I hate the anti-intellectualism that creates a simplistic modern evaluation of past events using a modern lens. The kind of stupidity that leads to the greatest anti racism American novel being banned because it has pre-civil war Southerners using “nigger” as a common term. Huck’s internal thought struggle (“All right, then, I'll go to hell” ) to turn in Nigger Jim or not is one of the great and freeing lessons of the masterpiece.

Saying, “Ban Huckleberry Finn. He used the word nigger - It’s not more complicated than that” is about as accurate as your Lee thought process. It’s lazy revisionist thinking using modern metrics that at best are unfair, or at worst antithetical to the point you are trying to make. Lee was not without much deserved blame, but he was no evil cardboard character.

If the men and military leaders he fought against held him in esteem, it might be worth a deeper look. That said, not a fucking statue of him should be in a public square. The UDC can go fuck itself. See again, fuck false revisionist history. UDC is the worst.

People tell themselves that had they been in Lee’s position they’d abandon their family, friends, and the only way of life they’d ever known to fight with the union. They’re wrong, but I get why they want to believe it. 

[tchookem 3900]

People tell themselves that had they been in Lee’s position they’d abandon their family, friends, and the only way of life they’d ever known to fight with the union. They’re wrong, but I get why they want to believe it. 

If only it were possible to understand, and even be sympathetic to, the position he was in, and still think him a traitor.

Nah, that's too much for my Southern Pride to rationalize. We better put some statues in the center of town.

[hobbes2702 12846]

10 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

People tell themselves that had they been in Lee’s position they’d abandon their family, friends, and the only way of life they’d ever known to fight with the union. They’re wrong, but I get why they want to believe it. 

I’m not claiming I would have done anything other than not own people and the go to war so I could keep owning them.

[Poe It Up 126]

10 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I’m not claiming I would have done anything other than not own people and the go to war so I could keep owning them.

Well, that would mostly depend on what state you were born in. 

[hobbes2702 12846]

7 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Well, that would mostly depend on what state you were born in. 

I don’t think the state your born in changes the inhumanity of owning another person. But I guess if everyone is doing it then it’s ok

[Biff Tannen 45499]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

I think any nuanced discussion regarding general Lee should start with the dukes of hazard and go from there. 
 

 

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

 

 

 

[Poe It Up 126]

17 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I don’t think the state your born in changes the inhumanity of owning another person. But I guess if everyone is doing it then it’s ok

You wouldn’t have known any different. 

[hobbes2702 12846]

5 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

You wouldn’t have known any different. 

I think I would have known that owning a person isn’t right. That one seems pretty straightforward. The idea that because of the times someone wouldn’t know that slavery was immoral is fucking ridiculous. Must not have been any abolitionists in southern states huh?
I bet next you’ll tell us how slaves weren’t actually treated badly.

Edited January 8, 2022 by hobbes2702

[Poe It Up 126]

3 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I think I would have known that owning a person isn’t right. That one seems pretty straightforward. The idea that because of the times someone wouldn’t know that slavery was immoral is fucking ridiculous. Must not have been any abolitionists in southern states huh?
I bet next you’ll tell us how slaves weren’t actually treated badly.

Unfortunately, most of America didn’t view slaves as people. So chances are that you wouldn’t have either, especially if you were born in a slave state. 
 

Would you have been an abolitionist? The probability, statistically speaking, is pretty low. But if you need to believe that, I totally understand. 

[hobbes2702 12846]

6 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Unfortunately, most of America didn’t view slaves as people. So chances are that you wouldn’t have either, especially if you were born in a slave state. 
 

Would you have been an abolitionist? The probability, statistically speaking, is pretty low. But if you need to believe that, I totally understand. 

If you need to believe that people couldn’t discern the immorality of owning another human being then I guess more power to you.

[956 Worldwide 34444]

Slavery was widely recognized as wrong even in the late 18th century and even its defenders at that time tended to frame it as a “necessary evil.”  There are textual clues to this even in our Constitution, which punted on the question of ending the international slave trade until 1808. Congress then promptly banned the trade, and it was widely recognized as a step towards eradicating the institution itself over time.  This is all without even nodding to the vigorous abolitionist movement in the UK, which was more advanced at the time.  Even slave owners at the time didn’t labor under any illusions, they knew that slavery rested upon the exercise and threat  of violence against the enslaved who would otherwise do anything to gain freedom. 

