Doomstead Diner Menu => History => Topic started by: Eddie on October 08, 2018, 01:50:38 PM

Title: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: Eddie on October 08, 2018, 01:50:38 PM

TODAY'S TOP STORIES - October 7, 2018

‘There Will Be Hell to Pay’: Former Dean of Yale Law School Calls Kavanaugh Confirmation ‘An American Tragedy’

By Elizabeth Preza, AlterNet

Robert Post described Kavanaugh as a “casual acquaintance." READ MORE»


Here Are 7 Things the United Daughters of the Confederacy Do Not Want You to Know About Them

By Kali Holloway, Independent Media Institute

For starters, they get tax breaks. READ MORE»


Can Beto O’Rourke Really Beat Ted Cruz in Texas? Ann Richards’ Former Campaign Manager Details How

By Amanda Marcotte, Salon

Mary Beth Rogers, author of “Turning Texas Blue,” believes the 2018 populist sensation has a real shot READ MORE»


These Are the Best Foods to Eat for a Good Night's Sleep

The Conversation

The science of sleep. READ MORE»


Watch: CNN’s Dana Bash Rattles Susan Collins by Asking If She ‘Betrayed Women’ with Kavanaugh Vote

By Tom Boggioni, Raw Story

Bash noted that Collins “seemed upset.” READ MORE»


With Kavanaugh's Confirmation, the Patriarchy Strikes Back

By Erin Keane, Salon

The confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court plays right into a simmering #MeToo backlash. READ MORE»


America Is on the Road to Becoming a Fascist State

By Robert Scheer, Truthdig

Trump and his ilk are channeling a noxious strain of patriotism that creates a nostalgia for a past that never existed. READ MORE»


Here's How the Media Encourages – And Sustains – Political Warfare

The Conversation

The quiet consumption of news can sustain a polarized political environment READ MORE»


Pulitzer-Winning Reporter Reveals the 'Smoking Gun' on Trump and Russia

By Andrew O'Hehir, Salon

Washington Post reporter on Trump’s “subservience” to Vladimir Putin and the “subversion of American democracy” READ MORE»


Hometown Newspaper Drops Scathing Editorial — Ending 16 Year Support of 'Damaging' Devin Nunes

By Martin Cizmar, Raw Story

The Fresno Bee will not be endorsing Devin Nunes this year. READ MORE»


Here's 'Something Bold' Democrats Can Do: Conduct the Kavanaugh Probe White House and GOP Refused to Have

By Jon Queally, Common Dreams

"Instead of acting like the minority and like victims, Dems need to go on the offensive and act like a majority! Investigate, interview, and use the power of the media loudly, with courage and fervor!" READ MORE»


No Small Thing: Rethinking Overdue Library Fines

The Texas Tribune

The growing popularity of electronic borrowing has had an enormous impact on how much revenue is collected via overdue fines. READ MORE»


This Will Be Susan Collins' Legacy

By Abby Zimet, Common Dreams

It took Susan Collins almost an hour of bullshit, disingenuous, pandering blather before she revealed, less than shockingly, she would betray Mainers, women and decency with her Kavanaugh vote. READ MORE»


WTF Are We Still Doing in Afghanistan?

By Lucian K. Truscott IV, Salon

Spending $45 billion a year, and Erik Prince wants every dime READ MORE»


White House Counsel Prevented FBI From Full Kavanaugh Investigation Even After Trump OK'd It: Report

By Martin Cizmar, Raw Story

According to a new report by the New York Times, that wasn't Trump's fault. READ MORE»


It's True: Misogyny Is at the Heart of Right-Wing Politics

By Amanda Marcotte, Salon

Republicans really do hate women READ MORE»


Science Says Happiness Can Change Your Brain

By Matthieu Ricard, YES! Magazine

After 2,000 years of practice, Buddhist monks know that one secret to bliss is to put your mind to it. READ MORE»


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.





 
Title: Re: Re:Hit Piece On The Daughters Of The Confederacy
Post by: RE on October 08, 2018, 02:20:32 PM
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.

RE
Title: Re: Re:Hit Piece On The Daughters Of The Confederacy
Post by: azozeo on October 08, 2018, 02:36:43 PM
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 told them they had to and Conscripted them.

RE


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

http://www.youtube.com/v/cTCCIj8tOSI&fs=1
Title: Re: Re:Hit Piece On The Daughters Of The Confederacy
Post by: Eddie on October 08, 2018, 02:59:14 PM
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.




Title: Re: Re:Hit Piece On The Daughters Of The Confederacy
Post by: RE on October 08, 2018, 03:08:57 PM
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.

RE
Title: Re: Re:Hit Piece On The Daughters Of The Confederacy
Post by: Eddie on October 08, 2018, 03:33:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Re:Hit Piece On The Daughters Of The Confederacy
Post by: RE on October 08, 2018, 03:57:26 PM
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?

RE
Title: Re: Re:Hit Piece On The Daughters Of The Confederacy
Post by: Nearingsfault on October 08, 2018, 04:01:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: Re:Hit Piece On The Daughters Of The Confederacy
Post by: Surly1 on October 08, 2018, 04:02:24 PM

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.
Title: Re: Re:Hit Piece On The Daughters Of The Confederacy
Post by: RE on October 08, 2018, 04:19:39 PM
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.

RE
Title: Re: Re:Hit Piece On The Daughters Of The Confederacy
Post by: Surly1 on October 08, 2018, 04:24:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Re:Hit Piece On The Daughters Of The Confederacy
Post by: RE on October 08, 2018, 04:34:08 PM
The Civil War also ushered in the Gatling Gun, which had minimal impact on the Civil War but rather more at Wounded Knee.

http://www.youtube.com/v/pa3QpnXtU88

RE
Title: Re: Re:Hit Piece On The Daughters Of The Confederacy
Post by: Eddie on October 08, 2018, 05:28:14 PM

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.

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.
Title: Re: Re:Hit Piece On The Daughters Of The Confederacy
Post by: RE on October 08, 2018, 05:42:23 PM
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.

RE
Title: Re: Re:Hit Piece On The Daughters Of The Confederacy
Post by: Eddie on October 08, 2018, 06:20:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Re:Hit Piece On The Daughters Of The Confederacy
Post by: RE 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:

(https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-let-me-issue-and-control-a-nation-s-money-and-i-care-not-who-writes-the-laws-mayer-amschel-rothschild-52-74-71.jpg)

RE
Title: Facts and Fictions Regarding Lost Cause Ideology In The American South
Post by: Eddie 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.







Title: Re: Facts and Fictions Regarding Lost Cause Ideology In The American South
Post by: RE 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
Title: Re: Facts and Fictions Regarding Lost Cause Ideology In The American South
Post by: BuddyJ 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.
Title: Re: Facts and Fictions Regarding Lost Cause Ideology In The American South
Post by: Surly1 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/ (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.

Title: Re: Facts and Fictions Regarding Lost Cause Ideology In The American South
Post by: RE 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
Title: Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: RE 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
Title: Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: Eddie 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.
Title: Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: RE 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
Title: Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: Surly1 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 (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.
Title: Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: RE 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 (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
Title: Re: Facts and Fictions Regarding Lost Cause Ideology In The American South
Post by: Ashvin 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.
Title: Re: Facts and Fictions Regarding Lost Cause Ideology In The American South
Post by: RE 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.

(https://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/01-pot-calls-kettle-black.jpg)

RE
Title: Diners Litigate the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression)
Post by: RE 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:

 






 


 

Title: Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: Eddie 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.
Title: Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: RE on November 04, 2018, 07:55:18 AM
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.

Sounds like a Doomer well prepped to GTFOOD when Collapse came to his neighborhood in SC.  Any idea what kind of Bugout Machine he used to get from SC to TX with his family?  Covered Wagon?  Pulled by Horses or Oxen?  What did he bring with him, what were his Preps?  How did he acquire land in TX?

RE
Title: Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: Eddie on November 04, 2018, 08:18:33 AM
Not quite what happened.

They stayed in SC until reconstruction ended...the landed relatives (I think) by then were doing well again, but those who didn't have land weren't.

By that time (late 1870's) you could get to Texas on the train, that modern miracle of space age travel...and so the less wealthy side of the family rolled the dice and came here en masse. The uncle (the patriarch), his wife and kids, his widowed sister and her kids (four of them, teenagers at that point) all came to Texas (  as best I can determine).

Not sure, but they didn't all stay together. Uncle Miles ended up in a place called Tennessee Colony, in Anderson County. My great grandfather, his mother and that side ended up in Smith County, not super close, but not that far either. Not sure about all these details. They are all dead and I don't have anyone left to ask.

The uncle is the only one who left much of a record. There were a few of his dispatches from the war (writing them was part of his job) and then this great obit I found. His given name was Miles, but somehow it got turned into "Miel", which I think was his go-by.

He was the son of William Zedock Hilton and Margaret Susannah Williams and born in Hickory Head, South Carolina. His military service included the Mexican War(1846-1848)serving in the Palmetto Regiment, Company I and he also served in the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865)as a Major in Company E, 22nd SCVI.

Lancaster News 17 March 1906
Maj. Miel Hilton Dead

The Gallant Old Veteran of Two Wars Passes Away at his Home in Texas, the
State of his Adoption.

His old war comrades and many friends in Lancaster county will be pained to
learn of the death of Major Miel Hilton, which occurred at his home in Texas,
in the Tennessee Colony, on the 22nd day of last month. He moved from Flat
Creek township, this county, to Texas about twenty years ago. It will be
recalled that he was back here on a visit a few years ago.

