Confederate Heroes' Day - Jan 19

[UpperWestside 6136]

On 1/7/2022 at 7:43 AM, 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/

I read that and found it an interesting read. Thank you for posting the link Slorch.

[Bateshorn 9905]

10 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

 

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.  

 

So, I don’t think that anyone is arguing that everyone or even a minority of people in the south should have been abolitionist.  We are merely pointing out that the evils of slavery were well known in its time.  That human bondage was wrong was not a radical concept.  But your point about the social pressures of the time, as well as the ambivalence of many Northern’s to fighting for abolition is well taken.  Had the South Carolinians not had such a hard on to go to war, there is a fair chance the South could have waited out the north and peacefully succeeded, almost certainly becoming an apartheid state in the 20th century. 
 

The fact that George Thomas (who I agree is an absolute bad ass) is largely forgotten by history illustrates the point we are trying to make: that the Civil War has been grossly rehistoried to celebrate the losers.  Fuck, I drive by the NPS site memorializing Stonewall Jackson’s death every fucking time I go down 95 through VA.  Were it not for Ken Burns, Joshua Lawerence Chamberlain would still be forgotten, which is the least Burns could do for allowing Shelby Foote to soft peddle Dunning School themes in the documentary.  
 

Regarding Lee personally, on whose Birthday this holiday is based:  he was actually an enthusiastic and notably cruel slaver who refused to free the slaves of his Father in Law’s estate in contradiction to his will.  That’s not the history I was taught growing up, where gentle Bob Lee was always reluctantly being dragged into this or that unseemly Southern cause and just did it because of his love of Old Virginia. 

Edited January 9, 2022 by Bateshorn

[Poe It Up 126]

3 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

So, I don’t think that anyone is arguing that everyone or even a minority of people in the south should have been abolitionist.  We are merely pointing out that the evils of slavery were well known in its time.  That human bondage was wrong was not a radical concept.  But your point about the social pressures of the time, as well as the ambivalence of many Northern’s to fighting for abolition is well taken.  Had the South Carolinians not had such a hard on to go to war, there is a fair chance the South could have waited out the north and peacefully succeeded, almost certainly becoming an apartheid state in the 20th century. 
 

The fact that George Thomas (who I agree is an absolute bad ass) is largely forgotten by history illustrates the point we are trying to make: that the Civil War has been grossly rehistoried to celebrate the losers.  Fuck, I drive by the NPS site memorializing Stonewall Jackson’s death every fucking time I go down 95 through VA.  Were it not for Ken Burns, Joshua Lawerence Chamberlain would still be forgotten, which is the least Burns could do for allowing Shelby Foote to soft peddle Dunning School themes in the documentary.  
 

Regarding Lee personally, on whose Birthday this holiday is based:  he was actually an enthusiastic and notably cruel slaver who refused to free the slaves of his Father in Law’s estate in contradiction to his will.  That’s not the history I was taught growing up, where gentle Bob Lee was always reluctantly being dragged into this or that unseemly Southern cause and just did it because of his love of Old Virginia. 

This is an informative post. One has to also add in the fact that much of America didn’t view slaves as human. They were viewed as somewhere in between human and ape. It’s upsetting to view it from that angle, but it gives one insight into why slavery was so easily rationalized by so many. 

[Brisketexan 104628]

Some key truths here:

1) Lee, like most all historical figures, was complicated. There’s definitely some good, but his image has for over a century been whitewashed to ignore some obvious bad.

2) Lee was not lionized in the south from post-civil war to the 1960s (with statues and memorials going up through that time) because he was a great tactician, man of honor, or any of that. It was done as a monument to the false narrative of the Noble Lost Cause and a reminder to black people in the Jim Crow south who really runs shit around here.

3) It’s easy to think that you, had you lived in the antebellum south, would have opposed slavery. It’s also probably wrong. If you were a member of the ruling economic class, you almost certainly would have fought to preserve it, for selfish economic reasons, rationalizing it 1,000 different ways. And yes, I include myself in that group. Humans will rationalize an excuse for some seriously awful shit if it’s in their self-interest.