The southern planter class was well aware of all this and realized not only that their position of maintaining slavery out of economic necessity was losing ground, but also that the institution itself had to expand geographically or face extinction sooner or later. Part of their efforts included a push to create philosophical and moral arguments for why slavery was a positive good in the 1820s and 1830s.  I have no doubts that some of them got high off their own supply, but don’t kid yourself that slave owners were part of some ancient tradition that they viewed as unassailable from a moral point of view. 
 

Another line of effort was the constant push to expand slavery geographically and bring more slave states into the Union, which was a proximate cause of the Civil War.  And it completely undermines the “we just wanted the Yankees to leave us alone and live our way in the South myth.” Southern slave states were very much in the business of exporting slavery and started the war in large part because they wanted it to grow elsewhere. 

Edited January 8, 2022 by 956 Worldwide

[CooterBrown 17913]

This how we got to participation trophies in sports by handing out participation holidays to fucking losers.

[JimmyJames 12271]

25 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Slavery was widely recognized as wrong even in the late 18th century and even its defenders at that time tended to frame it as a “necessary evil.”  There are textual clues to this even in our Constitution, which punted on the question of ending the international slave trade until 1808. Congress then promptly banned the trade, and it was widely recognized as a step towards eradicating the institution itself over time.  This is all without even nodding to the vigorous abolitionist movement in the UK, which was more advanced at the time.  Even slave owners at the time didn’t labor under any illusions, they knew that slavery rested upon the exercise and threat  of violence against the enslaved who would otherwise do anything to gain freedom. 

The southern planter class was well aware of all this and realized not only that their position of maintaining slavery out of economic necessity was losing ground, but also that the institution itself had to expand geographically or face extinction sooner or later. Part of their efforts included a push to create philosophical and moral arguments for why slavery was a positive good in the 1820s and 1830s.  I have no doubts that some of them got high off their own supply, but don’t kid yourself that slave owners were part of some ancient tradition that they viewed as unassailable from a moral point of view. 
 

Another line of effort was the constant push to expand slavery geographically and bring more slave states into the Union, which was a proximate cause of the Civil War.  And it completely undermines the “we just wanted the Yankees to leave us alone and live our way in the South myth.” Southern slave states were very much in the business of exporting slavery and started the war in large part because they wanted it to grow elsewhere. 

This is an excellent post. The leaders of the south didn’t just want to be “left alone.” They wanted to expand slavery as far and as wide as they could and that meant much of the Americas.

They were a bunch of evil motherfuckers and so was oath breaking asshole general Lee. You can make whatever nuanced excuse you want for him but I say once again, fuck him.

[Biff Tannen 45499]

Thanks Eli Whitney. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

12 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Thanks Eli Whitney. 

It is an interesting discussion that without his invention there is no civil war.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

This is an excellent post. The leaders of the south didn’t just want to be “left alone.” They wanted to expand slavery as far and as wide as they could and that meant much of the Americas.

Yep. Just look up American, São Paulo, Brazil. “Where can a loser like me go now that I can’t own people in Alabam? No problem, I’ll head to the last country that will give it up in the New World!”

[Bateshorn 9905]

2 hours ago, Poe It Up said:

You wouldn’t have known any different. 

And yet, there was an entire movement of Abolitionists who did know different. Charles Sumner was nearly killed for calling out the South for its secessionist for slavery rhetoric. Thaddeus Stevens saw the true evil and corruption of the South and implored Lincoln to tear it to the studs or it would continue to corrupt every aspect of our culture and society. 

But John Brown was just a crazy terrorist, amirite?

Edited January 9, 2022 by Bateshorn

[Bateshorn 9905]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Slavery was widely recognized as wrong even in the late 18th century and even its defenders at that time tended to frame it as a “necessary evil.”  There are textual clues to this even in our Constitution, which punted on the question of ending the international slave trade until 1808. Congress then promptly banned the trade, and it was widely recognized as a step towards eradicating the institution itself over time.  This is all without even nodding to the vigorous abolitionist movement in the UK, which was more advanced at the time.  Even slave owners at the time didn’t labor under any illusions, they knew that slavery rested upon the exercise and threat  of violence against the enslaved who would otherwise do anything to gain freedom. 

The southern planter class was well aware of all this and realized not only that their position of maintaining slavery out of economic necessity was losing ground, but also that the institution itself had to expand geographically or face extinction sooner or later. Part of their efforts included a push to create philosophical and moral arguments for why slavery was a positive good in the 1820s and 1830s.  I have no doubts that some of them got high off their own supply, but don’t kid yourself that slave owners were part of some ancient tradition that they viewed as unassailable from a moral point of view. 
 