As is well known, Maj. Hilton was a vetran of two wars - the Mexican and the
Civil, in both of which he was distinguished for gallantry and fidelity to
duty. He accompanied Capt. Amos McManus and other Lancaster veterans to Mexico in 1846, serving in the famous Palmetto regiment.

At the outbreak of the Civil war Maj. Hilton organized a company and carried
it to the front, his command becoming a part of the 22nd S.C. Regiment. He
was afterwards promoted from the rank of Captain to that of Major. He made a
brave and daring officer and was idolized by his men.

Maj. Hilton was a son of the late Zadock Hilton of Lancaster county and was 81
years old. He was the last of several sons, all of whom were prominent and
useful citizens. He has one sister living, Mrs. Mary Clyburn, of Rockingham,
N.C. His wife who was a Miss Sowell, died in Texas some years ago. He leaves
the following children: Mrs. Wm. B. Cook and Mrs. Lemuel Blackwell of this
county; W.A.J. Hilton and Kirby Hilton of Texas; and another son and daughter
in Texas whose names we have been unable to learn.
Title: Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: RE on November 04, 2018, 08:33:30 AM
They used the RAILROAD?  Fucking rich people!  I figured they were like the Mormons rolling hand carts to Texas based on your family description.  You come from RICH PEOPLE, not POOR PEOPLE!

Not Eddie's Ancestors
(https://www.legendsofamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/MormonHandcartCo.jpg)

RE



Title: Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: Eddie on November 04, 2018, 08:43:52 AM
It's actually an interesting point.

The inheritors of the family plantation bounced back, and by the 1880's the scion of that family was in the SC legislature and his son followed him. Both were farmers and businessmen.

Those who came to Texas sort of devolved into subsistence farmers, working land they bought cheap with money they saved or borrowed. The descendants were a mixed bag, the products of poor country schools and a lifestyle that mostly consisted of working daylight-to-dark, and experiencing the Wrath of God up close and personal in the days before radio and penicillin.

My parents and the couple of generations before them were the opposite of rich. Very humble rural people, some very religious, some not. I favor the "nots" I guess.
Title: The American Civil War didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president
Post by: Surly1 on November 06, 2018, 08:40:04 AM
The American Civil War didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/04/the-american-civil-war-didnt-end-and-trump-is-a-confederate-president?fbclid=IwAR1ijGFoKGqvWBLJrGICe0GoVyHLtmpLz8AvFH-LzMoFxj7uIWULVcicC48)

His supporters hark back to an 1860s fantasy of white male dominance. But the Confederacy won’t win in the long run


Rebecca Solnit

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/177ea1a5c730db024736a09cd13df2c64af78786/0_0_2560_1536/master/2560.jpg?width=1020&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=4b86e1c67a7efe8b2bcafa06ad6f25cb)

Illustration by Dom McKenzie.

In the 158th year of the American civil war, also known as 2018, the Confederacy continues its recent resurgence. Its victims include black people, of course, but also immigrants, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, trans people, gay people and women who want to exercise jurisdiction over their bodies. The Confederacy battles in favor of uncontrolled guns and poisons, including toxins in streams, mercury from coal plants, carbon emissions into the upper atmosphere, and oil exploitation in previously protected lands and waters.

Its premise appears to be that protection of others limits the rights of white men, and those rights should be unlimited. The Brazilian philosopher of education Paulo Freire once noted that “the oppressors are afraid of losing the ‘freedom to oppress’”. Of course, not all white men support extending that old domination, but those who do see themselves and their privileges as under threat in a society in which women are gaining powers, and demographic shift is taking us to a US in which white people will be a minority by 2045.

If you are white, you could consider that the civil war ended in 1865. But the blowback against Reconstruction, the rise of Jim Crow, the myriad forms of segregation and deprivation of rights and freedoms and violence against black people, kept the population subjugated and punished into the present in ways that might as well be called war. It’s worth remembering that the Ku Klux Klan also hated Jews and, back then, Catholics; that the ideal of whiteness was anti-immigrant, anti-diversity, anti-inclusion; that Confederate flags went up not in the immediate post-war period of the 1860s but in the 1960s as a riposte to the civil rights movement.

Another way to talk about the United States as a country at war is to note that the number of weapons in circulation is incompatible with peace. We have 5% of the world’s population and35%-50% of the guns in civilian hands, more guns per capita than anywhere else – and more gun deaths, too. Is it any surprise that mass shootings – an almost entirely male and largely white phenomenon – are practically daily events? Many synagogues, Jewish community centers, black churches and public schools now engage in drills that are preparations for the gunman who might arrive, the gunman we’ve met in so many aftermath news stories, who is miserable, resentful, feels entitled to take lives and is well equipped to do so. The psychological impact of drills and fear, and the financial costs of security, are a tax on other people’s access to guns. So are the deaths.

A memorial outside the Tree of Life synagogue to the 11 people killed.
FacebookTwitterPinterest
A memorial outside the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, where 11 people were killed. Photograph: Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

We had an ardent Unionist president for eight years, and now we are 21 months into the reign of an openly Confederate president, one who has defended Confederate statuesand Confederate values and Confederate goals, because Make America Great Again harks back to some antebellum fantasy of white male dominance. Last weekend might as well have been Make America Gentile Again. And then came the attack, last Tuesday, on one of the signal achievements after the end of all-out war between the states: the14th Amendment, which extends equal right of citizenship to everyone born here or naturalized.

So much of what is at stake is the definition of “us”, “ours” and “we”. “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,” says the preamble to the constitution. It was murky about who “we” were, and who “the people” were. That document apportions each state’s representation according to “whole Number of free Persons, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons”. “All other persons” is a polite way of saying enslaved black people, who found the union pretty imperfect. “Who’s your ‘us’?” could be what we ask each other and our elected officials.

“You will not replace us,” shouted the mobs of white men marching through Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 in a rally organized in response to the planned removal of a statue of Confederate general Robert E Lee. When Dylann Roof murdered nine black people on 17 June 2015 in Charleston, South Carolina, he declared: “Y’all are raping our white women. Y’all are taking over the world.” His “us” was white people, perhaps white men, since “our women” seems to regard white women as white men’s possessions.

Taking over the world: there is a great deal of fear and rage about an increasingly non-white nation. “The US subtracts from its population a million of our babies in the form of abortion,” Representative Steve King told a far-right Austrian magazine. “We add to our population approximately 1.8 million of ‘somebody else’s babies’ who are raised in another culture before they get to us. We are replacing our American culture two to one every year.” (He ignored that, also, almost 4 million babies are born in this country annually; factual accuracy is not a pursuit of many on the far right.)

The current president has harped on for almost three years with the idea that immigrants and refugees are criminals who pose a danger to the rest of us. He has preached the gospel of a monumentally restrictive “we”. A Florida Trump enthusiast sent bombs to leading figures of the Democratic party and to prominent liberals, some of them Jewish, the other week. In Kentucky, two elderly black people were shot by a white supremacist who had earlier tried to enter a black church. After the attacks, the president ranted about “globalists”, an antisemitic code word for Jews, and when part of his cultic crowd shouted George Soros’s name – after Soros had been among the bombers’ targets – and then “lock him up”, the president repeated the phrase appreciatively. Then came last Saturday’s synagogue massacre.

The man who allegedlykilled 11 peoplein the Tree of Life synagogue last Saturday morning was focused on what the far right – president, Fox News and the like – pushed him to focus on – the Central American refugees in southern Mexico: the “caravan”. He bought into it as a threat and blamed that threat on Jews in general and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society in particular. “All Jews must die,” he reportedly shouted as he allegedly shot elderly worshippers with the high-velocity bullets of his AR-15. He had posted just before: “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered” – “my people” meaning that restrictive “us” the white nationalists urge people such as him to identify with. (The alleged killer also posted photographs of “my Glock family” on social media.)

Depicted as a menacing horde … a caravan of Central Americans in Mexico, bound for the US.
FacebookTwitterPinterest
Depicted as a menacing horde … a caravan of Central Americans in Mexico, bound for the US. Photograph: Guillermo Arias/AFP/Getty Images

Rightwing media and the president himself have depicted the refugees as a menacing horde. “Trump’s suggestion that Middle Easterners had joined the group came shortly after a guest on the Fox & Friends news talkshow raised the specter of Isis fighters embedding themselves in the group,” reported the Hill. The vice-president, Mike Pence, justified the baseless speculation with his own luridly counterfactual speculation. “It’s inconceivable that there are not people of Middle Eastern descent in a crowd of more than 7,000 people advancing toward our border,”he said. Latin Americans, who are also Muslims, who are also the fault of Jews. Refugees who Fox News, reviving an ugly old tradition, warn might infect us withdeadly diseases(including smallpox, which is functionally extinct, and leprosy, which is perhaps the least contagious of all contagious diseases). Refugees who are aggressors. A distant “them” to rally a fearful idea of “us” against.

We never cleaned up after the civil war, never made it anathema, as the Germans have since the second world war, to support the losing side. We never had a truth and reconciliation process like South Africa did. We’ve allowed statues to go up across the country glorifying the traitors and losers, treated the pro-slavery flag as sentimental, fun, Dukes of Hazzard, white identity politics. A retired general, Stanley McChrystal, just wrote a piece about throwing out his portrait of Robert E Lee that he’d had for 40 years, and why a US soldier should celebrate the leader of a war against that country says everything about the distortion of meaning and memory here.