4) doesn’t matter what they thought then or why, the leaders of the CSA were fucking traitors, and a country shouldn’t have memorials and shit honoring traitors. Sure as shit shouldn’t have a holiday for them. Want to honor all the poor schlubs who got called, served, and died, even if it was for the wrong side? Say a prayer on Memorial Day. The same as maybe you should for some poor German or Japanese PFC who just did his duty and got killed, and his mom got the same heartbreaking telegram that comes with dying in a war that someone else decided you should fight in. They sure as shit don’t have statues all over Germany “teaching the history” of Nazi leadership. Fuck those guys.

[Sawbonz 27436]

Almost everyone on this website would have been the guys in this song or their yank counterparts

 

 

and after the war was over if you survived you’d go back to dirt farming, likely displacing/killing natives to do so and not giving a fuck about them 

 

[Bateshorn 9905]

49 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Almost everyone on this website would have been the guys in this song or their yank counterparts

 

 

and after the war was over if you survived you’d go back to dirt farming, likely displacing/killing natives to do so and not giving a fuck about them 

 

A. That’s such a great song and album.  I think of it everytime I cross McCulloch Ave in San Antonio. 
 

B. Fun fact: The tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic was originally John Brown’s Body. Which was tune Union Troops sung as they headed into battle. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

21 hours ago, Poe It Up said:

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

No not really. The vast majority of white southerners didn’t own people. Which is why their support of the civil war was even more stupid than the dipshits who ransacked the capitol a year ago since a whole lot more of them got killed fighting to preserve the slave owners potential profits. The idiots at the capitol just wanted their joke of a president to keep his job after being outright lied to and they’re too stupid to see it. 
 

160 years later and the white man/woman still hasn’t figured out who is actually screwing them over. Here’s a hint though. It ain’t the blacks, browns, and immigrants. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

5 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

 We are merely pointing out that the evils of slavery were well known in its time.  That human bondage was wrong was not a radical concept. 

For certain. The Haitian Revolution and the events surrounding it was not unknown to them and that fear held sway for a long time. The former slaves showed as little mercy for their foes as the plantation owners had shown them and fought ferociously (apparently the French were under the same delusion as southern history schoolbooks have been in believing that black persons were happiest enslaved.)

[Poe It Up 126]

45 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

No not really. The vast majority of white southerners didn’t own people. Which is why their support of the civil war was even more stupid than the dipshits who ransacked the capitol a year ago since a whole lot more of them got killed fighting to preserve the slave owners potential profits. The idiots at the capitol just wanted their joke of a president to keep his job after being outright lied to and they’re too stupid to see it. 
 

160 years later and the white man/woman still hasn’t figured out who is actually screwing them over. Here’s a hint though. It ain’t the blacks, browns, and immigrants. 

My point was mostly directed towards the southern milieu of that time, rather than the number of slave owners. Once you realize that they viewed slaves as subhuman, you can begin to understand why slavery was met with an insouciant shrug. 

[pyrohornIII 4809]

4 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Almost everyone on this website would have been the guys in this song or their yank counterparts

 

 

and after the war was over if you survived you’d go back to dirt farming, likely displacing/killing natives to do so and not giving a fuck about them 

 

 

3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

No not really. The vast majority of white southerners didn’t own people. Which is why their support of the civil war was even more stupid than the dipshits who ransacked the capitol a year ago since a whole lot more of them got killed fighting to preserve the slave owners potential profits. The idiots at the capitol just wanted their joke of a president to keep his job after being outright lied to and they’re too stupid to see it. 
 

160 years later and the white man/woman still hasn’t figured out who is actually screwing them over. Here’s a hint though. It ain’t the blacks, browns, and immigrants. 

 

What percentage of Southerners owned fewer than 10 slaves quizlet? (from google)

one-quarter of all white families in the south owned slaves nearly half owned fewer than five slaves and nearly three-quarters had fewer than ten slaves. only 12 percent owned twenty or more slaves, and only 1 percent had a hundred or more.

 

So many people still fighting for that 1%.  Still fighting that civil war and wanting to reignite it.   It's always been about a very few getting grotesquely wealthy off the backs of whoever they can subjugate.  And no matter how much they change the way they do it, they have always fired up the dumbasses who will fight for those rich fucks rights to rape our country and whoever they want.  'Murica!

[Helobious 9481]

On 1/8/2022 at 5:30 PM, 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. 

