Monday is Robert E. Lee day in Alabama.
- Thread starter Eeset
- Start date
- Status
drbrumley
Well-known member
Lee fought for the right of the South to what it wanted to do, which is what America was supposed to be. Slavery was just the subject of debate with the North's industrialization, they didn't care about the actual fate of them or their circumstance.
How about the North and it's desire to exploit the South with it's industries?
:rotfl:
Like the Levites whom He commanded could enslave others as long as it wasn't among themselves?
Your great grandfather was probably racist and fought for a completely other reason then what you are implying :idunno:
Obviously you haven't read anything yet thenlain:
no primary sources, no
just historical works by well-regarded authors
but i've never had a strong interest in the civil war - my main interest now is in the colonial period - the french and indian war
i'm reading churchill's marlborough at the moment and getting a sense of the complexity of british (and european) politics of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries
unless you were a slave, in which case you had the right to do what your master wanted you to do
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Just a couple short excerpts:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth
And referencing the North, Stephens goes on to say:They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
Stephens' 'God-ordained' white supremacy lives on in one way or another in a certain segment of the American population today, even when it's not stated outright (and it's still stated outright). It leaks out between the lines in comments made about Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, welfare, "thugs," "baby mommas," rap music, etc. There are those who refuse to see how the historical shameful treatment of blacks in this country's history has affected the generations that followed the slave years. Who refuse to see that the cycles of poverty, social inequality and violence which had their genesis in slavery were perpetuated in various forms in each successive generation.
Saying the above will usually inspire someone say that it's racist to perpetuate black 'victimhood.' It's a lame bit of sophistry used to deflect from their true position, which is one of white superiority, which they either can't or won't recognize in themselves. They remind me how easily hatred can be fomented.
Angel and I differ on the foundation of the war. State's rights was the justification, in part, for protecting economic interests and the furtherance of slavery into the territories, which it would be free to contest for once the South had evaporated the myth of a Union--or so the power brokers hoped. They also hoped to have just enough military might to bloody and slow a predictable call to arms in the north, angling to involve Europe, especially England, as an ally to bring about an end to a conflict they reasonably couldn't expect to win on their own. Ties between the South and England had been stronger in social circles and the textile bait and markets were thought to be enough to tip the balance in the South's favor.
Digital history has a good piece on popular perception and actual lifestyles in the South. From that:
For a core or wealthy and privileged, to be sure. Also true for many a northern industry and its captains.
Digital history has a good piece on popular perception and actual lifestyles in the South. From that:
Despite the strength of the plantation stereotype, the South was, in reality, a diverse and complex region. Though Americans today often associate the old South with cotton plantations, large parts of the South were unsuitable for plantation life.
...In the first half of the 19th century, one-third of all southern white families owned slaves...
Meaning two thirds, or a strong majority did not. As for the North's bloodied hands in the industry of Southern economic life:...In the first half of the 19th century, one-third of all southern white families owned slaves...
The southern economy generated enormous wealth and was critical to the economic growth of the entire United States. Well over half of the richest 1 percent of Americans in 1860 lived in the South. Even more important, southern agriculture helped finance early 19th century American economic growth. Before the Civil War, the South grew 60 percent of the world’s cotton, provided over half of all U.S. export earnings, and furnished 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Cotton exports paid for a substantial share of the capital and technology that laid the basis for America’s industrial revolution.
In addition, precisely because the South specialized in agricultural production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the southern states, including textile and meat processing industries and financial and commercial facilities.
In addition, precisely because the South specialized in agricultural production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the southern states, including textile and meat processing industries and financial and commercial facilities.
They weren't citizens. See, unlike today, there was actually a conscious idea that only a countryman had rights to his country.
Most people in America would have voted for them to go back to Africa if it was possible. This was brought up among many other things. Segregation was something of all the U.S., New York did it even with Hispanics.
You all want to sit there and condemn one part of America even though the entire country was racist and did not care one bit about non-whites. Talking about 'making things more equal' was just the leading proposition because there really wasn't anything else to do- what, we were going to free them and give them the Grand Canyon to make their living?
Seriously, it's nothing but revisionist nonsense. This is why America as a whole does not demonize the South. Have you ever been to a Civil War reenactment?
Your bias is a detachment from reality. I don't understand how a society can be so chained to liberal guilt that it feels compelled to lie and adulterate the perception of history. That's something like a mass mental illness if you ask me.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Very nice :up:
drbrumley
Well-known member
You guys can quote this speech all you want, but the fact is slavery was just a vital and respected in the north. Lincoln even blasted Douglas with it. Let's see, what did Lincoln affirm? Oh that's right...
Abraham Lincoln said:
That is quite clear on what Lincoln wanted.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Just one? I can give you more if you like. Sounds like a lifetime for ol Abe himself.
Only if you mistake your own pathological dishonest summary as truth. And I don't think even you could manage that. What I set out was the literal fact that the overwhelming majority of Southerners didn't in fact own slaves and that much of the North was in bed with those who did, founded a great deal of its industry, from the shipyards of New England to the textile factories and supportive tissue, to drive the heart of the nation's economy, upon which our industrial revolution rested.
And I've noted, beyond the chest thumping hypocrisy of some here, that the larger tragedy was entirely that, a national one. It began with a failing in foundation to eradicate the trade, continued with the building of that national prosperity upon the misery of human beings few thought of as entirely that and fewer still as anything resembling equals in a moral or desirably political sense. Slavery was ended not as a capstone of moral outrage but in stages, first as a military ploy, then as a way to break the South entirely, but not quite liberation of the purported object which then continued to de facto enslave for another hundred years.
And "not in NY"?
It's a whore's virtue you're parading in that burst of unmerited pride.New York? Home of the Civil War Draft Riots of 1863, whereby your virtuous citizenry tortured, mutilated, terrorized and murdered blacks and those who came to their defense for several days.
Here's a little of New York's glory told at the History News Network out of George Mason University. Take a look.
Toward the summation:
Given the virulent racism of the anti-war Copperhead Democrats and the still open racism of both the pro-war Democrats and Unionist Republicans in New York City and the north, it is amazing that slavery in the United States ended at all. Emancipation was a tribute to the doggedness of abolitionists, Black and White, the need for Black manpower for the North to win the war, and major miscalculations by Southern secessionists who mistakenly exaggerated Northern opposition to slavery and support for Black rights. - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/156408#sthash.ezuPq2e3.dpuf
- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/156408#sthash.ezuPq2e3.dpuf
dreadknought
New member
General Lee is dead. He was not a tard, he was action, a needed actor at the right time, for others...... and remained to the last a weak narrow minded man.
Nothing weak about him. Nor narrow unless you attribute those qualities to someone who thought the institution of slavery was an ill and secession a bad idea. He was, instead, a product of his day and culture, as was Lincoln, as were they all. Some were progressive, most weren't. As with our founders, some found the truth of the issue in part but failed the principle for other concerns and entanglements.
From this and the service of power and economy a national tragedy was founded, protected and eventually that led to ripping the nation apart for a bloody season.
dreadknought
New member
It seems we disagree counselor, a diary from Mr. Lee would be helpful.......... goes to state of mind, narrow and broken. lain:
lain:
From what period? I suspect you could find a time during or after that conflict when any man who waded hip deep through the blood of that conflict, regardless of the side he fought on, would sound that way to those of us basking in the glow of our monitors.It seems we disagree counselor, a diary from Mr. Lee would be helpful.......... goes to state of mind, narrow and broken.
- Status