The Washington Post reported the other week that a senior Veterans Affairs official finally removed his portrait of a Confederate general who was also the first grand wizard of the KKK after employees, many of them black, protested at having the image in their workplace. There were death threats against the contractors hired to take down Confederate statues in New Orleans, and an epic battle over the sale of Confederate flags at county fairs in New York state. The Confederacy, which should have died a century and a half ago, is with us still, and the recent attack on the 14th amendment is an attempt to return us to its vision of radical inequality of rights and protections.

Even before the United States was founded, great conflicts arose between the Puritans and other Christians who wanted to live in a segregated, homogeneous society, and the pluralists, between narrow and broad “us”. In what is now New Mexico, crypto-Jews –J ews who had survived the Spanish Inquisition by hiding their faith – found refuge in the mid-17th century. In 1657, Quakers in what is now Queens, New York, issued the Flushing Remonstrance, a manifesto in favor of religious tolerance countering the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam’s attempt to drive out Jews and anyone else outside the Dutch Reformed church.

That pluralistic, inclusive impulse never vanished. It’s in a recent Muslim fundraiser for the victims of the massacre at the synagogue and Muslim work to guard Jewish cemeteries in recent years; in the work of relatives of Japanese-American survivors of internment to stand up for targeted Muslims in the wake of 9/11. It’s in all the work of inclusion and liberation and solidarity made since, in abolition and human rights work, including by the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. Mark Hetfield, head of the society, tweeted the other weekend: “We used to say we welcomed refugees because they were Jewish. Now we say we welcome refugees because *we* are Jewish. We know what persecution and terror is. We are a refugee people.”

You don’t have to be oppressed or come from a history of oppression to stand with the oppressed; you just have to have a definition of “we” that includes people of various points of origin and language and religious belief and sexual orientation and gender identity. A lot of us do: many large US cities are places of thriving everyday coexistence across difference. A lot of Americans have married across racial and religious lines, some have devoted themselves to the work of solidarity, and a lot subscribe to a grand inclusive “we, the people”. Those who don’t are not a majority but they have an outsized impact, more now than in a very long time. The Confederacy didn’t win in the 1860s and it is not going to win in the long run, but inflicting as much damage as possible seems to be how they want to go down.

In the short term, it is immensely worth trying to win as much as possible in this week’s elections. Some politicians support gun control; some belong to the NRA. Some want to take away reproductive rights; some are ardent defenders of those rights so essential to women being free and equal members of society. Some oppose taking refugee children from their refugee parents and putting them in baby gulags; some are enthusiasts for this child abuse. The differences are clearcut.

And in the long run we need to end the war with a decisive victory for an idea of a pluralistic,e pluribus unumunion, with an affirmation of inclusive values and universal human rights, and of equality across all categories. Pittsburgh’s Jewish leaders wrote: “President Trump, you are not welcome in Pittsburgh until you cease your assault on immigrants and refugees. The Torah teaches that every human being is madeb’tzelem Elohim, in the image of God. This means all of us.”

Long after Trump is gone, we will have these delusional soldiers of the Confederacy and their weapons, and ending the war means ending their allegiance to the narrow “us” and the entitlement to attack. As Michelle Alexander reminded us recently: “The whole of American history can be described as a struggle between those who truly embraced the revolutionary idea of freedom, equality and justice for all, and those who resisted.” She argues that we are not the resistance; we are the river that they are trying to dam; they are the resistance, the minority, the people trying to stop the flow of history.

Perhaps peace means creating so compelling a story of abundance and possibility and wellbeing that it encourages people to wander out of their bunkers and put down their weapons and come over. It means issuing invitations, not just rebukes, and that’s a long, slow complex job. All week I’ve had the title line from Johnny Cash’s song Like a Soldier in my head. How does a soldier get over the war? I don’t know, but it helps if the war is over.

I do know that so much of what makes this country miserable is imagined poverty, the sense that there is not enough for all of us, that we need to become grabbers and hoarders and slammers of doors and ad hoc border patrols. Wars are fought over resources, and this is a fight over redistribution of resources and who decides about that distribution. We are a vast land, a country of unequaled affluence – albeit with obscene problems of distribution – a country that has always been diverse, and one that has periodically affirmed ideas of equality and universal rights that we could actually someday live up to fully. That seems to be the only real alternative to endless civil war, for all of us.

  • Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist. She is the author of Men Explain Things to Me and The Mother of All Questions

Title: Re: The American Civil War didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president
Post by: Eddie on November 06, 2018, 09:37:04 AM
The American Civil War didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/04/the-american-civil-war-didnt-end-and-trump-is-a-confederate-president?fbclid=IwAR1ijGFoKGqvWBLJrGICe0GoVyHLtmpLz8AvFH-LzMoFxj7uIWULVcicC48)

His supporters hark back to an 1860s fantasy of white male dominance. But the Confederacy won’t win in the long run


Rebecca Solnit

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/177ea1a5c730db024736a09cd13df2c64af78786/0_0_2560_1536/master/2560.jpg?width=1020&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=4b86e1c67a7efe8b2bcafa06ad6f25cb)

Illustration by Dom McKenzie.

In the 158th year of the American civil war, also known as 2018, the Confederacy continues its recent resurgence. Its victims include black people, of course, but also immigrants, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, trans people, gay people and women who want to exercise jurisdiction over their bodies. The Confederacy battles in favor of uncontrolled guns and poisons, including toxins in streams, mercury from coal plants, carbon emissions into the upper atmosphere, and oil exploitation in previously protected lands and waters.

Its premise appears to be that protection of others limits the rights of white men, and those rights should be unlimited. The Brazilian philosopher of education Paulo Freire once noted that “the oppressors are afraid of losing the ‘freedom to oppress’”. Of course, not all white men support extending that old domination, but those who do see themselves and their privileges as under threat in a society in which women are gaining powers, and demographic shift is taking us to a US in which white people will be a minority by 2045.

If you are white, you could consider that the civil war ended in 1865. But the blowback against Reconstruction, the rise of Jim Crow, the myriad forms of segregation and deprivation of rights and freedoms and violence against black people, kept the population subjugated and punished into the present in ways that might as well be called war. It’s worth remembering that the Ku Klux Klan also hated Jews and, back then, Catholics; that the ideal of whiteness was anti-immigrant, anti-diversity, anti-inclusion; that Confederate flags went up not in the immediate post-war period of the 1860s but in the 1960s as a riposte to the civil rights movement.

Another way to talk about the United States as a country at war is to note that the number of weapons in circulation is incompatible with peace. We have 5% of the world’s population and35%-50% of the guns in civilian hands, more guns per capita than anywhere else – and more gun deaths, too. Is it any surprise that mass shootings – an almost entirely male and largely white phenomenon – are practically daily events? Many synagogues, Jewish community centers, black churches and public schools now engage in drills that are preparations for the gunman who might arrive, the gunman we’ve met in so many aftermath news stories, who is miserable, resentful, feels entitled to take lives and is well equipped to do so. The psychological impact of drills and fear, and the financial costs of security, are a tax on other people’s access to guns. So are the deaths.

A memorial outside the Tree of Life synagogue to the 11 people killed.
A memorial outside the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, where 11 people were killed. Photograph: Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

We had an ardent Unionist president for eight years, and now we are 21 months into the reign of an openly Confederate president, one who has defended Confederate statuesand Confederate values and Confederate goals, because Make America Great Again harks back to some antebellum fantasy of white male dominance. Last weekend might as well have been Make America Gentile Again. And then came the attack, last Tuesday, on one of the signal achievements after the end of all-out war between the states: the14th Amendment, which extends equal right of citizenship to everyone born here or naturalized.

So much of what is at stake is the definition of “us”, “ours” and “we”. “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,” says the preamble to the constitution. It was murky about who “we” were, and who “the people” were. That document apportions each state’s representation according to “whole Number of free Persons, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons”. “All other persons” is a polite way of saying enslaved black people, who found the union pretty imperfect. “Who’s your ‘us’?” could be what we ask each other and our elected officials.

“You will not replace us,” shouted the mobs of white men marching through Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 in a rally organized in response to the planned removal of a statue of Confederate general Robert E Lee. When Dylann Roof murdered nine black people on 17 June 2015 in Charleston, South Carolina, he declared: “Y’all are raping our white women. Y’all are taking over the world.” His “us” was white people, perhaps white men, since “our women” seems to regard white women as white men’s possessions.

Taking over the world: there is a great deal of fear and rage about an increasingly non-white nation. “The US subtracts from its population a million of our babies in the form of abortion,” Representative Steve King told a far-right Austrian magazine. “We add to our population approximately 1.8 million of ‘somebody else’s babies’ who are raised in another culture before they get to us. We are replacing our American culture two to one every year.” (He ignored that, also, almost 4 million babies are born in this country annually; factual accuracy is not a pursuit of many on the far right.)

The current president has harped on for almost three years with the idea that immigrants and refugees are criminals who pose a danger to the rest of us. He has preached the gospel of a monumentally restrictive “we”. A Florida Trump enthusiast sent bombs to leading figures of the Democratic party and to prominent liberals, some of them Jewish, the other week. In Kentucky, two elderly black people were shot by a white supremacist who had earlier tried to enter a black church. After the attacks, the president ranted about “globalists”, an antisemitic code word for Jews, and when part of his cultic crowd shouted George Soros’s name – after Soros had been among the bombers’ targets – and then “lock him up”, the president repeated the phrase appreciatively. Then came last Saturday’s synagogue massacre.

