Confederate History Month

Although states rights entered into it, slavery was the big deal. The abolutionist in the North fueled the flames that led to war.

I know you probably don't think much of it, but while a student at the University of Houston I took a Civil War history course my last semester, and this is what I was taught.

 

I know you probably don't think much of it, but I earned two grad degrees in history and taught at both the college and high school levels for several years.

One of my mentors was a man named Harold Moore and, in addition to being considered one of the creators of the Air Cavalry, was reknowned for his observations on the Civil War and it's causes.

 

Rather They Celebrate It Openly...

... than covertly! We all know that a lot of southerners look to the Confederacy, and even wish it would rise again. There seems to be know more harm in celebrating it than there is in celebrating, St. Patrick, Jewish holidays, Christian holidays, Black history, Hispanic history, or, Gay Pride.

There is a tremendous amount of national tradition and pride in the Confederacy, and I'd respect their pride openly, rather than have them go "underground!".

I am Pastor Paul, and I approve this message, and certify it to be true and honest in accordance with my understanding of the question and how I really feel! I do not believe that there is anything dishonest, or,pre- fabricated in this response.:thumbs:

 

Well I was taught in college that the Egyptian kingdom began in 5,000 B.C. but I know that isn't true.

 

It is obvious to me that most of the posters did not read the 'continued' link on Poncho's post #3..... or else they chose to disregard it. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/civilwar.html

Salty posted a similar topic under the History section on BB.
http://www.slavenorth.com/index.html
http://www.rulen.com/myths/

It is not that people here aren't educated or can't form an opinion.... But that much of what information has been popularly made available to them through textbooks and media has mis-informed them so that their points of view are tainted with the deceptions provided to them for this purpose.

People.... visit the above links.... and then return with your opinions... if it doesn't make you too mad to think. We've all been duped and used!

 

I am not saying you are wrong, but I guess our professors disagree. You and I both know that different historians say different things. One thing is certain, it took both elements to produce the Civil War, in my opinion.

 

Robert..... I beg of you Pleeeeeeeeeeeezeeee! Read the 2nd and 3rd links I posted just above your post....... and then..... return and comment.


I had history in 5th grade in Virginia. Then American History in college as an elective 'audited' course not required in my major about 1968.... The history today is being taught differently from what it was at that time.... and at that time it was deceptively biased. The further we get from the original events... the more they are subjected to selection or omissions and the more difficult it is for the average Jo to search out and find the original autographs which would tell or expose the whole of the truth. However, the farther we get, provided we don't wait too long to ask the right questions, the greater the likelihood that someone has asked the same questions and found the resources and put the puzzles together which were omitted from our own text books. Just because those inquiries never met with popular favor by publishers or media.... doesn't disprove them from being resourceful in exposing truths and facts which were omitted to conform to the politically correct thought of that time or this.

 

Interesting articles, but I'm not sure it is correct. It seems everyone is seeing what they want to see in this war.

 

Native Americans celebrate their history and traditions, as they have every right to do. No one has a problem with it. I believe it is only the descendents of Confederates who are not allowed to take pride in their heritage.

You are mistaken. Pontiac received arms and supplies from the French. The quote is from a book titled the Conspiricy of Pontiac. It has been a few years, so that's as much as I can tell you.

Yes, I'm pretty sure Salty was making a joke pastor.

Two weeks? I could be doughnut starved by then.

 

I looked at the info on your links. It's standard, "the North was just as bad," propaganda. I agree that the racism and slavery of the North was inexcusable, but that places them on par with... oh, yes, the South.

People who defend the South against the Northern War of Aggression, miss the entire point of liberty. Without genuine freedom for all, freedom is a mere cliche, semantic, or bumper sticker. IMHO, it doesn't matter about the legality or Constitutional basis of the war namely because there's no Constitutional basis for the Constitution. (Such would create infinite regress.) Rebellion was the background of our liberty, not pedantic legalese.

No, we haven't.

ETA: the same logic (natural rights) that condemns the North's burdensome regulatory system also condemns taxation whole cloth. Curiously I have yet to meet a Southerner consistently libertarian enough to make this connection.

 

I see on this board.... two opposing view points... one by Robert Snow and the other by JohnDeereFan. The former states he took a course in college on the CW and agrees with you. The latter one indicates he has a graduate degree in History..... and a strength in his education was the particular interest of a professor who made the CW a special focus of study. I'd say your opinion and position is based solely on a limited exposure of the subject as taught to you by a liberal education which already contained bias in the weight it gives and the omissions. You can hardly call it an education when you've accepted what you've been taught and dismiss consideration of other accounts; you've accepted the propaganda you wish to embrace and limit your view point.

 

windcatcher, I'd love to respond to you more fully, but of the above post are you quoting me and you, or me and another poster, or who? Someone's comments are mixed in with mine.