Some southern states had almost half of their population as enslaved people. So actually the chances are pretty decent that he would’ve been opposed to slavery had he been magically reborn into that time. You forget to account for the experience of the slaves. They were human beings as well, and actually accounted for a very large chunk of the total southern population. 

[Helobious 9481]

And yes I know for census purposes they weren’t fully counted. Doesn’t change the fact that they were there.

[atomheartbevo 89449]

5 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Almost everyone on this website would have been the guys in this song or their yank counterparts

and after the war was over if you survived you’d go back to dirt farming, likely displacing/killing natives to do so and not giving a fuck about them 

Sir, this is SurlyHorns.com, no BogJumpingIrishmen.com.

[atomheartbevo 89449]

3 hours ago, Poe It Up said:

My point was mostly directed towards the southern milieu of that time, rather than the number of slave owners. Once you realize that they viewed slaves as subhuman, you can begin to understand why slavery was met with an insouciant shrug. 

One need only read this little line in the third paragraph of Texas's Declaration of Causes from February of 1861, to see the attitude you are talking about:

"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."

But it doesn't stop there, the next few sentences:

"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?"

Pretty fucking damning and a clear obsession with maintaining slavery and a clear distinction between slave-holding states and non-slave-holding states, but I have actually seen people try to spin that as not being what it says, that we are interpreting what the Texas leaders in 1861 were saying with our 21st century views.

I've also seen a MAGA fan say that we shouldn't teach that in Texas schools, because it makes the whites sound bad, and that we don't understand what things were like in the 1860s.  You know, CRT or whatever the buzzword they are using these days is.

[atomheartbevo 89449]

The Texas Declaration of Causes reads like us joining the SEC in the 2020s.

[Guest Lobo]

That awkward moment, even in 2022, when the Vanguard doesn't know it's the Vanguard...because it's White.  

Y'all hardcore MAGA folks on here are lucky.  You're smarter, more educated, wealthier...than most of your colleagues.  They don't know what you've already realized.  

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

11 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

So, I don’t think that anyone is arguing that everyone or even a minority of people in the south should have been abolitionist.  We are merely pointing out that the evils of slavery were well known in its time.  That human bondage was wrong was not a radical concept.

I would argue that you are probably right, but only at the level of the middle class (almost non existent in the South) and above, especially not in the South. 

My great-grandfather took down his dad's life story about a year before the elder man died circa 1890. I say "took it down" because the old guy was illiterate, like so many of his time and place -- the Old South, 1820-90. James spent the first 30 years of his life picking cotton, rose to the level of overseer (hated by Blacks and Whites alike), and eventually managed to acquire a Mississippi tanyard and two slaves -- an elderly married couple who were capable still of sitting down and making shoes. The War came along soon enough and swept away his little empire and our family came to Texas during early Reconstruction, in no small part because he was openly racist. He said something about not wanting his children to grow up around free Blacks. While that sounds terrible, what he might have meant is "under the domination of free Blacks," as the part of Mississippi they lived in was majority Black then and that entire county is virtually all Black today. He chose a part of Texas -- Bosque County -- deliberately because there were very few Blacks there.

He seemed to have typified that dictum -- "in the North, they love the Black race, but hate the individual, and in the South they love the individual and hate the race," because once in Texas he hired a local Black teenage boy who soon enough became something very much like part of the family with his own kids.

So, he was openly racist on the big issues but James absolutely hated slavery. Again and again he came back to that in his mini-memoir, and yet he owned two. That is because he hated slavery-- and I do believe most White men of his time, class and place hated slavery -- not because it was immoral or wrong or out of a shared sense of humanity like some in the chattering classes up North did but simply because it fucked him, a poor White man, over good and hard.

He could not fairly compete against free in the labor market. What seemed to eat at him even more was how the slaveholders looked down their noses on people like him, as if the mere fact they owned Black people made them better than those who did not. This in addition to the wealth it afforded them enabled them and not him to educate their kids.

His kid brother with whom he picked cotton for decades managed to escape his class by marrying a slaveholding widow who...well, let's say it's like "no pics" would be a blessing here if she settled for trash like him. Anyway all of a sudden lil' bro is strutting around like the cock of the walk even those he was a callus-handed cottonpicker still...He wound up commanding a company of home guards during the war and James deserted at the first chance he could. He was about 45 and being bossed around by his shithead brother, fighting for a cause he hated. I bet slipping out of that camp felt awesome. It did kind of suck later when his widow -- who outlived him by 25 or 30 years --  could not get a Confederate pension but so be it. Blood money.  