The man who allegedlykilled 11 peoplein the Tree of Life synagogue last Saturday morning was focused on what the far right – president, Fox News and the like – pushed him to focus on – the Central American refugees in southern Mexico: the “caravan”. He bought into it as a threat and blamed that threat on Jews in general and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society in particular. “All Jews must die,” he reportedly shouted as he allegedly shot elderly worshippers with the high-velocity bullets of his AR-15. He had posted just before: “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered” – “my people” meaning that restrictive “us” the white nationalists urge people such as him to identify with. (The alleged killer also posted photographs of “my Glock family” on social media.)

Depicted as a menacing horde … a caravan of Central Americans in Mexico, bound for the US.
Depicted as a menacing horde … a caravan of Central Americans in Mexico, bound for the US. Photograph: Guillermo Arias/AFP/Getty Images

Rightwing media and the president himself have depicted the refugees as a menacing horde. “Trump’s suggestion that Middle Easterners had joined the group came shortly after a guest on the Fox & Friends news talkshow raised the specter of Isis fighters embedding themselves in the group,” reported the Hill. The vice-president, Mike Pence, justified the baseless speculation with his own luridly counterfactual speculation. “It’s inconceivable that there are not people of Middle Eastern descent in a crowd of more than 7,000 people advancing toward our border,”he said. Latin Americans, who are also Muslims, who are also the fault of Jews. Refugees who Fox News, reviving an ugly old tradition, warn might infect us withdeadly diseases(including smallpox, which is functionally extinct, and leprosy, which is perhaps the least contagious of all contagious diseases). Refugees who are aggressors. A distant “them” to rally a fearful idea of “us” against.

We never cleaned up after the civil war, never made it anathema, as the Germans have since the second world war, to support the losing side. We never had a truth and reconciliation process like South Africa did. We’ve allowed statues to go up across the country glorifying the traitors and losers, treated the pro-slavery flag as sentimental, fun, Dukes of Hazzard, white identity politics. A retired general, Stanley McChrystal, just wrote a piece about throwing out his portrait of Robert E Lee that he’d had for 40 years, and why a US soldier should celebrate the leader of a war against that country says everything about the distortion of meaning and memory here.

The Washington Post reported the other week that a senior Veterans Affairs official finally removed his portrait of a Confederate general who was also the first grand wizard of the KKK after employees, many of them black, protested at having the image in their workplace. There were death threats against the contractors hired to take down Confederate statues in New Orleans, and an epic battle over the sale of Confederate flags at county fairs in New York state. The Confederacy, which should have died a century and a half ago, is with us still, and the recent attack on the 14th amendment is an attempt to return us to its vision of radical inequality of rights and protections.

Even before the United States was founded, great conflicts arose between the Puritans and other Christians who wanted to live in a segregated, homogeneous society, and the pluralists, between narrow and broad “us”. In what is now New Mexico, crypto-Jews –J ews who had survived the Spanish Inquisition by hiding their faith – found refuge in the mid-17th century. In 1657, Quakers in what is now Queens, New York, issued the Flushing Remonstrance, a manifesto in favor of religious tolerance countering the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam’s attempt to drive out Jews and anyone else outside the Dutch Reformed church.

That pluralistic, inclusive impulse never vanished. It’s in a recent Muslim fundraiser for the victims of the massacre at the synagogue and Muslim work to guard Jewish cemeteries in recent years; in the work of relatives of Japanese-American survivors of internment to stand up for targeted Muslims in the wake of 9/11. It’s in all the work of inclusion and liberation and solidarity made since, in abolition and human rights work, including by the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. Mark Hetfield, head of the society, tweeted the other weekend: “We used to say we welcomed refugees because they were Jewish. Now we say we welcome refugees because *we* are Jewish. We know what persecution and terror is. We are a refugee people.”

You don’t have to be oppressed or come from a history of oppression to stand with the oppressed; you just have to have a definition of “we” that includes people of various points of origin and language and religious belief and sexual orientation and gender identity. A lot of us do: many large US cities are places of thriving everyday coexistence across difference. A lot of Americans have married across racial and religious lines, some have devoted themselves to the work of solidarity, and a lot subscribe to a grand inclusive “we, the people”. Those who don’t are not a majority but they have an outsized impact, more now than in a very long time. The Confederacy didn’t win in the 1860s and it is not going to win in the long run, but inflicting as much damage as possible seems to be how they want to go down.

In the short term, it is immensely worth trying to win as much as possible in this week’s elections. Some politicians support gun control; some belong to the NRA. Some want to take away reproductive rights; some are ardent defenders of those rights so essential to women being free and equal members of society. Some oppose taking refugee children from their refugee parents and putting them in baby gulags; some are enthusiasts for this child abuse. The differences are clearcut.

And in the long run we need to end the war with a decisive victory for an idea of a pluralistic,e pluribus unumunion, with an affirmation of inclusive values and universal human rights, and of equality across all categories. Pittsburgh’s Jewish leaders wrote: “President Trump, you are not welcome in Pittsburgh until you cease your assault on immigrants and refugees. The Torah teaches that every human being is madeb’tzelem Elohim, in the image of God. This means all of us.”

Long after Trump is gone, we will have these delusional soldiers of the Confederacy and their weapons, and ending the war means ending their allegiance to the narrow “us” and the entitlement to attack. As Michelle Alexander reminded us recently: “The whole of American history can be described as a struggle between those who truly embraced the revolutionary idea of freedom, equality and justice for all, and those who resisted.” She argues that we are not the resistance; we are the river that they are trying to dam; they are the resistance, the minority, the people trying to stop the flow of history.

Perhaps peace means creating so compelling a story of abundance and possibility and wellbeing that it encourages people to wander out of their bunkers and put down their weapons and come over. It means issuing invitations, not just rebukes, and that’s a long, slow complex job. All week I’ve had the title line from Johnny Cash’s song Like a Soldier in my head. How does a soldier get over the war? I don’t know, but it helps if the war is over.

I do know that so much of what makes this country miserable is imagined poverty, the sense that there is not enough for all of us, that we need to become grabbers and hoarders and slammers of doors and ad hoc border patrols. Wars are fought over resources, and this is a fight over redistribution of resources and who decides about that distribution. We are a vast land, a country of unequaled affluence – albeit with obscene problems of distribution – a country that has always been diverse, and one that has periodically affirmed ideas of equality and universal rights that we could actually someday live up to fully. That seems to be the only real alternative to endless civil war, for all of us.

  • Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist. She is the author of Men Explain Things to Me and The Mother of All Questions




I hate Trump, and the would-be Confederate yahoos who invoke his name are delusional idiots. But.....

The Confederacy connection is bogus.

White males were in control of the Union too, in case you don't remember your history. Women didn't get the vote for 53 years after Lee surrendered.

This is a very typical PC Police article that tries (and fails) to make the case that everything that's wrong with the world today a direct consequence of capitalism and the white male patriarchy. It's a popular sentiment in some quarters, but it's a real reach, when it comes to proof.
Title: Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: Surly1 on November 06, 2018, 12:31:40 PM
Quote from: Eddie
I hate Trump, and the would-be Confederate yahoos who invoke his name are delusional idiots. But.....

The Confederacy connection is bogus.

White males were in control of the Union too, in case you don't remember your history. Women didn't get the vote for 53 years after Lee surrendered.

This is a very typical PC Police article that tries (and fails) to make the case that everything that's wrong with the world today a direct consequence of capitalism and the white male patriarchy. It's a popular sentiment in some quarters, but it's a real reach, when it comes to proof.

You won't be surprised to learn that I disagree. Southerners have been re-litigating the Civil War since they withdrew the federal troops and stood up the Klan and the "Lost Cause" mythology. The candidate who is running against Tim Kaine for a Senate seat in Virginia is Corey Stewart, a full  bore republiconfederate and proud of it. So the "confederacy connection" is anything but bogus: it is quite genuine and actionable.

And I know you carry no water for Trump and his new best friend, "beautiful Ted."

Since you were busy "killing" infants this weekend, you probably missed the video of a bunch of uniformed militia types marching in force. It was on FB and I did not repost here, because that video won't display. Some in Oath Keepers camo, some in neo-nazi garb, and at least one old fuck dressed up like Marse Robert himself. If these people were walking down the street in your town, you'd clear the duck out. These fucking people have gone from cosplay to homicide, and it is worth taking seriously before someone else dies at Jefferson Davis Trump's exhortation.

There may be good reason to reject Solnit's analysis, but a variant of "bothsiderism" (by dismissing her as part of the PC Police) ain't it. I have the rudiments of an artoicle on bothsiderism laying fallow in draft mode on the blog. I should probably finish the damned thing.
Title: Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: RE on November 06, 2018, 03:18:58 PM
Since you were busy "killing" infants this weekend, you probably missed the video of a bunch of uniformed militia types marching in force. It was on FB and I did not repost here, because that video won't display. Some in Oath Keepers camo, some in neo-nazi garb, and at least one old fuck dressed up like Marse Robert himself. If these people were walking down the street in your town, you'd clear the duck out. These fucking people have gone from cosplay to homicide, and it is worth taking seriously before someone else dies at Jefferson Davis Trump's exhortation.

You can generally find vids posted to Facepalm on Utoob also.    Give me the URL, I'll see if I can search it down.