Another line of effort was the constant push to expand slavery geographically and bring more slave states into the Union, which was a proximate cause of the Civil War.  And it completely undermines the “we just wanted the Yankees to leave us alone and live our way in the South myth.” Southern slave states were very much in the business of exporting slavery and started the war in large part because they wanted it to grow elsewhere. 

This is such an important point: the banning of importation of slaves turned slaves into a defacto commodity, not just labor.  Planters could get rich selling human flesh, as hard as that is to write, the cotton was almost e secondary.  But that golden market only worked as long as slavery continued to expand into the territories.  The planters, and southern politicians were acutely aware of this. 
 

I mean, If you want to see a text book example of the Capital owning class driving policy, I give you South Carolina.

Edited January 9, 2022 by Bateshorn

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

This is such an important point: the banning of importation of slaves turned slaves into a defacto commodity, not just labor.  Planters could get rich selling human flesh, as hard as that is to write, the cotton was almost e secondary.  But that golden market only worked as long as slavery continued to expand into the territories.  The planters, and southern politicians were acutely aware of this. 
 

I mean, If you want to see a text book example of the Capital owning class driving policy, I give you South Carolina.

Yep. It was evil. And without Lincoln we might still have slavery today and the world is a very different place. The south could have won in the sense that the political motivation to fight might have eventually dissipated. It was not a “lost cause” automatically. It’s why Lincoln was easily our greatest president IMO with Washington a clear second.

So forgive me if I don’t excuse general Robert E Lee and his loyalty to the state of Virginia motivations.

[Poe It Up 126]

16 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

And yet, there was an entire movement of Abolitionists who did know different. Charles Sumner was nearly killed for calling out the South for its secessionist for slavery rhetoric. Thaddeus Stevens saw the true evil and corruption of the South and implored Lincoln to tear it to the studs or it would continue to corrupt every aspect of our culture and society. 

But John Brown was just a crazy terrorist, amirite?

That’s why I said it was important where one was born. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

7 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

That’s why I said it was important where one was born. 

Where one is born does not dictate their morality. It can color their thoughts. There is a difference.

[hobbes2702 12846]

17 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

That’s why I said it was important where one was born. 

Yea we get it. You want to make excuses for evil people.

[Poe It Up 126]

18 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Yea we get it. You want to make excuses for evil people.

I mean, he just named a bunch of northern abolitionists. It’s strange you guys can’t connect the dots there, but I’m resorting to tautology at this point and I have some beers to drink. Cheers. 

[hobbes2702 12846]

18 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

I mean, he just named a bunch of northern abolitionists. It’s strange you guys can’t connect the dots there, but I’m resorting to tautology at this point and I have some beers to drink. Cheers. 

It’s strange that you think people didn’t know slavery was evil just because they lived somewhere 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

7 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Go fuck yourself????

Of course it’s more complicated than that. Do not descend to the stupidity of MAGA-ism, where every complex issue is reduced to simple good/bad, black/white dichotomies. The intellectual sophistry that says to use our current science, culture and education and assume that all of it should have been injected into the minds of people born in 1807 - and accepted - is stupid.

It is common for Surly posters to discuss older family members who have antiquated ideas - some rather loathsome - with a partial pass given to them because they grew up in the 1930s or 40s. It is often said how loving and nice they are save their attitudes on ____.

Now imagine being raised in the 1810s and 20s. The concept of the “United States” as an entity was almost not considered - if primary allegiance to government was concerned. People were defined - by themselves - as citizens of their state. The fact Texans of all people seem to struggle with this baffles me.

Mostly, I hate the anti-intellectualism that creates a simplistic modern evaluation of past events using a modern lens. The kind of stupidity that leads to the greatest anti racism American novel being banned because it has pre-civil war Southerners using “nigger” as a common term. Huck’s internal thought struggle (“All right, then, I'll go to hell” ) to turn in Nigger Jim or not is one of the great and freeing lessons of the masterpiece.

Saying, “Ban Huckleberry Finn. He used the word nigger - It’s not more complicated than that” is about as accurate as your Lee thought process. It’s lazy revisionist thinking using modern metrics that at best are unfair, or at worst antithetical to the point you are trying to make. Lee was not without much deserved blame, but he was no evil cardboard character.

If the men and military leaders he fought against held him in esteem, it might be worth a deeper look. That said, not a fucking statue of him should be in a public square. The UDC can go fuck itself. See again, fuck false revisionist history. UDC is the worst.