Anyway, nowhere did he ever question the morality of slavery and I don't believe that I've ever heard of an example of anyone from the Southern po' white trash who did. They didn't have the time to parse through the morals of it and likely in many cases probably never even had been presented with the cases against it in any detail. To them it was Just the Way Things Were. 

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

You had some abolitionists who believed in the cause of full equality for Blacks, up to and including intermarriage. That was kind of considered lunatic fringe even by most abolitionists. And you had other abolitionists who were quite racist -- while slavery was wrong, they wanted to return the slaves to the land of their ancestors or ship them off to Central America because they were not and should never be considered equal to the White man. They were inherently inferior beings. Up until the last few months of his life Abe Lincoln was in this camp. 

As usual, Sam Houston had strange views on the subject. He believed in the full equality of Black people, and Native Americans (of course), and yet he owned 12 slaves. It is written that he treated them very well (I've seen first-hand testimony from at least one of them) but it's a very strange philosophy to try to wrap your head around today. Is it more damning to believe in the equality of the people you own? 

 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5784]

In middle school, playing a Civil War game, I knew better than to send 9 infantry brigades across open field under artillery fire. In middle school! I demand monuments and schools named in my honor. 

[Guest Lobo]

My first "real" history class, 6th grade with Mr. Hays.  This was in Illinois.  He fucking let the South have it when we got to the chapter on the Civil War.  I mean, he spent days stripping away the mythology about States Rights, War of Northern Aggression, fight to expand slavery into the territories/new states because their economy was on the ropes.  I just remember thinking, "how in the hell are these confederate sympathizer people still allowed to be in America?"  

To be fair, when we got to the chapters on the settling of Illinois, the displacement of Native tribes, French & Indian War, etc.  We spent about half of one class on all, conveniently glossing over every single atrocity and moved right into "Land of Lincoln"  

[bolverk 29402]

Late to the party, but I'm going to pushback a little bit on the notion that pro-secession sentiments was near-universal across the south (though I don't doubt they were the minority). For instance, the public referendum to uphold the legislature's decision to secede was 44,317 (77%) for secession and 13,020 (23%) to remain loyal to the union. Yes, that's an overwhelming majority, but it is also notable that only 9.5% of the population actually voted (by comparison 38.8% of Texans voted in the 2020 election). I don't know exactly who all was allowed to vote in that 1861 referendum, but I suspect that it was only white, male landowners so not exactly representative of the total population. If that's the case, one-quarter of the state's upper- and upper-middle class were already opposed.

Moreover, there absolutely were pockets within the state that opposed secession, especially Central Texas and most of the counties along the Red River.

 

And, looking across the south, there's a strong likelihood you'd be opposed to secession if you were from Appalachia.

 

I know you guys already knew most of that, but I just needed to chime in with some data and maps.

[Brisketexan 104628]

33 minutes ago, Lobo said:

My first "real" history class, 6th grade with Mr. Hays.  This was in Illinois.  He fucking let the South have it when we got to the chapter on the Civil War.  I mean, he spent days stripping away the mythology about States Rights, War of Northern Aggression, fight to expand slavery into the territories/new states because their economy was on the ropes.  I just remember thinking, "how in the hell are these confederate sympathizer people still allowed to be in America?"  

To be fair, when we got to the chapters on the settling of Illinois, the displacement of Native tribes, French & Indian War, etc.  We spent about half of one class on all, conveniently glossing over every single atrocity and moved right into "Land of Lincoln"  

Summary - folks are really good at condemning the sins of others, but not their own sins.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

59 minutes ago, Lobo said:

My first "real" history class, 6th grade with Mr. Hays.  This was in Illinois.  He fucking let the South have it when we got to the chapter on the Civil War.  I mean, he spent days stripping away the mythology about States Rights, War of Northern Aggression, fight to expand slavery into the territories/new states because their economy was on the ropes.  I just remember thinking, "how in the hell are these confederate sympathizer people still allowed to be in America?"  