RE
Title: Re: The American Civil War didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president
Post by: Ashvin on November 06, 2018, 04:16:15 PM
This is a very typical PC Police article that tries (and fails) to make the case that everything that's wrong with the world today a direct consequence of capitalism and the white male patriarchy. It's a popular sentiment in some quarters, but it's a real reach, when it comes to proof.

This is Spotting Ideologically-Driven "Analysis" 101 - if it attributes a wide range of complicated phenomenon to one or two causal mechanisms, then that's what it is. Realizing this isn't "bothsiderism", it's a desire to ignore ANY side which is too lazy or too malicious to avoid that dangerous ploy. It's especially dangerous when the "causal" mechanisms identified allow us to easily impose collective guilt on others.
Title: Re: The American Civil War didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president
Post by: RE on November 06, 2018, 04:32:01 PM
This is a very typical PC Police article that tries (and fails) to make the case that everything that's wrong with the world today a direct consequence of capitalism and the white male patriarchy. It's a popular sentiment in some quarters, but it's a real reach, when it comes to proof.

This is Spotting Ideologically-Driven "Analysis" 101 - if it attributes a wide range of complicated phenomenon to one or two causal mechanisms, then that's what it is. Realizing this isn't "bothsiderism", it's a desire to ignore ANY side which is too lazy or too malicious to avoid that dangerous ploy. It's especially dangerous when the "causal" mechanisms identified allow us to easily impose collective guilt on others.

Did you actually say ANYTHING with this post?  ???  :icon_scratch:  Try to make your contributions have some value, trash trolling posts are not :hi:.

RE
Title: Re: The American Civil War didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president
Post by: Ashvin on November 06, 2018, 04:43:11 PM
This is a very typical PC Police article that tries (and fails) to make the case that everything that's wrong with the world today a direct consequence of capitalism and the white male patriarchy. It's a popular sentiment in some quarters, but it's a real reach, when it comes to proof.

This is Spotting Ideologically-Driven "Analysis" 101 - if it attributes a wide range of complicated phenomenon to one or two causal mechanisms, then that's what it is. Realizing this isn't "bothsiderism", it's a desire to ignore ANY side which is too lazy or too malicious to avoid that dangerous ploy. It's especially dangerous when the "causal" mechanisms identified allow us to easily impose collective guilt on others.

Did you actually say ANYTHING with this post?  ???  :icon_scratch:  Try to make your contributions have some value, trash trolling posts are not :hi:.

RE

Yes, I did - my post partly reinforcing Eddie's post and partly critiquing the Guardian article which did exactly what I believe an ideological analysis does - reduce a wide range of phenomenon to one or two causal mechanisms. This time the cause for all sorts of racist and violent thoughts/actions were... Trump and the right wing establishment.
Title: Re: The American Civil War didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president
Post by: RE on November 06, 2018, 05:07:07 PM
This is a very typical PC Police article that tries (and fails) to make the case that everything that's wrong with the world today a direct consequence of capitalism and the white male patriarchy. It's a popular sentiment in some quarters, but it's a real reach, when it comes to proof.

This is Spotting Ideologically-Driven "Analysis" 101 - if it attributes a wide range of complicated phenomenon to one or two causal mechanisms, then that's what it is. Realizing this isn't "bothsiderism", it's a desire to ignore ANY side which is too lazy or too malicious to avoid that dangerous ploy. It's especially dangerous when the "causal" mechanisms identified allow us to easily impose collective guilt on others.

Did you actually say ANYTHING with this post?  ???  :icon_scratch:  Try to make your contributions have some value, trash trolling posts are not :hi:.

RE

Yes, I did - my post partly reinforcing Eddie's post and partly critiquing the Guardian article which did exactly what I believe an ideological analysis does - reduce a wide range of phenomenon to one or two causal mechanisms. This time the cause for all sorts of racist and violent thoughts/actions were... Trump and the right wing establishment.

I did not perceive that from anything in the OP.  You'll need to be less abstract in the future.  Even if I did figure it out from your telegraphy though, it's still complete nonsense.  You need to turn on your brain here at some point.  At the moment you appear to be stuck in neutral.

RE
Title: Re: The American Civil War didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president
Post by: Surly1 on November 07, 2018, 11:51:28 AM
This is a very typical PC Police article that tries (and fails) to make the case that everything that's wrong with the world today a direct consequence of capitalism and the white male patriarchy. It's a popular sentiment in some quarters, but it's a real reach, when it comes to proof.

This is Spotting Ideologically-Driven "Analysis" 101 - if it attributes a wide range of complicated phenomenon to one or two causal mechanisms, then that's what it is. Realizing this isn't "bothsiderism", it's a desire to ignore ANY side which is too lazy or too malicious to avoid that dangerous ploy. It's especially dangerous when the "causal" mechanisms identified allow us to easily impose collective guilt on others.

Naah.

Calling Rebecca Solnit "lazy or malicious" is quite a reach. You have to be wearing ideological blinders to ignore the veracity of her argument. Which you are, and which you do.
But it's always a pleasure to watch the enthusiasm with which you carry water for the white male patriarchy, which is clearly in such need of being defended.

No, RE, he ain't sayin' shit, but he's trying to make sure he looks reeeeeal good while he's not sayin' it.
Title: Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: edpell on November 07, 2018, 06:00:57 PM
States rights, down with the despot Lincoln.
Title: Re: The American Civil War didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president
Post by: RE on November 07, 2018, 06:14:57 PM
No, RE, he ain't sayin' shit, but he's trying to make sure he looks reeeeeal good while he's not sayin' it.

Watson is a Smart Troll, I have never denied that one.  He is also a great dog to kick, he leaves so many openings it's downright EZ to fuck with him.  That's why I don't pitch him to the Great Beyond in perpetuity.  It's too much fun fucking with him.  :icon_sunny:  He's damn smart, almost as smart as me but he is utterly corrupt and an EZ Target as a result.  ;D

RE
Title: Re: The American Civil War didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president
Post by: Ashvin on November 07, 2018, 07:45:45 PM
This is a very typical PC Police article that tries (and fails) to make the case that everything that's wrong with the world today a direct consequence of capitalism and the white male patriarchy. It's a popular sentiment in some quarters, but it's a real reach, when it comes to proof.

This is Spotting Ideologically-Driven "Analysis" 101 - if it attributes a wide range of complicated phenomenon to one or two causal mechanisms, then that's what it is. Realizing this isn't "bothsiderism", it's a desire to ignore ANY side which is too lazy or too malicious to avoid that dangerous ploy. It's especially dangerous when the "causal" mechanisms identified allow us to easily impose collective guilt on others.

Naah.

Calling Rebecca Solnit "lazy or malicious" is quite a reach. You have to be wearing ideological blinders to ignore the veracity of her argument. Which you are, and which you do.
But it's always a pleasure to watch the enthusiasm with which you carry water for the white male patriarchy, which is clearly in such need of being defended.

No, RE, he ain't sayin' shit, but he's trying to make sure he looks reeeeeal good while he's not sayin' it.

It's really not a reach, because everyone has their moments of laziness and maliciousness, no matter how well-educated or read. Everyone. Yes that includes me.

The world is a fucking complex place, and sometimes it's just A LOT easier to go with the ideological framework than trying to dissect it all over the course of years and decades. Especially if you are responsible for pushing out content on a weekly or daily basis.

But nothing good comes easy and that's no excuse. There is no white male patriarchy for me to carry water for, and when you think about it enough, the very concept becomes incoherent. But I know it's a hell of a lot easier, cognitively and culturally, for people to pretend that it not only exists, but it has been the driving force of human history for thousands of years.

Sorry, no.
Title: Re: The American Civil War didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president
Post by: Surly1 on November 08, 2018, 02:11:37 AM
This is a very typical PC Police article that tries (and fails) to make the case that everything that's wrong with the world today a direct consequence of capitalism and the white male patriarchy. It's a popular sentiment in some quarters, but it's a real reach, when it comes to proof.

This is Spotting Ideologically-Driven "Analysis" 101 - if it attributes a wide range of complicated phenomenon to one or two causal mechanisms, then that's what it is. Realizing this isn't "bothsiderism", it's a desire to ignore ANY side which is too lazy or too malicious to avoid that dangerous ploy. It's especially dangerous when the "causal" mechanisms identified allow us to easily impose collective guilt on others.

Naah.

Calling Rebecca Solnit "lazy or malicious" is quite a reach. You have to be wearing ideological blinders to ignore the veracity of her argument. Which you are, and which you do.
But it's always a pleasure to watch the enthusiasm with which you carry water for the white male patriarchy, which is clearly in such need of being defended.

No, RE, he ain't sayin' shit, but he's trying to make sure he looks reeeeeal good while he's not sayin' it.

It's really not a reach, because everyone has their moments of laziness and maliciousness, no matter how well-educated or read. Everyone. Yes that includes me.

This is just so much sophistry, or wordplay. Utterly meaningless, and completely unresponsive to the point.

The world is a fucking complex place, and sometimes it's just A LOT easier to go with the ideological framework than trying to dissect it all over the course of years and decades. Especially if you are responsible for pushing out content on a weekly or daily basis.

Subtle ad hom. RE may be too drunk to see it, but I'm not. It must be nice to be responsible for nothing but pissing on the work of others. A good gig.


There is no white male patriarchy for me to carry water for, and when you think about it enough, the very concept becomes incoherent. But I know it's a hell of a lot easier, cognitively and culturally, for people to pretend that it not only exists, but it has been the driving force of human history for thousands of years.

