AuthorTopic: Civil War Litigation Thread  (Read 6088 times)

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38031
    • View Profile
Re: Re:Hit Piece On The Daughters Of The Confederacy
« Reply #15 on: October 08, 2018, 06:25:28 PM »
As I said, the really most important impact of the US Civil War was that it castrated the rights of individual states, once and for all. This is not even taught in the history books, so important is it that it be completely ignored and forgotten.

"States Rights" never stood a chance if everybody used the same currency created by same Banksters.  In the words of Mayer Amchel Rothschild:


RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Facts and Fictions Regarding Lost Cause Ideology In The American South
« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2018, 03:15:48 PM »
As time marches on, history gets written, always by the winning side. Furthermore, it tends to get re-written on an ongoing basis, as prevailing political thought and various social mores change.

As a Southerner, I found my views being labeled by my friend Surly, who threw out a term I wasn't even familiar with, which was "Lost Cause".

Truthfully, I didn't even know what that was, so I set out to educate myself.

The full name of this ideology is referred to as the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, which Wiki describes as:

an ideological movement that describes the Confederate cause as a heroic one against great odds despite its defeat. The ideology endorses the supposed virtues of the antebellum South, viewing the American Civil War as an honorable struggle for the Southern way of life[1] while minimizing or denying the central role of slavery.

As I read more about this phenomenon, a few things became clear.

One thing is that there are basically two versions. One version goes something like this:

After the Civil War, within a few years it was obvious that re-unification would be easier if the South were somehow allowed to save face by emphasizing the bravery of the Confederate soldiers and and allowing Southerners to build a nostalgic mythology about a somewhat romanticized antebellum Southern lifestyle. Some lasting mementos of this period were the statues of Confederate Generals and that sort of thing that in more recent times have been decried as racist.

Some respected historians, like the Cattons, whom I read in college, regarded the acceptance of this mythology by broader American society as a healing thing.....and overall a good thing. It seems though, that nowadays this is old fashioned thinking.

There is a more modern version now. In our brave new world the emphasis is now on how Lost Cause Ideology was the means by which white people in the South (with the willing collusion of white people in the North) conspired to preserve racism and disenfranchise freed black people, lie about the evils of slavery, and allow the Jim Crow backlash to prevent  blacks from receiving their full rights.

One of the things about this whole Lost Cause thing is that it is a a LABEL placed by academics on a broad social phenomenon that emerged in response to a major war...it manifested in certain ways in the aftermath of the war, and it manifests in other ways now. Not all Southern people even subscribe to the ideas of Lost Cause, while some others no doubt take it as their core belief system.

For modern day racists in the South, it morphs into a false narrative of "The South Shall Rise Again" which leads to a lot of Confederate flag-waving and real anger about the removal of statues of dead Confederate generals, and also certainly does lead to violence against innocent persons of color. It leads to David Duke types gaining some ascendancy in parts of the South where racism is still prevalent.

I personally see multiple layers of racism. That's always been the way in the South. There is the nasty (but out in the open) racism of the Trump deplorable types...and then the more institutionalized racism of the old Southern gentry, who might be just as racist, but who (for pragmatic reasons) have historically been more benevolent to the black people, because they were a necessary cog in the wheel of agrarian life, providing the stoop labor, both before and after the Civil War. Nowadays, mechanization has changed that, but it still does exist in an evolved form.

But my view is that everyone involved in either applying this label or wearing it.... both Southerners and those various finger pointers and social critics and neo-Marxist academics who would ascribe various motives to the Lost Cause belief systems, they all have some kind of agenda, and the way it gets presented has everything to do with that. The real truth is really secondary to almost all of them.

For most people it's either just an excuse for their own behavior, or a lever arm to apply social and political pressure to further an agenda.

But the truth matters, at least to me. So I'm going to try to sort some of this out, and write what I think, as usual.

First.

The South DID lose the war. So the term Lost Cause is not in itself in any way evil, as I see it.

The idea that the white population of the South would develop a way of thinking about that loss...and in a way that allowed them to save face and still hang on to some human dignity....was inevitable. I don't think it could have NOT happened.

The Southern soldiers DID fight bravely against great odds.

The numbers tell the story.

At Antietam, Lee fought against a force more than double that of his army. That never held him back. The Confederates were usually outnumbered and always outgunned, and they fought and died, in battles bloodier than any before.....or since, as it turns out. They mostly fought bravely, until the end. True story.

So did the Union, for the MOST part.

The thing about that is....that Sherman and Grant, toward the end of the war, after more than three years of intense fighting, turned their armies to destroying civilian targets. This is pretty much BAU in a long war where the outcome is uncertain. But there is a difference  between destroying supply lines and infrastructure, and burning towns to the ground. (Sort of like that old joke about how the beatings will continue until morale improves.)

Sherman repeatedly burned towns to the ground and desecrated churches and blew up public buildings with gusto in the closing year of the war, starting with burning Atlanta, and then there was the march through Georgia to the sea, to Savannah.....and then he turned north and marched through South Carolina burning towns. Today the rules of engagement would probably put those tactics into the category of war crimes.  If you read the modern PC Wiki entry about Lost Cause, that part gets left out completely.But it happened.

So...in my view, that much of Lost Cause, the part about the South fighting bravely and losing.....there isn't much to argue about there. It's well documented. Read about it before you come here and try to educate me.

Now, I do see the labelers try to add another label to the Confederates, which is to call them TRAITORS. Frankly, that dog won't hunt.