To be fair, when we got to the chapters on the settling of Illinois, the displacement of Native tribes, French & Indian War, etc.  We spent about half of one class on all, conveniently glossing over every single atrocity and moved right into "Land of Lincoln"  

Black Hawk. Treaty of 1804. Shameful.

I hear ya.

[Nivek 16861]

2 hours ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

In middle school, playing a Civil War game, I knew better than to send 9 infantry brigades across open field under artillery fire. In middle school! I demand monuments and schools named in my honor. 

did you care about your soldiers? Shit the charging of overlapping machine gun nests shows that callousness towards troops lives was very limited.  They were cheap, conscripts and poors.  

[Guest Lobo]

That's how I won Axis & Allies so many times growing up.  When you just tell yourself your infantry are just Waffen SS conscripted from Romania and Italy...it's a lot easier to send them in front or larger, motorized divisions even though Luftwaffen air support isn't available because you wisely moved it towards Normandy.  

[Poe It Up 126]

58 minutes ago, Lobo said:

My first "real" history class, 6th grade with Mr. Hays.  This was in Illinois.  He fucking let the South have it when we got to the chapter on the Civil War.  I mean, he spent days stripping away the mythology about States Rights, War of Northern Aggression, fight to expand slavery into the territories/new states because their economy was on the ropes.  I just remember thinking, "how in the hell are these confederate sympathizer people still allowed to be in America?"  

To be fair, when we got to the chapters on the settling of Illinois, the displacement of Native tribes, French & Indian War, etc.  We spent about half of one class on all, conveniently glossing over every single atrocity and moved right into "Land of Lincoln"  

They’re allowed to stay because the north was a gracious victor in many regards. Had a foreign nation been handling the terms it would have probably been more harsh, but it was a family affair after all. 
 

But it would really depend on what sympathizers you’re referring to I suppose. Most of the morons waving the Confederate flag on TV have no idea it was a battle flag and was never recognized as a representation of the Confederacy in any capacity. I’ve met a few individuals that can trace their relatives to a certain regiment and are constantly poring over new documents looking for specific names. I can tell they’re excited about their heritage and feel a certain connection to the events that transpired. There’s nothing particularly sinister about the latter group and they seem to be much more numerous, albeit rather silent. 

[Guest Lobo]

Good points again I was like 11 when we first learned the real weight of the Civil War, so my opinions on it were mainly sculpted by that first class.  A brilliant a history buff was my father was, his only opinion on the Civil War was "Slavery is wrong.  Lee and Grants are overrated incompetents.  Now be quiet, I've gotta read my 37th biography on Rommel."  

I can trace relatives to exact ships in the WWII Kriegsmarine.  But "excited about heritage and feeling a certain connection to the events that transpired" are not how I'd describe the discovery.  But you can't help you're related to, I suppose.  

[Crapinon 2250]

22 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

They’re allowed to stay because the north was a gracious victor in many regards. Had a foreign nation been handling the terms it would have probably been more harsh, but it was a family affair after all. 
 

But it would really depend on what sympathizers you’re referring to I suppose. Most of the morons waving the Confederate flag on TV have no idea it was a battle flag and was never recognized as a representation of the Confederacy in any capacity. I’ve met a few individuals that can trace their relatives to a certain regiment and are constantly poring over new documents looking for specific names. I can tell they’re excited about their heritage and feel a certain connection to the events that transpired. There’s nothing particularly sinister about the latter group and they seem to be much more numerous, albeit rather silent. 

While doing some genealogy, I discovered that my great grandfather fought in a Texas Confederate unit and did participate in a few battles. I do not understand why, other than some sense of obligation to the south. He was  a dirt poor tenant farmer who didn't even own his own land much less another human being. And if you really want to read something batshit crazy...... this discovery caused me to look at The Sons of Confederate Veterans website. My wife qualifies as a DAR and I thought "why not?" heritage and all. That is until I started reading their beliefs. They still reference "The Catechism of the Confederacy" as their reference point of all things Civil War. It's some of the biggest revisionist diatribe I have ever read. Look it up if your not familiar with it. I don't know how it could be accepted when it was written in the 20's much less today.                                                                                                         And back to the point of the OP; we sell some items to public schools. A few years ago a custodian came in on MLK day wanting to pick some stuff up. I asked him why he was working on a holiday. He told me he was taking off on Robert E Lee's birthday instead though he wouldn't really say why. Not like we couldn't read between the lines. 