This statement is delusional on its face. In the same way some claim they can't prove that God exists, but know evil when they see it, the works of the "white male patriarchy" are evident for all to see,from the recent sets of voters suppression efforts (delivering yet another set of undeserved electoral wins to Republicans), to exclusionary rules for private club memberships. If you really believe what you've written above, you're crazy.
Title: Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: Surly1 on November 08, 2018, 02:13:58 AM
States rights, down with the despot Lincoln.

Quite right. "States' rights" to preserve the legality of private ownership of human beings.
Title: Re: The American Civil War didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president
Post by: RE on November 08, 2018, 05:10:03 AM
Subtle ad hom. RE may be too drunk to see it, but I'm not. It must be nice to be responsible for nothing but pissing on the work of others. A good gig.

I'm not THAT wasted.  I almost couldn't get out of bed this early morning due to a combination of a major hangover and my bed setup being messed up (gotta work on fixing this today while still sober).  It took 20 fucking minutes just to figure out how to get my crippled ass out of bed!)  However, drunk or sober I can read Watson's prose for comprehension.  He's pushing the limits here, and I am going to give him a piece of my mind here pretty soon if he doesn't wise up.  I'll light it up once again like Vietnam on a Summer's Day in 1969.  I am never so wasted I can't smell that smell.  It's the smell of death, and it surrounds Watson.

http://www.youtube.com/v/PNQ1QeVFzaA
Title: Re: The American Civil War didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president
Post by: Ashvin on November 08, 2018, 05:56:35 AM
This is a very typical PC Police article that tries (and fails) to make the case that everything that's wrong with the world today a direct consequence of capitalism and the white male patriarchy. It's a popular sentiment in some quarters, but it's a real reach, when it comes to proof.

This is Spotting Ideologically-Driven "Analysis" 101 - if it attributes a wide range of complicated phenomenon to one or two causal mechanisms, then that's what it is. Realizing this isn't "bothsiderism", it's a desire to ignore ANY side which is too lazy or too malicious to avoid that dangerous ploy. It's especially dangerous when the "causal" mechanisms identified allow us to easily impose collective guilt on others.

Naah.

Calling Rebecca Solnit "lazy or malicious" is quite a reach. You have to be wearing ideological blinders to ignore the veracity of her argument. Which you are, and which you do.
But it's always a pleasure to watch the enthusiasm with which you carry water for the white male patriarchy, which is clearly in such need of being defended.

No, RE, he ain't sayin' shit, but he's trying to make sure he looks reeeeeal good while he's not sayin' it.

It's really not a reach, because everyone has their moments of laziness and maliciousness, no matter how well-educated or read. Everyone. Yes that includes me.

This is just so much sophistry, or wordplay. Utterly meaningless, and completely unresponsive to the point.

Your point was that calling Rachel Solnit "lazy or malicious" is a reach because clearly she is well-intentioned writer who is educated and articulate. Was that not your point? My response was that everyone, including people with those characteristics, can produce analysis which is lazy (I don't suspect she is being malicious). I have done it plenty of times before, even recently.

Quote
The world is a fucking complex place, and sometimes it's just A LOT easier to go with the ideological framework than trying to dissect it all over the course of years and decades. Especially if you are responsible for pushing out content on a weekly or daily basis.

Subtle ad hom. RE may be too drunk to see it, but I'm not. It must be nice to be responsible for nothing but pissing on the work of others. A good gig.

Wrong. I don't consider you guys "responsible" for pushing out content - you're not getting paid for it and people would understand if you didn't write for awhile. Not true for career commentators who would not last long if they stopped pushing out content.

Here I was making the point that humans are evolved to use cognitive shortcuts when dealing with complex realities. Cognitive scientific research shows that we don't even perceive the "external" environment accurately, because that would be counter-productive to survival. We perceive just enough to help us survive and reproduce. What makes you think that this deep evolutionary reality can be suppressed when people are formulating their opinions about complex, vaguely-defined political realities and writing analysis?


Quote
There is no white male patriarchy for me to carry water for, and when you think about it enough, the very concept becomes incoherent. But I know it's a hell of a lot easier, cognitively and culturally, for people to pretend that it not only exists, but it has been the driving force of human history for thousands of years.

This statement is delusional on its face. In the same way some claim they can't prove that God exists, but know evil when they see it, the works of the "white male patriarchy" are evident for all to see,from the recent sets of voters suppression efforts (delivering yet another set of undeserved electoral wins to Republicans), to exclusionary rules for private club memberships. If you really believe what you've written above, you're crazy.

Ah, the "you know it when you see it" line of thinking. At least you are admitting that it is a leap of faith to believe in a "white male patriarchy" which has drove human history for thousands of years. I would say it's a leap entirely in the wrong direction.

Again, it's a cognitive shortcut which allows SJWs to instantly spot the "problem and solution" in most complicated issues - the problem is white males who wield power over everyone else, and the solution is for there to be less whites and less males in positions of power. If only it were that simple.
Title: Re: The American Civil War didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president
Post by: Surly1 on November 08, 2018, 10:03:12 AM
This is a very typical PC Police article that tries (and fails) to make the case that everything that's wrong with the world today a direct consequence of capitalism and the white male patriarchy. It's a popular sentiment in some quarters, but it's a real reach, when it comes to proof.

This is Spotting Ideologically-Driven "Analysis" 101 - if it attributes a wide range of complicated phenomenon to one or two causal mechanisms, then that's what it is. Realizing this isn't "bothsiderism", it's a desire to ignore ANY side which is too lazy or too malicious to avoid that dangerous ploy. It's especially dangerous when the "causal" mechanisms identified allow us to easily impose collective guilt on others.

Naah.

Calling Rebecca Solnit "lazy or malicious" is quite a reach. You have to be wearing ideological blinders to ignore the veracity of her argument. Which you are, and which you do.
But it's always a pleasure to watch the enthusiasm with which you carry water for the white male patriarchy, which is clearly in such need of being defended.

No, RE, he ain't sayin' shit, but he's trying to make sure he looks reeeeeal good while he's not sayin' it.

It's really not a reach, because everyone has their moments of laziness and maliciousness, no matter how well-educated or read. Everyone. Yes that includes me.

The world is a fucking complex place, and sometimes it's just A LOT easier to go with the ideological framework than trying to dissect it all over the course of years and decades. Especially if you are responsible for pushing out content on a weekly or daily basis.

But nothing good comes easy and that's no excuse. There is no white male patriarchy for me to carry water for, and when you think about it enough, the very concept becomes incoherent. But I know it's a hell of a lot easier, cognitively and culturally, for people to pretend that it not only exists, but it has been the driving force of human history for thousands of years.

Sorry, no.

Take it up with Pooh.

(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/45541166_10215519881303909_8854703503138881536_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_eui2=AeF_pvR8LMJ3bXsKFNljK9kL5FWHQEl6NJ-6Gu8BQbl0ZMlP1Hp8qA2Nkh0MVeK9SGPv6LVvNYdZmuDNRg7CYVc0X_B3bVXMbOe3T6bWdgLXwA&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=442bfd43ab0c78ae2160850aa87b0beb&oe=5C84D296)
Title: Re: The American Civil War didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president
Post by: RE on November 08, 2018, 10:45:29 AM
Wrong. I don't consider you guys "responsible" for pushing out content - you're not getting paid for it and people would understand if you didn't write for awhile.

No they wouldn't.  Every time I miss a week with my Sunday Brunch article I get complaints in my email.  You wouldn't miss it because you hate the Diner and hate me and only are here to troll and disrupt.  Fortunately, there is only one of you and there are dozens of regular readers who consider the Diner their best source of information about collapse, and have it first on their weekly reads.  So feel free to go straight to hell because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

RE
Title: Re: The American Civil War didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president
Post by: Ashvin on November 08, 2018, 02:15:25 PM
Wrong. I don't consider you guys "responsible" for pushing out content - you're not getting paid for it and people would understand if you didn't write for awhile.

No they wouldn't.  Every time I miss a week with my Sunday Brunch article I get complaints in my email.  You wouldn't miss it because you hate the Diner and hate me and only are here to troll and disrupt.  Fortunately, there is only one of you and there are dozens of regular readers who consider the Diner their best source of information about collapse, and have it first on their weekly reads.  So feel free to go straight to hell because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

RE

Well that's unfortunate - if your readers are really influencing you to push content out faster than you otherwise would, then obviously there is going to be trade off with the content's precision. We as humans aren't built to analyze extremely complex systems and provide new "insights" or "predictions" about them within a matter of days or weeks.

I don't know you man, apart from what little I have read from you here, so no I don't hate you. I certainly hate the Orkin Man ideology you claim to support, and I hate where it could potentially lead. But it's not anything unique to you... many people have had similar "solutions" throughout history.
Title: Re: The American Civil War didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president
Post by: RE on November 08, 2018, 02:25:38 PM

I don't know you man, apart from what little I have read from you here, so no I don't hate you. I certainly hate the Orkin Man ideology you claim to support, and I hate where it could potentially lead. But it's not anything unique to you... many people have had similar "solutions" throughout history.

You do hate me, it oozes out of your pores like sweat on a muggy day in Richmond, VA.  You also about non-stop try to undermine the Diner and its message.  I tolerate you because you are a good target, but you do tire me out as well having to do battle all the time.  You really need your own website and quit trolling mine.  You're pushing on me too hard, and I am about ready once again to give you time in the Cooler.  You want to get along here, you need to get along with me and you just are real bad at this job.  I'm a long term internet moderator, just about as long as you have been alive and I know how to squash a troll and that is what you are.  So don't fuck with me if you want to keep posting here, because I will fuck with you even harder.