I *think* the comments in the quoted section may be yours and mine but I'm not sure since your comments also come afterwords. The whole "Originally posted by Ivon Denosovich" tag gets kinda confused in my mind. (FWIW, this is not a complaint... just pondering.)

As to something that I know you wrote:

As I've noted before, this logic is as irrefutable as A=C, and B=C, therefore A=B. Also, it's just as vague and, dare I say, pointless. Yes, "propaganda" fits firmly in the Bad Things category. What doesn't fit so firmly is an objective standard to determine it. (And please don't quote the Bible here as the Bible says nothing about the Civil War.) In your quest against propaganda propagating, you sorta sound like the moral relativist breathlessly announcing, "There are no absolutes," with no sense of self-awareness. Just shy of omniscience, the chance of being wrong is the risk we run when forming an opinion. The sole alternative is apathy. <shrug> I prefer the risk of being wrong. Brand me human. You can call it propaganda, brain washing, what-have-you, I call it a plausible perspective. It seems sanctimonious to suggest that simply because someone looks at your evidence and disagrees with it his doing so somehow implies ignorance. Contrarily, the mere act of dissent requires knowledge of the information being dissented with and whatever else that is, ignorance it is not. And it seems disingenuous to label an alternative perspective "propaganda" simply because it's "limited". By that standard, only Unitarians and Monists hold the epistemological high ground... and I doubt either of us would echo such a sentiment.

Also, you flirt with philosophy here:

Good question. Great question even! Only one doesn't have to limit the query to geography. One can consistently broaden the context (as I do) against coercion in general. The REAL(er) QUESTION is this: Excluding self defense, at what point is one human being justified in the use of force against another? I answer that emphatically with a big fat, "Never!" It's not that I disagree with your stance against the Union Army, per se. Yes, the North tragically violated human rights in the war. And if we stop there we have a half-truth. I'm trying to hold to your line of reasoning as consistently as possible. Consequentially, I don't have a fave.

As to your complaint about modern education providing no balance in its treatment of the war, I fully agree. But I don't think the remedy is hundred proof Confederate sites demonizing the North. Same coin, different side.

Always a pleasure, Ma'am. :wavey:

 

The confederacy died over a hundred years ago.
I agree that slavery was not the main issue for Northerners.

That said, I'm glad the South lost. I love the UNITED states of America.

BTW....my great-great grandfather fought for the South, he was a Doctor who owned one slave. I am a proud Mississippi native.

 

With or without slavery ? Which BTW was UN-CHRISTIAN but justified because of reading bible verses in isolation from, rather than conversation with, the rest of the story.

 

ID, yes, you are correct that the internalized quotes are my responses: I didn't mean to mislead you or anyone.... its just that I've found this method to be easier and more efficient to reply than.... say.... using color coding, different sizes etc... when I can merely hit the 'quote' icon... insert my reply... and go from there to the next phrase. However, I forgot to initial each ....which I try to do sometimes...

Yes, this was somewhat of a 'philosophical' interlude of thought: Though I presented it as relating to the CW, it is also on my mind related to the 'justice' of other wars... recent and past... and how so many of them have been driven more by the pretense of a 'moral' or 'higher' good..... when the outcome does not prove this. (Dare I interrupt this discussion by mentioning WWII... where WE WON or WWII would not have been won without us..... but the European Countries did not go back to their original heads but were divided into a communist block.... or where we allowed thousands of Russian soldiers who were prisoners of war by virtue of their surrenders.... to be returned to a certain death by their own government.... or failed to secure the repatriation of our own POWs... over 6000 and abandoned them to the USSR. Or how we encouraged the defeat of the Chinese nationalist to the Communist by withholding supplies which were already paid for and promised and embargoes....... or where we've interfered in SA to have dictatorial and communist regimes replace those which were before... or in Iran... where our interventions aided the discrediting of the Shaw and brought in a regime which is our enemy... or Saudi Arabia... who 'as a friend' we've allied with but also provided text books for their schools which promote their extremist Islamic religion.... and adds to the tension and the security of their own government with its people... maintaining a dependency upon our presence in the middle east for their own security.)

I think, if I read your last post correctly, that you and I both agree on one issue and that is that the subject of the CW, the causes leading to and the cause held responsible for entering it and maintaining it..... and the moralizing of the war as solely based on the South's position on slavery vs the North's presumed innocence regarding slavery and justice for the black man.... are not fairly presented in the text books from which most public education depends and individual opinion and discussion is often derived.

Not everyone is as fortunate to have the perspective which helps them view more than the singular side which was taught them in school. Some have acquired broader understandings through their own research. I'm pleased that you can see this..... and, I think, we are both agreed that there is no justice in slavery...regardless of what other pov we have.



For me... the studies were biased even in Virgina texts in 1958, and more so in American History text in college ten years later. The conflict which I acquired over this issue was the discrepancies between teachings and experience: the later I noticed both in interactions between black and white and family folk lore passed down to me from grandparents who were already aged but of clear intellect who lived into their 90's until I was grown,.... one set in NW Florida, and the other in tobacco country of NC piedmont.

I still remember elderly descendants of slaves bringing their children and grandchildren to visit my grandparents, who were quite restricted by health from getting around.... visiting with them and eating at their table.... and us children playing together.... and being told to keep quiet during their conversations as with any other visitor.... and to use titles of Mr. and Mrs. or.... when told a first name to at least add 'aunt' or 'uncle' to it in difference of respect for their age and wisdom.

Both sets of grandparents and the one pair of great-grand parents (FL) lived in the country, so blacks and whites were community and neighbors, and I can't say that we saw the justice in the rules of segregation which seemed to make a difference in the urban and metro areas of the country.

In Virginia, we lived in a suburban area of my childhood, surrounded by neighbors who had moved, some with bitterness, from the heart of Norfolk into the county because of integration into their neighborhood.... this was the mid-50's. I caught on to some of their prejudice.... but I didn't understand it. Then we moved to Florida.

The media portrayed the civil rights movements of the 60's in inflammatory terms, and it was hard to understand that the social experience in the country between black and white could be so different from what was reported on t.v. and in the papers, but it was: Just like my experience in Norfolk exposed me to white flight and prejudice based on color...... I can barely imagine how much more the black felt the sensitivity of his color in the response of others when he went from the rural area of country with white and black neighbors and friends to the urban or city where he could only eat in certain restaurants, sit in certain places, drink from certain fountains, or go to bathrooms marked 'colored' .... if any existed at all, and where he was resented when competing for jobs or housing.

I do remember a couple of trips we made as family to Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and New Jersey.... to visit my dad's old ship mates from WWII...... in the late 60's. As children, my brothers (2) and myself and my sisters (3) had formed impressions from media and school conversations regarding how 'hard' or 'cold' the people 'up north' were supposed to be and how crime abounded.... and one should mind their own business. We didn't know our limits other than to listen to and obey our parents. So each of us children did what we normally did wherever we went.... greeted even strangers, smiled and made eye contact, said 'hello' and 'how are you' and 'good morning' 'please and thank you' and 'yes mam' ' and 'yes sir' and 'excuse me' same as always.... on the side walks, in the restaurants, in the sub-ways. Black or white.... we were greeted back with no semblance of difference...... but several times remarks were made direct to our openness..... 'you're not from around here are you?' or 'you must be from the south?'..... interesting.

Yes..... we were from 'the south' but our experience was very narrow..... even in 'the deep south' as we were also from the country where people, economy, opportunity, and law seemed to be more equal. (Here I say 'seemed' because even the observance of childhood undergoes a transformation when it takes a lifetime to build up the experiences and 20-20 hindsight needed to pierce through the facade of those elements.... such as segregated education and differences in milieu, or that some of ones neighbors.... be they black or white .....did harbor personal resentments of their own.) I vaguely remember some brief discussion in a Methodist Church about 'unequal yoking' and an example was given of race..... and then I got some material from Bob Jones University when considering college... and there were restrictions on interracial marriages or dating. While I naturally prefer to date those of my own race.... I remember bringing to my mom's attention those verses in the Bible regarding 'unequal yoking' and quizzing her about it as my own understanding was that this was in regard to the spiritual character. I had painstakingly gone through the Genesis accounts and tried to diagram the genealogy from Noah.... to see if there was any truth to the curse of Ham.... and concluding that, while there might be 'a truth' it was not being properly applied as making a difference as to color: My mom agreed: As with another poster on this board... my mom told me it was more important that I marry a Christian man... than the color of his skin, and she'd rather see a daughter married to a black or person of another race who is a Christian than to a man who would not treat her right or provide for her due to some weakness such as drunkenness or gambling.

I know that generally the BB discourages discussions of race..... especially because it can be so divisive and inflammatory..... but, being thankful for their tolerance...... I do tend to agree that the experience of myself (if I'm 'intellectually honest') and the experiences of most people in our country does involve a racial identity which society itself and laws which make a distinction.... and tools like the census...... continues to encourage and support. Like it or not...... as long as society itself is willing to continue either the injustice.... real (part of existing experience) or perceived (by indoctrination, or as an excuse), and keep the divisions alive, race will continue to be a factor which groups people by differences which they cannot change... instead of merely a cultural heritage of genetics by which one identifies their ancestral roots and takes pride in both the blessings and the obstacles overcome by their parentage. Perhaps one day we can appreciate fully the differences in complexion much as we view eye color, and hair color, height and weight. It is God who gives life. That life has value to each and every person: What we wish to keep for ourselves.... we must also value in others..... and protect that gift which God has given in whomever we meet.

 

Beautiful post, windcatcher. Thanks for sharing that!

 

Amen Salty !

 

I'm also a descendant of a Confederate veteran, I think from Alabama.