Yeah, the nuance is the conception of the United States of America prior to the Civil War.  The modern conception was basically defined BY the Civil War and Lincoln's actions to preserve the Union, thus enshrining it as more important than the constituent states.  And that was not a universal view prior to the war.

Still, Lee presents the dilemma of a military leader following the directions of his civilian leadership without exercising apparently much independent judgment or conscience.  And that is a seemingly perpetual dilemma that we have seen in action within the last couple of years.

The other thing that's staggering to think of today is that even many abolitionists did not believe that "negros" were fully human and entitled to any conception of "equal rights."  Of course, neither were women, exactly.  I read a paper that posited  it wasn't until Darwin that various browns began to be considered scientifically actually humans on par with "whites."  Merely abolishing slavery, while a great blow for humankind, didn't quite solve the fundamental problem of viewing certain humans as inferior.

Edited January 9, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[formermav43 4599]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, the nuance is the conception of the United States of America prior to the Civil War.  The modern conception was basically defined BY the Civil War and Lincoln's actions to preserve the Union, thus enshrining it as more important than the constituent states.  And that was not a universal view prior to the war.

One of the most interesting little pointers to this, I think, is how prior to the Civil War, the United States was a plural noun, but after, it’s singular. The switch from “are” to “is” speaks volumes about how the conception of the Union changed.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

1 minute ago, formermav43 said:

One of the most interesting little pointers to this, I think, is how prior to the Civil War, the United States was a plural noun, but after, it’s singular. The switch from “are” to “is” speaks volumes about how the conception of the Union changed.

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.  That continues to blow my mind.  That's how independent the states were initially regarded.  It could have been applied to the states without much changing the federalism dynamic prior to the Civil War and the 14th Amendment, but the fact that it didn't also speaks volumes about federal-state relations as originally conceived.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

6 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

I don’t care what year it is, owning people should be a simple thing to be against.

 

5 hours ago, Poe It Up said:

People tell themselves that had they been in Lee’s position they’d abandon their family, friends, and the only way of life they’d ever known to fight with the union. They’re wrong, but I get why they want to believe it. 

Fun fact -- the vast majority of Northerners did not meet the call to arms to free the slaves, or because they thought slavery was so evil it must be stamped out. They fought to preserve the Union.

Which is NOT to say that the South did not pick that fight because of slavery. It very much did, under the flimsy cloak of states' rights. (to own slaves)

Nuance, people. 

One very prominent Northern general did: George Thomas. He agonized as long and hard as Lee and came down on the other side. At the time, this was a question on which reasonable minds could disagree, contrary to the modern crowd that thinks they would have easily had the clarity of thought and mortal passion of John Brown -- who was such a sensation because he was so unusual, and who was thought of as a terrorist by some in the North as well -- on an issue the vast majority of Northerners did not think worth fighting or dying over.

And as far as I know that was not why Thomas remained in the US Army. From that day forward he was dead to his family. His portraits were turned against the walls, his letters tossed in the fire unopened. None of them ever spoke to him again. After the war he would send his impoverished sisters money but they would not touch it, denying it came from their brother, because they had no brother. And on hearing that he had accepted a command in the US Army, his old buddy / former West Point student JEB Stuart wrote to his wife that he would like to hang George Thomas for being a traitor to Virginia.

He was regarded with suspicion in the Union army for a time until the Dubs came rolling in and by the end of the war he was one of the most successful and low-key badass generals on either side. (He prevented a total rout at Chickamauga, turned the tide at Chattanooga, and then annihilated Hood's entire army at Nashville and Franklin. One of my backyards as a kid was bounded by an old stone wall that had been a firing line of his. /csb)

He died in 1870 and none of his relatives attended his funeral. 

Sometimes I think the rise of Trumpism has given us this idea we would know bullshit when we saw it back then too, and because many of us have relatives we perceive to be brainwashed, we would function the same way back then, but this fails to acknowledge that the South was a cradle-to-grave slave society. If you think you would have had the balls to declare yourself a Southern abolitionist way back then, take this challenge -- go to a small town diner in East Texas all by yourself when it's super crowded rocking a Nancy Pelosi shirt, and imagine that being your life, day in and day out, with the added bonus that your wife would prob stop fucking you and your parents would cut you off. And then consider yourself lucky you just got dirty looks from the entire room because being an abolitionist in the South of the 1850s could very easily get you tarred and feathered or killed.