[wildcat09 29258]

One of my favorite things about this conversation every time it comes up is how quickly the "personal responsibility" crowd reverts to "all his friends were doing it!" to justify Lee committing treason.

[wildcat09 29258]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

Late to the party, but I'm going to pushback a little bit on the notion that pro-secession sentiments was near-universal across the south (though I don't doubt they were the minority). For instance, the public referendum to uphold the legislature's decision to secede was 44,317 (77%) for secession and 13,020 (23%) to remain loyal to the union. Yes, that's an overwhelming majority, but it is also notable that only 9.5% of the population actually voted (by comparison 38.8% of Texans voted in the 2020 election). I don't know exactly who all was allowed to vote in that 1861 referendum, but I suspect that it was only white, male landowners so not exactly representative of the total population. If that's the case, one-quarter of the state's upper- and upper-middle class were already opposed.

Moreover, there absolutely were pockets within the state that opposed secession, especially Central Texas and most of the counties along the Red River.

 

And, looking across the south, there's a strong likelihood you'd be opposed to secession if you were from Appalachia.

 

I know you guys already knew most of that, but I just needed to chime in with some data and maps.

This is a very important point that is usually forgotten in these conversations. When we think of the old south that became the confederacy, we're usually thinking about the economic and social elites: the planters, the military officers, etc. But we forget that nearly 40% of the southern population was black. Black people were actually the majority in Mississippi. And there were plenty of poor whites who didn't own slaves and hated slavery (and of course plenty more who supported it). When people say shit like "everyone in the south supported slavery so you can't blame Lee!" they're eliminating a majority of southerners who lived at the time from history so they can feel more comfortable defending Lee. 

We can recognize, as Brisket does above, that the economic and social pressures were real without whitewashing history. Generations of Americans have already done way too much of that. 

[F250 28691]

On 1/8/2022 at 5:45 PM, 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. 

I read John Wesley's journal years ago and the one thing that stood out was his trip to America,  the Georgia colony. It was then that he first encountered slavery and considered it to be abhorrent. He made an attempt to appeal to some religious leaders to speak against slavery but they all refused and explained that it was an economic necessity. This was around 1730 or so. He would later write "Thougts Upon Slavery" which debunks the justifications for slavery two years prior to the Declaration of Independence.

I agree that the "necessary evil" justification goes back to the beginning of American slavery. The justification existed because they knew it was wrong. Although I would add that overtime a cultural relativism in the South took hold and blinded and continues to blind Southerners to the immoral heritage of the South.

[Pig Bellmont 8692]

3 hours ago, Lobo said:

My first "real" history class, 6th grade with Mr. Hays.  This was in Illinois.  He fucking let the South have it when we got to the chapter on the Civil War.  I mean, he spent days stripping away the mythology about States Rights, War of Northern Aggression, fight to expand slavery into the territories/new states because their economy was on the ropes.  I just remember thinking, "how in the hell are these confederate sympathizer people still allowed to be in America?"  

To be fair, when we got to the chapters on the settling of Illinois, the displacement of Native tribes, French & Indian War, etc.  We spent about half of one class on all, conveniently glossing over every single atrocity and moved right into "Land of Lincoln"  

My 8th grade history teacher called the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression and referred to the Confederacy as “we”.   

[GhostOfTomJoad 9308]

Mrs GOTJ works at DSHS. Her office is always a skeleton crew for this "holiday." She's never once taken the day off because, in her words, "fuck the racist traitors."

God I love that gal.

['stache 21774]

When is Red-Coat Celebration day? Aren't there plenty of folks with British ancestry who want to celebrate their epic loss?

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

I read John Wesley's journal years ago and the one thing that stood out was his trip to America,  the Georgia colony. It was then that he first encountered slavery and considered it to be abhorrent. He made an attempt to appeal to some religious leaders to speak against slavery but they all refused and explained that it was an economic necessity. This was around 1730 or so. He would later write "Thougts Upon Slavery" which debunks the justifications for slavery two years prior to the Declaration of Independence.

I agree that the "necessary evil" justification goes back to the beginning of American slavery. The justification existed because they knew it was wrong. Although I would add that overtime a cultural relativism in the South took hold and blinded and continues to blind Southerners to the immoral heritage of the South.

Georgia was the only one of the 13 Colonies to have banned slavery. General Oglethorpe wanted his debtors and other petty criminals to work with their own two hands and he knew all to well the sort of societies slavery ended up creating -- tiny elites with many slaves, a small middle class with a few, and then a bunch of superfluous white trash at the bottom. There was also a strategic concern -- Georgia was a buffer against Spanish Florida and slaves inherently caused instability by running away and occasionally revolting. So from 1735, the year of Oglethorpe's decree to 1751, when it was overturned by the Crown, there very few slaves in Georgia. As the economy became more and more dependent on rice, slavery became more and more prevalent, and then along came Eli Whitney....

[Biff Tannen 45499]

5 hours ago, bolverk said:

Late to the party, but I'm going to pushback a little bit on the notion that pro-secession sentiments was near-universal across the south (though I don't doubt they were the minority). For instance, the public referendum to uphold the legislature's decision to secede was 44,317 (77%) for secession and 13,020 (23%) to remain loyal to the union. Yes, that's an overwhelming majority, but it is also notable that only 9.5% of the population actually voted (by comparison 38.8% of Texans voted in the 2020 election). I don't know exactly who all was allowed to vote in that 1861 referendum, but I suspect that it was only white, male landowners so not exactly representative of the total population. If that's the case, one-quarter of the state's upper- and upper-middle class were already opposed.

Moreover, there absolutely were pockets within the state that opposed secession, especially Central Texas and most of the counties along the Red River.

 

And, looking across the south, there's a strong likelihood you'd be opposed to secession if you were from Appalachia.

 

I know you guys already knew most of that, but I just needed to chime in with some data and maps.

God Florida has always sucked.  Get your shit together Florida!

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

2 hours ago, Crapinon said:

While doing some genealogy, I discovered that my great grandfather fought in a Texas Confederate unit and did participate in a few battles. I do not understand why, other than some sense of obligation to the south. He was  a dirt poor tenant farmer who didn't even own his own land much less another human being. And if you really want to read something batshit crazy...... this discovery caused me to look at The Sons of Confederate Veterans website. My wife qualifies as a DAR and I thought "why not?" heritage and all. That is until I started reading their beliefs. They still reference "The Catechism of the Confederacy" as their reference point of all things Civil War. It's some of the biggest revisionist diatribe I have ever read. Look it up if your not familiar with it. I don't know how it could be accepted when it was written in the 20's much less today.                                                                                                         And back to the point of the OP; we sell some items to public schools. A few years ago a custodian came in on MLK day wanting to pick some stuff up. I asked him why he was working on a holiday. He told me he was taking off on Robert E Lee's birthday instead though he wouldn't really say why. Not like we couldn't read between the lines. 

My great-great-great grandfather was killed in 1863 fighting for the Union Army. He was a private, and enlisted in Arkansas. Arkansas was a Confederate state but there were a few regiments that were formed for the Union. My 3xgreat-grandmother, his widow, hailed from Tennessee where she and her siblings were born, and her brothers also fought for the Union, one rising to the rank of major. One of her sisters was a war widow as well; her husband died as a POW in Andersonville Prison. Family here and overseas were working on the documents and I never forget sitting down with my mother when she showed me the copies of various service records that had come in the mail.

That map above showing the succession votes tells some of the story, but not all of it. 

[RomaVicta 29794]

On 1/6/2022 at 12:55 PM, Poe It Up said:

Robert E. Lee was definitely one. He was wildly popular on the other side as well and it was not unusual for him to sign autographs when he visited up north. 

I like using the autograph seeking standard for heroism.

OJ Simpson makes the cut.

We should get rid of this old holiday or rename it Harriet Tubman Day.

Quote

Harriet Tubman was an American abolitionist and political activist. Born into slavery, Tubman escaped and subsequently made some 13 missions to rescue approximately 70 enslaved people, including family and friends, using the network of antislavery activists and safe houses known as the Underground Railroad.

I knew her name but not what she did until I watched a movie in the last few years. The amount of courage it took to return to a slave state as a wanted black woman is basically beyond my comprehension. It's Congressional Medal of Honor level courage.

The romanticization of The Cause is far more dangerous a distortion of history than any alleged "cancel culture" issues from the right.