RE
Title: 🙋‍Texas Students Will Soon Learn Slavery Played A Central Role In The Civil War
Post by: RE on November 17, 2018, 12:34:55 AM
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/16/668557179/texas-students-will-soon-learn-slavery-played-a-central-role-in-the-civil-war (https://www.npr.org/2018/11/16/668557179/texas-students-will-soon-learn-slavery-played-a-central-role-in-the-civil-war)

Texas Students Will Soon Learn Slavery Played A Central Role In The Civil War

November 16, 20185:38 PM ET

Camille Phillips

(https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2018/11/16/gettyimages-173337854_slide-55978061954b3889a9fbfb3fcf6569b68ef097ac-s800-c85.jpg)
Abraham Lincoln is shown in Richmond, Va., being cheered by former slaves in 1865.
Culture Club/Getty Images

Texas' Board of Education voted Friday to change the way its students learn about the Civil War. Beginning in the 2019-2020 school year, students will be taught that slavery played a "central role" in the war.

The state's previous social studies standards listed three causes for the Civil War: sectionalism, states' rights and slavery, in that order. In September, the board's Democrats proposed listing slavery as the only cause.

"What the use of 'states' rights' is doing is essentially blanketing, or skirting, the real foundational issue, which is slavery," Democratic board member Marisa Perez-Diaz, from San Antonio, said at a Tuesday board meeting.
Why Schools Fail To Teach Slavery's 'Hard History'
NPR Ed
Why Schools Fail To Teach Slavery's 'Hard History'
How Textbooks Can Teach Different Versions Of History
NPR Ed
How Textbooks Can Teach Different Versions Of History

Republican board member David Bradley, from Beaumont, argued for keeping the other causes in the curriculum. He said, "Each state had differences and made individual decisions as to whether or not to join into the conflict, correct? I mean, that's the definition of states' rights."

In the end, the Republican-led board landed on a compromise: Students will be taught about "the central role of the expansion of slavery in causing sectionalism, disagreements over states' rights and the Civil War."

Houston Democrat Lawrence Allen Jr., the board's only African-American member, helped write the new language. He believes it draws a straighter line between slavery and the Civil War than the previous standards did.

"I don't think we really have that as a consensus in our state," he said Friday. "And so if we can't drive it to a consensus in our state, we need to let our students look at it from all points of view."

The board also decided to keep Hillary Clinton and Helen Keller in the curriculum, reversing a decision that made headlines in September. Clinton and Keller were initially removed, along with other historical figures, in an effort to "streamline" the state's social studies standards.

The approved curriculum still lists only one cause for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: "the rejection of the existence of the state of Israel by the Arab league and a majority of Arab nations."
Sign Up For The NPR Ed Newsletter

Get shareable insights, innovative ideas and the latest education news, sent weekly.
E-mail address

By subscribing, you agree to NPR's terms of use and privacy policy.

University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley historian David Fisher was part of a work group that gave the board suggested revisions. He said listing one cause for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lacks nuance and promotes a single point of view.
Texas Textbook Called Out As 'Racist' Against Mexican-Americans
NPR Ed
Texas Textbook Called Out As 'Racist' Against Mexican-Americans
Movie Interviews
'Revisionaries' Tells Story Of Texas Textbook Battle

"It actually tells the student what to think, rather than suggesting the student study a problem and learn the facts about a problem."

At a public hearing on Tuesday, Shifa Bhatti, a Pakistani-American teacher in the Fort Worth suburbs, warned about the potential for anti-Muslim bias. "I teach middle school because when I was in eighth grade on 9/11/2001, that was the day I received my first death threat. It was in my locker. It was shoved in there. My teachers did nothing."

About 1 in 10 American public school students lives in Texas.

Lawrence Paska, executive director of the National Council for the Social Studies, says what those students learn in school has a big impact on how they understand history and current events.

"Students need opportunities to have reflective discussion," Paska says; they need to be "exposed to sources of information that may include conflicting perspectives on controversial issues."

The state Board of Education has said these changes will not affect the textbooks used in Texas classrooms. The standards go into effect at the middle and high school level in August 2019, and at the elementary level in August 2020.
Title: Re: 🙋‍Texas Students Will Soon Learn Slavery Played A Central Role In The Civil War
Post by: Surly1 on November 17, 2018, 07:19:57 AM
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/16/668557179/texas-students-will-soon-learn-slavery-played-a-central-role-in-the-civil-war (https://www.npr.org/2018/11/16/668557179/texas-students-will-soon-learn-slavery-played-a-central-role-in-the-civil-war)

Texas Students Will Soon Learn Slavery Played A Central Role In The Civil War

"What the use of 'states' rights' is doing is essentially blanketing, or skirting, the real foundational issue, which is slavery," Democratic board member Marisa Perez-Diaz, from San Antonio, said at a Tuesday board meeting.

"Blanketing." In a word.

Disagreement about the expansion of slavery was the determinative issue of US history from the ratification of the Constitution through 1861.
I don't know how else you can fairly understand it otherwise. What to do with emancipated blacks was (and remains) a wholly different issue.
Title: Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: Eddie on November 17, 2018, 09:52:54 AM
Just like everywhere else in the South, it was the movers and shakers who were the slave owners, and it was they who led the Trump Jefferson Davis voters into the war, by a bunch of shit-talking.

Some parts of Texas, including East Texas, had pockets of Union people. Even today, hidden on the lost byways, are little communities usually called something like "Union Chapel".

The real center of Big Cotton in Texas, which WAS the pre-war economy, and a large part of the Confederacy's GDP...was Hempstead. The railroad came there before the war, and it was in that really sweet belt of farmland west and north of Houston, and east of Austin......Brenham, Columbus, La Grange.

In the immediate time after the war, Custer was housed (and shmoozed by) the people who owned the biggest plantation there. As a result of his largesse, it still stands. They later moved to Austin, and Custer's wife loved my town.

Custer had his fuckin' hands full. I didn't really know about that part until I read this:

Gen Phil Sheridan sent Custer and a thousand or so volunteer troops to Texas in 1866 to help restore and maintain order, but Custer had his hands full maintaining order among his own troops. The conflict arose over Custer’s refusal to let the soldiers pillage and plunder the countryside to their heart’s content.

When they arrived at Hempstead in August of 1866, Custer issued orders that made it clear that “foraging” the land and its bounty would not be tolerated. Anyone found guilty of disobeying those orders would have his head shaved and receive 25 lashes of the whip. Once bloody and shorn soldiers started showing up in camp, the foraging stopped.

This measure, though successful, was also controversial. Custer was accused of violating the Reconstruction Laws that “no cruel or unjust punishment” be inflicted on “disturbers of the public peace and criminals.” Custer argued that the punishment was neither cruel nor unjust and, besides, it worked, which allowed him to follow his own orders in regard to protecting Texas planters and farmers from the troops.

The New York Times seemed to agree. “Gen’l Custer, knowing that the trial for desertion was a farce, tried every humane way to save his army from going to pieces, but failed,” a correspondent wrote. “He then tried a new way, and flogged several men and shaved their heads. This had the desired effect, but brought down the friends of these soldiers upon him, who charge him with being disloyal, inhuman, and everything that is bad. Now, I leave it to everyone if Custer didn’t do right.”

Custer’s peculiar disciplinary measures alienated many of his troops (and some authorities in Washington) but not the people who Texas, who would generally recall Custer fondly, mainly because he had protected them from those who would have preyed upon the land and the people who lived on it and from it.

The ban on foraging was particularly galling to the soldiers as they marched into Texas with a lot or orders and drills but few rations. Custer assured them that rations would be available at Hempstead, but that turned out to be not true. The troops spent two unhappy months there, and then marched to Austin. The Custers moved into the old Blind Asylum building on the outskirts of town, now restored and a part of the University of Texas campus.
For Custer’s wife, Libbie, who wrote about her experiences in Texas in her book “Tenting on the Plains,” the stay in Austin was an idyllic time, coming as it did between the Civil War and the Indian Wars on the Plains. They spent a lot of time horseback riding and at the race track. Custer liked a little place on Shoal Creek so much that he had a makeshift jail built there. “Armstrong was having the time of his life, even while performing the unpleasant and unrewarding task of taming Texas,” one biographer wrote. For her part, Libbie enjoyed the luxuries of a bathtub, furniture, a fireplace and a social life.   

It was nice while it lasted. He was mustered out of the volunteers in February of 1867, and would eventually take command of the Seventh Cavalry, where he would meet his fate and seal his name in the history books at Little Big Horn. The Texas legislature passed a resolution of condolence, noting that Custer had endeared himself to the people of Texas during his brief stay.




http://www.texasescapes.com/ClayCoppedge/Custer-in-Texas.htm (http://www.texasescapes.com/ClayCoppedge/Custer-in-Texas.htm)
Title: Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: Surly1 on November 17, 2018, 10:15:41 AM
The order may have been unpopular with his troops but was doubtless faithful to Lincoln's desired outcome for a "soft peace." And more important, enforced a needed discipline on an occupying force with little external restraint. Smells like the right thing to do. By some accounts, Custer was an exemplary officer, right up until he divided his command at the mouth of the Little Bighorn,
Title: Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: Eddie on November 17, 2018, 10:27:58 AM


His Austin stable was awfully close to the saloons and whorehouses. Just sayin'.

I expect his wife probably knew this, and chose to overlook it.