To start with, if you have a population of 30 million people and fifty people try to topple the existing government and lose, then you can call them traitors....but when five and half million people turn against the government, you have something more going on than a minor insurrection. And when they do that as a unit, and that unit is composed of the people of a particular geographic region that share a common way of life....then you have something far more complex and difficult to characterize.

And traitors don't generally march into battle and lay down their lives for their cause. Southerners were not traitors. They were patriots to what can be viewed in the light of history as a misguided cause, but they were patriots. The traitor label is bogus.

At the heart of the modern discussion of Lost Cause is the idea that Lost Cause is synonymous with racism. That IS why we even remember the term, in my opinion. The prevailing  view among social justice warriors, both black and white, is that because the mythos of Lost Cause was accepted in the aftermath of the war, that Northern Whites and Southern Whites kissed and made up, but that the blacks.....the freed slaves and their descendants, right up until now, became victims.

What that really points up is that Northern whites in the last quarter of the 19th century didn't accept blacks into their polite society any more than Southerners. Racism was never limited to the South.

The only advocates for blacks in the North before the war were the Abolitionists, and guess what, some of them wanted the North to secede from the South prior to the war. Fact check that.

Today's liberal academics want to beat the South up for seceding, and the truth is that New England tried to secede in 1814, during the War of 1812. It was a hotly debated topic for years, and many states rights advocates from the North and the South considered it a perfectly legal and valid thing to do.

Along those lines, you will read in the Wiki version, that one major facet of Lost Cause is an attempt to lie about slavery and describe it as some kind of benevolent system whereby slaves were happy and well cared-for and the old Southern slave economy worked for all parties, and that the cruelty and extreme hardship ascribed to that system have been overblown.

I don't (and I expect there are others) who don't subscribe to this part of Lost Cause, but I do think that there were a lot of Southern people in the early days after the war (especially in the planter class) who embraced this Big Lie...and it is a Big Lie.

There might have been a few slaves here and there who were well-adjusted to their plight, but most of them suffered difficult and brutal lives, and even if they were lucky enough not be constantly abused, they still were enslaved.. and there was no excuse.....there is no excuse for slavery. 

In these latter days that POV is clearly just the result of attempts at racist revisionism, and no thinking person should be guilty of buying into that sort of garbage.

But I understand where that bit about slavery not all being horrible comes from, unlike the average neo-Marxist history grad student. And I think a footnote to history is warranted.

Poor Southern whites and rich Southern whites have always practiced types of racism that are NOT the same. The planter class depended on slaves to work the fields....and when slavery ended they had to figure out a way to make that keep happening.

Many blacks left the South for good, lured by paying jobs up north, and that became more prevalent as time went on. The ones that stayed were probably treated better than they had been as slaves, and in truth, many well-off southern farmers of big acreages maintained the role of benevolent patriarch and did try to see to the black laborers' basic medical needs and provided roofs over their heads and made sure they had food to eat. This is not to imply that they weren't racist, nor that their benevolence was anything other than motivated by necessity. Or that their workers got paid much.

But that is in stark contrast to the kind of violent racism that was more the hallmark of the lower class whites. They were the ones who were eager to get involved in the terrorism of blacks and lynching and that kind of evil. There were upper class people who were violent racists, but that was the exception to the rule. What I've read bears this out, anyway.

It's still the lower class whites who are the violent racists today, for the most part. Genteel Southern people are more genteel in their racism. I believe this to be true. The whites in the South today vary a lot in their views. Racism persists, there is no doubt. It's a big problem, as all of us know.

Lastly, I'd also say there is even a type of totally unintentional racism perpetuated by modern liberal Southern whites who might just be considered a little clueless, perhaps...not sensitive to the way they come across to the blacks they encounter in the course of casual contact in daily life. I see this all the time. It is a form of racism, but it isn't even intentional. Maybe the vice-presidents of diversity can help THOSE people learn to deal with that. I'm pretty sure the real racists are not going to be influenced much by any amount of coaching from black people with advanced degrees, however.

I'm no apologist for racism, either. But unlike a lot of liberals, I understand it. White Southern racism is not the monolithic evil it's often depicted as being. And I think that's worth remembering.

Another part of the labeling being carried out on Southerners is an accusation that Lost Cause denies (or tries to minimize) that the Civil War was fought over slavery. It is a very seriously ingrained bit of unquestioned "truth" that the South seceded PRIMARILY to preserve the institution of slavery.

Well, sorry folks, but like most things people absolutely know is right for certain....it's more complicated than that. More complicated than the comic book version that the SJW's read in college now. More complicated than the Wiki version.

Because...(and this is key, pay attention please). When the South seceded, slavery was NOT about to be abolished against the will of the South. Lincoln did not run for President on a platform of abolition. The fight over slavery was real, but until the day South Carolina seceded from the Union and attacked the North, the national argument was about whether slavery would be EXTENDED to the new states in the West, or LIMITED to the existing slave states.

Slavery was legal and could have probably stayed legal for the foreseeable future in every state that seceded. So the US Civil War was not (or at least did not start out) to be a war to free anybody. That idea is a remarkable oversimplification of American reality, circa 1860. It's flat wrong. Plus, there were several other issues. Read about them.

Saying that doesn't mean I deny that slavery was an evil institution that needed to end. The thing is that slavery existed in a lot of places in the early 19th century, and that it ended almost everywhere other than the US within a couple of generations, without resort to bloodshed. That could have, and should have happened here, but it didn't.


So.....Lost Cause Ideology can be viewed as a somewhat benign phenomenon that was part of Reconstruction...or it can be viewed as a modern phenomenon that supports and perpetuates racism. And when SJW's and neo-Marxists use the term to describe guys like me, it's that more extreme POV that's coming into play.

That's what bothers me. Because....IF...if you are white...and if you are from the South....and you have the Southland in your blood and in your bones, there is NO WAY that you don't subscribe to Lost Cause to some degree. You can't indoctrinate that out of a real Southerner. But that does NOT mean that Southerner is racist, necessarily.







« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 07:04:43 AM by Eddie »
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38031
    • View Profile
Re: Facts and Fictions Regarding Lost Cause Ideology In The American South
« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2018, 04:03:25 PM »
As time marches on, history gets written, always by the winning side. Furthermore, it tends to get re-written on an ongoing basis, as prevailing political thought and various social mores change.

As a Southerner, I found my views being labeled by my friend Surly, who threw out a term I wasn't even familiar with, which was "Lost Cause"...

BLOG ARTICLE!

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline BuddyJ

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Facts and Fictions Regarding Lost Cause Ideology In The American South
« Reply #18 on: October 09, 2018, 04:07:33 PM »
As time marches on, history gets written, always by the winning side. Furthermore, it tends to get re-written on an ongoing basis, as prevailing political thought and various social mores change.

As a Southerner, I found my views being labeled by my friend Surly, who threw out a term I wasn't even familiar with, which was "Lost Cause".

Truthfully, I didn't even know what that was, so I set out to educate myself.


So.....Lost Cause Ideology can be viewed as a somewhat benign phenomenon that was part of Reconstruction...or it can be viewed as a modern phenomenon that supports and perpetuates racism. And when SJW's and neo-Marxists use the term to describe guys like me, it's that more extreme POV that's coming into play.

That's what bothers me. Because....IF...if you are white...and if you are from the South....and you have the Southland in your blood and in your bones, there is NO WAY that you don't subscribe to Lost Cause to some degree. You can't indoctrinate that out of a real Southerner. But that does NOT mean that Southerner is racist, necessarily.

Excellent write up.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15822
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Facts and Fictions Regarding Lost Cause Ideology In The American South
« Reply #19 on: October 09, 2018, 06:28:07 PM »
Quote
Now, I do see the labelers try to add another label to the Confederates, which is to call them TRAITORS. Frankly, that dog won't hunt.

Nah. It hunts pretty well if you don't get swept away with latter-day historical revisionism.
To the single point you've made above, I went looking for an article I read some years ago and produce it here. It is from a series written by military historian Robert Bateman for Esquire for the 150th anniversary of Gettysburg.
Enjoy.

The Meaning of Oaths and a Forgotten Man

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a24208/what-an-oath-means/
ROBERT BATEMAN
AUG 14, 2013

It is interesting to note that the "Welcome Center" to the State of Virginia is located just south of the Rappahannock River, in the town of Fredericksburg. This town sits about sixty miles south of the state border with Maryland and Washington, DC. The impression this gives is that Virginians do not consider areas north of the Rappahannock as part of the state. One need only scan 18621864 to understand why.

North of that river, which I havementioned before, the United States dominated the terrain during the War of the Rebellion. It was only to the south of the Rappahannock that rebel armies held sway on a consistent basis, almost to the end. So it seems natural that recidivist state politicians of the past half-century would pander to those voters who were most vocal about the "glory and honor of the Old South." One means of doing so was by making sure that the Welcome Center coming into their state from the "North" was nearly 60 miles south of the actual border, which rests on the south bank of the Potomac River.

In other words, they placed their "Welcome" center at what they consider the boundaries of the limits of the United States of America, versus where they think they live. Indeed, if you look at the map which the State of Virginia provides, it is almost comical how its "Welcome" centers parallel the de facto front lines of the period of rebellion, when they were fighting against the United States. Seriously, look atthis mapprovided by Virginia and see the locations of "Welcome" centers #1, #12, and #2. Yep, now look again at all the others. Everywhere they have contact with the old states who fought against the United States, the "Welcome" center is right there at the border… but not towards the north.

Actually, strike that. It would be "almost comical," as I just said, were it not simultaneously so sad. In general, I have observed that the attitudes towards loyalty to the United States vs. the Mythical Nation of Slavery still track pretty closely with those "Welcome" centers.

A little more than a decade ago I was going through a divorce. It was pretty ugly, and emotionally, it left me distracted and out of sorts. The Ex had decided on a course of action with another fellow, and I really could not stand by for that. Allegiances and oaths and vows sort of mean a lot to somebody like me, and this being the second time, that was the end of things. Somehow, however, it was I who ended up moving out of our nice home.

What followed was stereotypical for a divorce of this sort. I spent a lot of time after work going to local bars. All of them within walking distance from my apartment on a hillside known as Marye's Heights, in the town where I lived. This was 2002.

Being disinclined to sociability at the time, when prompted by a fellow barfly into a conversation I did not feel like having, I would assess my interrogator. If he fit the profile (and so many did), I would counter-present a statement as a way of starting a "conversation." That "profile" had nothing to do with socio-economic status, but it did have a hell of a lot to do with race, and the bugaboo of "heritage." At least "heritage" as it is interpreted in rural Virginia anyway. Regardless of the topic he was trying to engage me on, I would parry. Then I would start a new conversation. My entree was, "I think that Robert E. Lee, as a traitor and betrayer of his solemn oath before God and the Constitution, was a much greater terrorist than Osama Bin Ladin… after all, Lee killed many more Americans than Bin Ladin, and almost destroyed the United States. What do you think?"

Yeah, I flunked "Subtle 101" in High School. Oh well. Like I said, I was not in a good place.

But the fact is that there was nothing that any of these men, and they were all men, could say in honest denial to my assertion. They sputtered and growled, spouted and shouted, but not once did it end well for them on any level. You see, if they were "unreconstructed rebels," well then I was something almost none of them had ever experienced, an "unreconstructed Yankee." What is more, at the intellectual level I was not playing fair.

Not only did I have the historical facts on my side, but I was also deliberately playing upon two southern biases which are nearly independent of politics: Reverence for military service, and reverence of the concept of "honor" and "oaths." I am a military officer, Airborne and Ranger qualified. I swore an oath, almost exactly the same as the one Robert E. Lee had, to the United States. Most of those I confronted over barstools and tables in Fredericksburg eventually just asked to be let out of the argument, because I would not let go. I was alone, and angry, and historically versed, and my own G-G-G-Grandfather had actually fought there, not 300 yards from where my crappy apartment was, in 1862. And they were stunned, at the outset, that I was saying something that defied their understanding.

See, I really do think Robert E. Lee was a traitor who should have been executed. Polite people, nice folks in Fredericksburg and other southern places where I have been on a rip, are not used to hearing such a virulent assault upon "Marse Robert." But when I feel like being left alone I am neither polite, nor Southern, and so when I am annoyed, I have in the past let loose upon the traitor. And he was that.

He had a choice. Lee chose to betray the United States. Some of his peers, Virginians through-and-through, with more reason than him to want to keep "slaves in their place," decided not to betray our nation. These were men who decided to keep true to their oaths. These were men who believed in the nation. One, in particular, matters to this campaign we are talking about in Tennessee. His name was George Thomas.

Now we have a little time, in our narrative of the 150th Anniversary of the Civil War. It will be a few weeks before the ever-cautious Rosecrans gets off his duff and figures out how to flummox Braxton Bragg again. (SPOILER:He succeeds, and take Chattanooga.) So for now, let us look at the real central character. Of course, history demands context, so let us begin at the beginning.

George Thomas was fifteen years old in August 1831. His family was not mega-rich, but they were pretty well off. Remember at the time that there was damned little, north or south, that could be called a "middle class." That whole construct really doesn't come until after WWII. But if you were going to place his family, you would put them in "lower upper class."

His family had a plantation in what is now known as the "Tidewater" region of Virginia, not too far from Yorktown. They owned slaves. Estimates range from 12-15, depending upon the year. His father had died three years earlier, in 1828, so George was stepped up. Young George had played with the slaves as a child, and as a teen, had illicitly and secretly been teaching some of them to read. Do not assume that he was an abolitionist from this. Only acknowledge his developing appreciation of humanity. But that year something would happen that would shake his entire world, and which should have made him into the most racist-slave-owning radical extant. In that year, a slave named Nat Turner initiated a revolt, very close to the Thomas plantation. And by very close, I am talking thousands of yards.

When word of the slave revolt hit his own family plantation, young George drove the horses as the family and many of their own slaves tried to escape the circle of violence. They did not run fast enough, the pursuit was gaining and in a desperate measure the teenaged George led the family off the road and into the swamps for succor. Eight days later, with some sixty of his white neighbors now slaughtered, he led the family back. Probably more than 200 African-Americans, slaves and non-slaves were dead as well, without justice or question. But the terror that Nat Turner's rebellion brought to the slave-holding south cannot be underestimated. Yet George Thomas did not succumb.

In 1836, he went to West Point, to become an Army officer. He graduated, twelfth in his class in 1840. The oath he swore went like this: "I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States."

ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW

The oath I, and all modern officers swear, runs this way: "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Not a whole lot of difference, at least in the swearing to the United States bit, eh? Hence my annoyance with those who defend Lee. Of course, almost none of them know about the loyal officer, Thomas.

After his commissioning from West Point he served in the Seminole Wars and the Mexican-American War, and fought well in both cases. Between the wars he developed as an officer of the United States, until the crisis appeared.

Thomas was in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, when the word of the fall of Fort Sumter arrived in the Spring of 1861. He, unlike his fellow Virginian, the betrayer Robert E. Lee, knew where his duty rested. There was an oath, he had sworn to it, and that was the end of things. He immediately wrote to his wife. In that letter he summed up the difference between himself and those who sought to destroy the United States of America.

"Whichever way I turned the matter over in my mind," he wrote, "my oath of allegiance to the Federal government always came uppermost."

Then, this Virginian, no, this American, officer, went to a federal magistrate there in Carlisle and renewed his oath to the United States of America. Three days later Virginia stated that it was in rebellion against the United States. In his family home in Tidewater Virginia, nearly six-hundred miles away, his sisters took George Thomas's picture off the wall and effectively disowned him.

I acknowledge that the whole idea of an "oath" actually meaning something in the "modern" age may not resonate with everyone. I do not really know how to bring this into the present for most of you. The social/intellectual/emotional concept of individual honor has sort of changed a lot in the past 150 years. Unfortunately sometimes I really do not understand those of you who do not feel deeply about honor.

This is not because I am a historian. It is because I swore essentially that same oath that George Thomas and Robert Lee swore, and I was taught to mean it when I swore an oath or make a pledge. But even so, even I do not think that my own emotional and psychological commitment to my oath is as deep as these things were in the early-mid 19th Century. So Lee's treason, his betrayal of his oath as an officer of the United States Army, is sort of personal to me, and I am offended by his lying (if he never meant it when he swore the oath) or his two-faced nature, if he did. Snowden? Manning? Pshaw. They are nothing compared to a man who actually commanded forces that killed tens of thousands of American soldiers. I resent Lee's subsequent fame which stemmed solely from his ability to kill American soldiers. As an American soldier, that strikes me as wrong.

What strikes me as even more unfair is that at the same time, George Thomas rejected the course of political and familial opportunism and stayed true to his oath. He won on the battlefield, over and over again, and defended the United States with his every action, and now he is largely forgotten.

Ultimately Thomas would become, as judged by some of his peers and not a few historians, as the greatest general the United States had during the War of the Rebellion. Grant smashed his way to victory. You could argue that Sherman never won a battle all his own. But Thomas, distrusted by the Administration, held suspect at times by the American public, and detested by his own family for staying true to his oath, ultimately destroyed two entire rebel armies, and saved two American armies, by his own abilities, example, and skill.

He was, in the end, the man true to his oath. As opposed to the others he fought.

« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 04:49:54 AM by Surly1 »
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38031
    • View Profile
Re: Facts and Fictions Regarding Lost Cause Ideology In The American South
« Reply #20 on: October 09, 2018, 07:07:14 PM »
Is it OK with you guys if I split off the originating posts on this topic from the Surly Newz thread and merge them with this thread?

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38031
    • View Profile
Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
« Reply #21 on: October 10, 2018, 03:44:17 AM »
All the Civil War posting from the last week has been merged into this thread housed on the History Board as an EZ to find Sticky Thread.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
« Reply #22 on: October 10, 2018, 04:22:08 AM »
Sure, hide all the threads where I can't find 'em anymore. You commies think you're very clever.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38031
    • View Profile
Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2018, 04:27:30 AM »
Sure, hide all the threads where I can't find 'em anymore. You commies think you're very clever.

Not only that, but the thread has been attacked by the Brown Screen of Death!  At least until we get to the next page.

I'm making a compilation "Inside the Diner" blog on Civil War opinions for next Sunday Brunch.   :icon_sunny:  I put everything together so I wouldn't lose track of the material.  I don't like searching down posts either.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15822
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2018, 04:52:33 AM »
Sure, hide all the threads where I can't find 'em anymore. You commies think you're very clever.

Not only that, but the thread has been attacked by the Brown Screen of Death!  At least until we get to the next page.

I'm making a compilation "Inside the Diner" blog on Civil War opinions for next Sunday Brunch.   :icon_sunny:  I put everything together so I wouldn't lose track of the material.  I don't like searching down posts either.

RE

I assumed the Brown Screen of Death was because of my HTML posting. I went in to try to edit it. Am not m much of a code jockey but cleaned it up. It was still pushing some other copy out to the margin, so I cut it and am reposting here:

* * *
You might also enjoy another Wikipedia entry:
Neo-Confederate  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Confederate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Lost Cause of the Confederacy
Neo-Confederate, or Southern nationalist, is a term used to describe the views of various groups and individuals who use historical revisionism to portray the Confederate States of America and its actions in the American Civil War in a positive light.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38031
    • View Profile
Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
« Reply #25 on: October 10, 2018, 05:03:50 AM »
Sure, hide all the threads where I can't find 'em anymore. You commies think you're very clever.

Not only that, but the thread has been attacked by the Brown Screen of Death!  At least until we get to the next page.

I'm making a compilation "Inside the Diner" blog on Civil War opinions for next Sunday Brunch.   :icon_sunny:  I put everything together so I wouldn't lose track of the material.  I don't like searching down posts either.

RE

I assumed the Brown Screen of Death was because of my HTML posting. I went in to try to edit it. Am not m much of a code jockey but cleaned it up. It was still pushing some other copy out to the margin, so I cut it and am reposting here:

* * *
You might also enjoy another Wikipedia entry:
Neo-Confederate  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Confederate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Lost Cause of the Confederacy
Neo-Confederate, or Southern nationalist, is a term used to describe the views of various groups and individuals who use historical revisionism to portray the Confederate States of America and its actions in the American Civil War in a positive light.

That worked.  Nice work!  :icon_sunny:

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2653
    • View Profile
Re: Facts and Fictions Regarding Lost Cause Ideology In The American South
« Reply #26 on: October 10, 2018, 06:24:45 AM »
So.....Lost Cause Ideology can be viewed as a somewhat benign phenomenon that was part of Reconstruction...or it can be viewed as a modern phenomenon that supports and perpetuates racism. And when SJW's and neo-Marxists use the term to describe guys like me, it's that more extreme POV that's coming into play.

That's what bothers me. Because....IF...if you are white...and if you are from the South....and you have the Southland in your blood and in your bones, there is NO WAY that you don't subscribe to Lost Cause to some degree. You can't indoctrinate that out of a real Southerner. But that does NOT mean that Southerner is racist, necessarily.

Great post, Eddie.

What really bothers me is that SJWs don't have any suggestions for how the country should address these perceived issues, other than to whine and accuse and whine some more. Southern "white privilege" is a great example - what should white Southerners do to atone for past injustices, or to offset their "Lost Cause" mentality? What percentage of their current accomplishments or "privilege" should be attributed to that? How should they all think about the bloodiest war in U.S. history, which was, in FACT, a civil war and not a traitorous insurrection by a small fraction of the nation?

These are somewhat interesting questions which could provoke some interesting discussion, but SJWs are totally opposed to any interesting discussions. They prefer boring ideological cliches and platitudes. Once those come out, you know that you are no longer speaking to a person with something meaningful to say, you are speaking to an ideology with an agenda to push.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38031
    • View Profile
Re: Facts and Fictions Regarding Lost Cause Ideology In The American South
« Reply #27 on: October 10, 2018, 09:07:12 AM »
These are somewhat interesting questions which could provoke some interesting discussion, but SJWs are totally opposed to any interesting discussions. They prefer boring ideological cliches and platitudes. Once those come out, you know that you are no longer speaking to a person with something meaningful to say, you are speaking to an ideology with an agenda to push.


RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38031
    • View Profile
Diners Litigate the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression)
« Reply #28 on: November 04, 2018, 03:47:46 AM »


youtube-Logo-4gc2reddit-logoOff the keyboard of RE



Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook



Published on the Doomstead Diner on November 4, 2018






 



Discuss this article at the History Table Inside the Diner



 



Diners have  a constant battle ongoing about interpretations of the causes and reasons for the Civil War, or the War of Northern Aggresion as it is knowm in Old Dixie.  With all the talk of secession and new Civil War recently, I thought I would treat the Diner Blog Lurkers to some of the Diner Opinions on this topic.  Particularly apropos I think with the "election" upcoming on Tuesday.



 



From Eddie



 



I don't consider the DOC to be any kind of really legitimate organization.It's a club for women whose ancestors fought in the Civil War for the South, and at one time it might have been considered to be some kind of tie to an idealized genteel Southern past, but any connection to reality has been gone for a long, long time, and I'm not sure why any modern woman would join, except perhaps to make her grandmother happy, or maybe David Duke.



But, with that said, it never ceases to amaze me how far these "woke" people will go to vilify what is now nothing more than a silly caricature.



Let's start by debunking the first assertion. That is, that the DOC is or was an adjunct of the Klan.



Laura Martin Rose was no doubt a Klan supporter. I expect her father AND her  husband, if she was married, were both in the Klan. That doesn't make the DOC part of the Klan, any more than being a Republican makes someone a fascist, although there is no doubt some overlap there too.



And I don't see that the DOC even published that Kiddie Klan Klassic. It was published by the L.C. Graham Company in NOLA, which published all manner of racist crap in the late 19th and early 20th century. If DOC money was involved, I expect it was local money, and not that of the larger organization.



New Orleans didn't make it through 1865 without its first post-war race riot, and it's been a bastion of racism right up until now. If that has anything to do with the DOC, it's a fairly tangential connection. The contention the author makes, that the Daughters of the Confederacy is, or ever has been the "women's auxillary of the Klan", is not supported by the facts. It's pure speculation, but it's presented as if it were fact.



Do they get tax breaks? Sure they do, just like every other non-profit in the country. Big effin' deal. So does Planned Parenthood, and the AARP.



At one time they raised money to put up statues of Confederate heroes. Those statues were of these women's own grandfathers. Pardon them for wanting to glorify their service. Many of them died in the war.



The reason people today don't accept that the war was not fought to preserve slavery is because it wasn't nearly that simple. To start with, prior to the war starting, Lincoln himself had no intention ending slavery in the existing slave states. The national argument was about whether slavery would be legal in the new western states. These SJW journalists are as ignorant about history as they are about evolutionary biology.



Less than 5% of Southerners owned ANY slaves in 1860. So does that mean 95% of the Confederates went to war and almost a half million of them died to support an institution they didn't even derive the least bit of benefit from? Get real.



And just because the fiery rhetoric of the secession documents of the Confederacy (which were written by the most radical people in the South) said the war was about preserving slavery, that doesn't mean that it wasn't about several other fairly contentious issues as well.



The major impact of the war wasn't really even the end of slavery, which would have no doubt ended anyway, as it did most everywhere else on earth, without a bloody civil war.



The most lasting effect of the US Civil War was the consolidation of complete federal government political tyranny over the states, which impacts everyone alive today, not just white people, or Southerners. That has to be the most overlooked, yet most profound, effect that the war ever had.



 



From RE



 





Less than 5% of Southerners owned ANY slaves in 1860. So does that mean 95% of the Confederates went to war and almost a half million of them died to support an institution they didn't even derive the least bit of benefit from? Get real.





 





But they DID derive economic benefit from Slavery!



First of all, many served as Overseers on somebody else's Plantation.  They got paid, the slaves did not.  The Profit for the operation came from the Slave Labor.



Even if they weren't directly employed on a plantation, they may have been Teamsters driving the Cotton and Tobacco to market in horse-drawn wagons.  Again, they get paid because the operation is profitable with Slave Labor.  So do the middlemen, the wholesalers and retailers of the products produced by the slaves.



The entire economy was rooted in slavery.  Everyone who was not a slave got some benefit from that, unless of course they were unemployed.



Does this mean southern boys went to war to protect slavery and their economic system?  Of course not.  I'm sure they didn't grasp these connections.  Mostly they went to war because their Leaders (mainly the Plantation Owners) told them they had to and Conscripted them.



 



From Azozeo



 



Tariffs played a major role in the division of the Union of States






 



From Eddie (quotes from RE)



 



"First of all, many served as Overseers on somebody else's Plantation"



I think the actual truth of that is that some few whites worked in various capacities on larger plantations in a variety of skilled jobs, but that "overseer" was not the primary job description of most of them. It wasn't like Gone With The Wind. Maybe it was in a few places, like the Tidewater.



But aside from that, a good part of the population were just plain subsistence farmers, and they weren't participating in the slave economy AT ALL.  Subsistence farmers, like my father's people, had very little need for, or connection with any kind of money based economy at all. "Forty acres and mule" started with white people, not blacks.



The entire economy was rooted in slavery.  Everyone who was not a slave got some benefit from that, unless of course they were unemployed.



Actually that's bullshit.



MOST people WERE unemployed in the South in 1860, in the modern sense of that word. The big plantations were the "Big Ag" of that day and time, but most of the economy was people scratching out a living out of a garden and raising a few animals. The idea that these Southerners were beneficiaries of slavery is pretty questionable, in my view.



 



From RE



 



My guess would be that those people (besides the Owner of the Plantation) who were directly connected to the Slave Economy served as the Officers in the Confederate Army.  Subsistence Farmes were the ones who got conscripted as Cannon Fodder.



 



From Eddie



 



Not a bad guess, but the truth is slightly different. There was a war with Mexico in 1846, and so when the Civil War came, almost all the officers on both sides were the military veterans from that war.



My maternal gg grandfather was the second son of a big plantation owner, but he was still definitely just cannon fodder, with Lee at South Mountain in Maryland, in what was the very first big campaign of the war. His brother-in-law, a Mexican War vet, mustered in as a Captain and was promoted to Major. He made it all the way to Appomattox. Of the original unit of over a thousand, only seventy-odd men made it that far.



Many men in Lee's army in the fall of 1862 even then didn't even have shoes, and they had nothing to eat for the last week of their lives except for green corn they took from the local farms they passed, which gave most of them terrible diarrhea. And this was early in the war, in September of 1862.



I don't how my paternal gg grandfather died, but the was not a young man when he died late in the war the winter of 1864. He served in Texas, maybe on the frontier instead of the actual war. Unlike the other one, his bones were laid to rest near his home.



 



From RE



 





Not a bad guess, but the truth is slightly different. There was a war with Mexico in 1846, and so when the Civil War came, almost all the officers on both sides were the military veterans from that war.





 





That's true for the Texas contingent, but how many soldiers from South Carolina served in the Mexican war?



 



From David B



 



I find the civil war fascinating because it comes at a time of massive technological change. I sometimes wonder how long it took all those Mexican war veterans to say" oh fuck what have we done". Between railroads ,rifled barrels, the minie bullet, telegraphs, it must have been a terrifying new level of shitty. The intensity and "efficiency" of warfare was amplified making it possible for all out meat grinder. All those new toys came together.

Viscous but fascinating.



 



From Surly



 







The reason people today don't accept that the war was not fought to preserve slavery is because it wasn't nearly that simple. To start with, prior to the war starting, Lincoln himself had no intention ending slavery in the existing slave states. The national argument was about whether slavery would be legal in the new western states. These SJW journalists are as ignorant about history as they are about evolutionary biology.



Less than 5% of Southerners owned ANY slaves in 1860. So does that mean 95% of the Confederates went to war and almost a half million of them died to support an institution they didn't even derive the least bit of benefit from? Get real.



And just because the fiery rhetoric of the secession documents of the Confederacy (which were written by the most radical people in the South) said the war was about preserving slavery, that doesn't mean that it wasn't about several other fairly contentious issues as well.



The major impact of the war wasn't really even the end of slavery, which would have no doubt ended anyway, as it did most everywhere else on earth, without a bloody civil war.



 [/color]





 





For fuck's sake.



Are we really going to re-litigate the Civil War again for the umpteeth time?



Very clever of you to attempt (unsuccessfully ) to inoculate yourself against the Cornerstone Speech and the constitutions of the states that comprised the confederacy, which I have adduced here previously. And which call you out dead to rights. Which makes the motives of the seditionists and traitors absolutely clear. And which put the lie to your assertion above.  Holders of privilege, property and prerogatives are always happy to fight the current war down to your last son.



Interresting that you don't want the words produced by the men who enbcouraged your forebears to die on their behalf to be used as part of an indictment. Like disqualifying a murderer's confession.



OF COURSE only five per cent of whites in the Confederacy owned slaves. Strap yourself in for this reality bomb:



THEY WERE THE ONES WITH THE MONEY. THEY COULD AFFORD THEM



The 95 per cent of seditionists who took up arms against the Americans did so for the reasons all young man flock to the banner of their country: "duty, honor, country," and all that other manipulative claptrap the elites use in every generation to manipulate the proles, and the same sodden bullshit Trump will invoke to urge the next generation to Victory on Mars.



Because Grant attempted to implement Lincoln's "soft piece," we are afforded the luxury of endless justification for treason on the part of Confederate rebels. Had 3,000 Confederate politicians and senior officers swung from gibbets, we might not have to suffer the promiscuous rewriting of history by devotees to the so-called "Lost Cause" back in the day, and by Republiconfederates today.



 



From RE



 





I find the civil war fascinating because it comes at a time of massive technological change. I sometimes wonder how long it took all those Mexican war veterans to say" oh fuck what have we done". Between railroads ,rifled barrels, the minie bullet, telegraphs, it must have been a terrifying new level of shitty. The intensity and "efficiency" of warfare was amplified making it possible for all out meat grinder. All those new toys came together.

Viscous but fascinating.





 





In essence, it was a War between Industrialist Elite in the North and Agrarian Elite in the South.  The Industrialists won.  The Southerners only had Human Slaves.  The Industrialists has 22 Billion Energy Slaves.  No contest.



 



From Surly



 





I find the civil war fascinating because it comes at a time of massive technological change. I sometimes wonder how long it took all those Mexican war veterans to say" oh fuck what have we done". Between railroads ,rifled barrels, the minie bullet, telegraphs, it must have been a terrifying new level of shitty. The intensity and "efficiency" of warfare was amplified making it possible for all out meat grinder. All those new toys came together.

Viscous but fascinating.





 





Absolutely. The Spencer repeating rifle alone was responsible for a Union delaying action that was an important action on the first day of Gettysburg. John Buford's unmounted cavalry used Spencer carbines to create a rate of fire disproportionately higher than the Confederate force they were opposing, and bought the Union troops coming up from the south valuable time. The Civil War also ushered in the Gatling Gun, which had minimal impact on the Civil War but rather more at Wounded Knee.



 



From RE



 






 



From Eddie



 



Whoa, dude. I never used to write anything about the Civil War here or anywhere else. I feel dragged into it.



Frankly, I grew up without ever learning much detail about the war, even though I took American History in college and read stuff like the Cattons and the usual reading list from back in the day…..but let's face it…..you only get so much from a one semester freshman survey course.



I Have educated myself a little more  over the last several years, because I wanted to get some idea of the real story, and not just the mythology. I don't claim to be a real expert. But I know made up crap when I read it.



You might remember that my comment was directed at debunking a piece of garbage that some biased black SJW wrote that showed up on a feed YOU reposted here. It was simply an honest response to what I considered a fairly reprehensible misrepresentation of a dumb Southern women's club.



I offered a comment, because the piece was EXTREMELY biased and failed to make any of its points, yet it no doubt got taken as gospel by most so-called educated liberal people. That pisses me off.



I don't want to refight the war. It wasn't ever MY war. It's always been ancient history.



But these modern bullshit artists who try to take the words  of one admittedly racist writer from 1914 and twist that into some kind of completely imagined widespread racist conspiracy….that shit deserves to be called out for what it is, which is pure propaganda.



 



From RE



 





Whoa, dude. I never used to write anything about the Civil War here or anywhere else. I feel dragged into it.





 





I don't think you were "dragged" into it.  You started writing about the War of Northern Aggression when you went to visit your relatives in SC at the 2nd Convocation.  That was your own choosing.  Then you got riled up by the Statue Demolishing of the Dixie "War Heros" and wrote your objections to that.  Surly then felt it necessary to counter your spin with his own spin.



It just evolved over time.  Now you gotta deal with that.



 



From Eddie



 



What I gotta deal with is a bunch of ignorant modern people lying about history in pursuit of their modern agendas of social justice.



I think I've been really clear about that, and that's why I write what I write.



My own family history has some bearing on my story, but I have never lied about them or made them out to be anything other than what they were.



I actually started to get the real story, when I read about Lincoln…..the real Lincoln….you know the one who exiled a US congressman to Canada…and who locked up a bunch of people for the duration of the war without any resort to habeus corpus.



That Lincoln, not the Great Emancipator, the martyred Lincoln all the ignorant people worship for all the wrong reasons. Lincoln actually talked about sending the freed slaves back to Africa. That was his first choice. I seldom hear that mentioned in these SJW articles.



As I said, the really most important impact of the US Civil War was that it castrated the rights of individual states, once and for all. This is not even taught in the history books, so important is it that it be completely ignored and forgotten.



 



From RE



 



"States Rights" never stood a chance if everybody used the same currency created by same Banksters.  In the words of Mayer Amchel Rothschild:

 






 


 

Save As Many As You Can

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
« Reply #29 on: November 04, 2018, 06:12:29 AM »
That's true for the Texas contingent, but how many soldiers from South Carolina served in the Mexican war?



The Mexican War was fought by the US Army under General Zachary Taylor, and it was fought by federal troops (1846-1848), who were active duty volunteers, and came from all over the US. At that time, there weren't that many Texans anyway. And those Texans had fought their own war against Mexico less than 20 years before. Texas was a Republic until 1845, when political maneuvering by rich Texans and Washington politicos dragged the independent nation into the US.

My gg uncle, the one who lived through the war and was present with Lee when he signed the surrender at Appomattox, was from South Carolina, and had served with a much decorated unit in the Mexican War, called the Palmetto Regiment.  They were famous sharpshooters.

This Texas connection, I believe, is what eventually drew my mothers family to Texas. He led them there, after the difficult times of reconstruction. As I have written elsewhere, the immediate post-war period in their part of SC was extremely hard, and they probably struggled to avoid starvation. He brought his extended family to Texas, including his widowed sister, who is buried in my native East Texas with my great grandfather and his family.

Mostly Texas joining the US  had to do with greed and financial opportunism.

In this period in history, the railroads and the telegraph were both extremely disruptive technologies that were rapidly changing life in the whole country. Between 1845 and 1900 one of the most blatant land grabs in history turned Texas, which was mostly public land, into private property owned by railroad barons. This is also a rather glossed over fact of history.

Nearly ALL the generals on both sides of the Civil War were West Point grads who had been working as civil engineers for the railroads, all over the country in the decade leading up to the war.

Eventually, the railroads and the men who owned them would die off, and the land would go to a new class of opportunists, the oil men. But that's another story.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2018, 06:31:38 AM by Eddie »
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Trumpism: The Ideology

Started by RE « 1 2 ... 5 6 » Geopolitics

80 Replies
13212 Views
Last post March 14, 2016, 03:40:16 AM
by Surly1
4 Replies
689 Views
Last post March 17, 2016, 08:51:18 PM
by Eddie
4 Replies
427 Views
Last post May 01, 2017, 03:29:49 PM
by agelbert