Did you notice that although Lee surrendered in April, 1865, that it took the Union Army until August, 1866 to arrive?

I expect that was a fairly lawless year, and filled with all manner of starvation, theft, murder and what-not. And a time of much fear and wondering about what would happen when the Union troops did arrive. Smells like the stuff for a good novel. Wish I could type faster.
Title: Gettysburg veterans return to the battlefield of the civil war after 50 years
Post by: Surly1 on June 30, 2019, 04:55:05 AM
What a sight this must have been. Incredibly poignant.

These archive photos from 1913 show Gettysburg veterans returning to the bloodiest battlefield of the civil war after 50 years (https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-gettysburg-veterans-return-to-battlefield-after-50-years-2019-6)

(https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5d1362c5e3ecba25ea67dd26-1136-852.jpg)

These archive photos from 1913 show Gettysburg veterans returning to the bloodiest battlefield of the civil war after 50 years

July 1 - 3 marks the anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, the turning point of the American Civil War when Union forces defeated Confederate forces led by General Robert E. Lee.

The battle was the bloodiest of the conflict, with 50,000 dead, wounded or missing by the time it drew to a close.

50 years later survivors returned to the rolling Pennsylvania farmland for the biggest-ever gathering of civil war veterans.

These pictures tell their story.

Gettysburg 1
This picture shows veterans arriving at the camp made for them by the US Army at the bicentennial anniversary of the conflict
Library of Congress

The idea for the 50-year gathering had been suggested in 1908 to Pennsylvania's governor Edwin Sidney Stuart by General H. S. Huidekoper, who had lost his right arm in the battle.

Invitations were sent to surviving honorably discharged civil war veterans across the country. Federal and state authorities provided funds to help veterans — many of whom were in their 70s — get there by rail.

With the help of the War Department, the veterans' village was built across 280 acres with 5,000 tents, each equipped with two hand basins and a water bucket. New wells were dug and latrines built. More than 50,000 veterans turned up, with a further 50,000 sightseers, and family members also attending.

Thousands of soldiers and state officials provided food and medical treatment and Boy Scouts helped the veterans get around.

Gettysburg 2
This image shows the 280 acre camp site constructed for veterans on the Gettysburg battlefield in 1913
Library of Congress

Over the next three days there were speeches, regimental reunions and fireworks displays, and reenactments of key events in the battle.

There was a re-enactment of Pickett's Charge on the third day, in which the Confederates lost more than 2,500 men. Confederate veterans tottered up the hill supported by canes, to be met by Union veterans.

"But instead of shooting each other, they all shook hands across the stone wall and exchanged ceremonial flags. Some fell into each other's arms, weeping. Other just sat down in silence and looked sadly across the field," wrote Stefany Ann Goldberg in The Atlantic.

Gettysburg 10
Confederate veterans who took part in Picketts charge meet during the 1913 reunion, with Confederates in foreground; Union men lined against wall
Library of Congress

Between official events old comrades exchanged war stories and anecdotes.

Gettsburg 5
Gettysburg veterans at the 1913 reunion reminisce.
Library of Congress

Men who had decades before faced each other from opposing sides locked in deadly struggle shook hands.

According to reports at the time dug out by Mentalfloss, veterans attempted to seek out Confederate veterans responsible for wounds they received, in order to befriend them. Others exchanged medals.

Gettysburg 6
Union and Confederate veterans shaking hands at reunion to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg
Library of Congress

Friendships were formed between former adversaries. Two veterans reportedly bought a hatchet from a local hardware store and buried it on the battlefield to symbolise that old enmities had been forgotten.

Gettysburg 7
Photograph shows portrait of unidentified Confederate veteran in United Confederate Veterans uniform with Maryland state buttons and Southern Cross of Honor and Union veteran in Grand Army of the Republic uniform with medals, shaking hands at 1913 Gettysburg reunion.
Library of Congress

Other took time to quietly reflect on the momentous events of the day.

Gettysburg 4
A veteran writes down his thoughts at the 1913 Gettysburg reunion.
Library of Congress

On July 4, President Woodrow Wilson addressed the veterans, celebrating the spirit of comradeship and reconciliation displayed during the reunion.

"We have found one another again as brothers and comrades in arms, enemies no longer, generous friends rather, our battles long past, the quarrel forgotten—except that we shall not forget the splendid valor," he said.

Gettysburg 9
Photo shows President Woodrow Wilson at the Gettysburg Reunion (the Great Reunion) of July 1913, which commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg.
Library of Congress

Only 25 veterans were still alive by the time of the 75th anniversary of the conflict, in 1938.

Title: Re: Gettysburg veterans return to the battlefield of the civil war after 50 years
Post by: Eddie on June 30, 2019, 12:19:45 PM
What a sight this must have been. Incredibly poignant.

These archive photos from 1913 show Gettysburg veterans returning to the bloodiest battlefield of the civil war after 50 years (https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-gettysburg-veterans-return-to-battlefield-after-50-years-2019-6)

(https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5d1362c5e3ecba25ea67dd26-1136-852.jpg)

These archive photos from 1913 show Gettysburg veterans returning to the bloodiest battlefield of the civil war after 50 years

  • On July 1, 1913, civil war veterans from around the US gathered in Pennsylvania to mark the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg — the turning point of the civil war.
  • The gathering was the largest ever of civil war veterans, with 50,000, many in their '70s, making the journey. They were housed in a specially-constructed village of tents.
  • Former adversaries formed friendships, with men searching out those who wounded them in the battle and exchanging medals.
  • Veterans even took part in a reenactment of the Picketts Charge, but instead of firing shots when they met again the two sides embraced and exchanged flags.
  • Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

July 1 - 3 marks the anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, the turning point of the American Civil War when Union forces defeated Confederate forces led by General Robert E. Lee.

The battle was the bloodiest of the conflict, with 50,000 dead, wounded or missing by the time it drew to a close.

50 years later survivors returned to the rolling Pennsylvania farmland for the biggest-ever gathering of civil war veterans.

These pictures tell their story.

Gettysburg 1
This picture shows veterans arriving at the camp made for them by the US Army at the bicentennial anniversary of the conflict
Library of Congress

The idea for the 50-year gathering had been suggested in 1908 to Pennsylvania's governor Edwin Sidney Stuart by General H. S. Huidekoper, who had lost his right arm in the battle.

Invitations were sent to surviving honorably discharged civil war veterans across the country. Federal and state authorities provided funds to help veterans — many of whom were in their 70s — get there by rail.

With the help of the War Department, the veterans' village was built across 280 acres with 5,000 tents, each equipped with two hand basins and a water bucket. New wells were dug and latrines built. More than 50,000 veterans turned up, with a further 50,000 sightseers, and family members also attending.

Thousands of soldiers and state officials provided food and medical treatment and Boy Scouts helped the veterans get around.

Gettysburg 2
This image shows the 280 acre camp site constructed for veterans on the Gettysburg battlefield in 1913
Library of Congress

Over the next three days there were speeches, regimental reunions and fireworks displays, and reenactments of key events in the battle.

There was a re-enactment of Pickett's Charge on the third day, in which the Confederates lost more than 2,500 men. Confederate veterans tottered up the hill supported by canes, to be met by Union veterans.

"But instead of shooting each other, they all shook hands across the stone wall and exchanged ceremonial flags. Some fell into each other's arms, weeping. Other just sat down in silence and looked sadly across the field," wrote Stefany Ann Goldberg in The Atlantic.

Gettysburg 10
Confederate veterans who took part in Picketts charge meet during the 1913 reunion, with Confederates in foreground; Union men lined against wall
Library of Congress

Between official events old comrades exchanged war stories and anecdotes.

Gettsburg 5
Gettysburg veterans at the 1913 reunion reminisce.
Library of Congress

Men who had decades before faced each other from opposing sides locked in deadly struggle shook hands.

According to reports at the time dug out by Mentalfloss, veterans attempted to seek out Confederate veterans responsible for wounds they received, in order to befriend them. Others exchanged medals.

Gettysburg 6
Union and Confederate veterans shaking hands at reunion to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg
Library of Congress

Friendships were formed between former adversaries. Two veterans reportedly bought a hatchet from a local hardware store and buried it on the battlefield to symbolise that old enmities had been forgotten.

Gettysburg 7
Photograph shows portrait of unidentified Confederate veteran in United Confederate Veterans uniform with Maryland state buttons and Southern Cross of Honor and Union veteran in Grand Army of the Republic uniform with medals, shaking hands at 1913 Gettysburg reunion.
Library of Congress

Other took time to quietly reflect on the momentous events of the day.

Gettysburg 4
A veteran writes down his thoughts at the 1913 Gettysburg reunion.
Library of Congress

On July 4, President Woodrow Wilson addressed the veterans, celebrating the spirit of comradeship and reconciliation displayed during the reunion.

"We have found one another again as brothers and comrades in arms, enemies no longer, generous friends rather, our battles long past, the quarrel forgotten—except that we shall not forget the splendid valor," he said.

Gettysburg 9
Photo shows President Woodrow Wilson at the Gettysburg Reunion (the Great Reunion) of July 1913, which commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg.
Library of Congress

Only 25 veterans were still alive by the time of the 75th anniversary of the conflict, in 1938.

[/quote]
Thanks for this.
Title: Re: Civil War Litigation Thread
Post by: azozeo on June 30, 2019, 02:40:23 PM
50 year reunion & no one wears a unie.... ? All in street civies ! No PTSD , no crutches, wheelchairs  :icon_scratch: