We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Sunday, June 4. 2017
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Is there a better link to the text? Commentary gives essentially nothing.
I deeply disagree with Max Boot regarding the removal of statues and the renaming of military bases to expunge from public view the national memory of the Civil War.
Would the writer be amenable to replacing the statue of Lee with a statue of Lincoln? He's part of history, too; as was the cause of the Civil War, which was rooted in slavery.
"Forget everything you learned about President Abraham Lincoln. He was really a blood-thirsty despot guilty of killing innocent civilians and destroying the South. At least that's what a few vocal Southerners say. And that's why -- 138 years after the end of the Civil War -- they are feverishly opposed to a bronze statue of Lincoln and his son, Tad, being placed at a national park in Richmond this spring, a stance that brings to mind novelist William Faulkner's maxim: 'The past is never dead. It's not even past'."
In the 1730’s, Benjamin Franklin owned two slaves who worked in his printing establishment.
Yes, but Franklin freed those slaves, became an abolitionist, then advocated for education of blacks.
The country did a magnificent job of binding up those wounds
At the expense of blacks, who were punished by the South for generations.
Should we remove the MLK statue because he porked other men's wives?
"At the expense of blacks, who were punished by the South for generations."
It would be more accurate if you had said: "At the expense of blacks, who were punished by the Democrats for generations."
arguing that antebellum slavery wasn't a gross affront to objective morality, constitutional principles, natural law and Judeo-Christian belief is moral relativism at its most grotesque. abolitionists in 1859 believed it objectively wrong as strongly as almost all of us (apparently) believe it in 2017, and it was no less defensible then as now.
so if you're a west point graduate who betrayed his oath and country and there's a long over due historical backlash against celebrating your treason, well, tough shit. choose better next time.
if the wounds had been bound up "magnificently"*, then the blacks wouldn't be going apeshit over knocking down mere symbols like statues and military installation names.
* holy shit, seriously? haven't you people heard of jim crow laws? segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever. what kind of fantasy world are you living in?
The Civil War was not fought over slavery. In fact, Lincoln wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa. The reason that blacks are so angry today is that they thought they would start getting some respect. But they haven't earned it; so now they want it to be legally required.
protip: read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. you probably missed that day in second grade civics.
I know this will be a complete and total surprise to you, so here's the main point:
The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
The truth sucks, but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.
What's funny, Fetterman, is how your narrow views come as such a tremendous, universal correction to the narrow views you're reacting to. I especially like the moralizing.
Problem is neither of you have gone broad or deep enough to have the slightest reason to beat one another. If you had a fuller perspective neither of you would believe what, apparently, you do...
Holding hand with Widy? How's that feel? Are you all warm and tingly?
That part where the guy screams, I love you Phillip Morris!, just insert 'Donnie Morrow'. What you and Windtard do is your business*, big fella.
Nope, you can't make me look. Stop it.
*Here's a couple more platitudes, free of charge: It's a Free Nation and Everybody's Equal!
you're taking this a little too personally for a debate on an internet forum. Is there something between you and Widy?
Not that I know of, Vic "the bear" Tommygun, although I have wondered if Windtard is another of Z-bot(s) operating routines.
It'd be great if they were trying both out at the same time, wouldn't it, in some kind of artificial intelligence/anti-artificial intelligence annihilation thing. The enormity and frequency of Windtard's mono-bloc text dumps is fertile ground for Z-bot(s) endless quote/copy/paste/SNAP/[smell of smoking electronics] outputs, wouldn't you agree? It's positively symbiotic.
And on that note let me wish you two nothing but happiness. And no, I'm still not looking. Fingers in my ears too.
your defense of slavery is incomprehensible. maybe you should reconsider living.
Does that argument typically go over well for you, Counselor? I bet it goes over even better when you point vigorously at the Defendant and shriek past the judge at the jurors.
I welcome your cites to my guilt of said thoughtcrime, Projection Master. Have Z-Bot(s) show you the sacred Key of Quote kept hidden for generations in the Grail on the other side of Professor Jones's Magic Invisible Bridge over the Chasm to Hell.
in 1861 there were maybe 10,000 or so people in the U.S. who owned slaves and about 600,000 total African slaves. There were literally millions of European indentured servants in the U.S. at that time. Both of these practices were slavery. Today one is ignored and the other is exalted by the professional victim class.
For most Southerners in 1861 the war was not about slavery it was about states rights. Being a born and raised Yankee I never accepted that but after spending years in the old South (1964, Old South compared with today) and knowing many Southerners I do accept that they fought for their rights and not for slaves. (Presumably some of those 10,000 slave owners fought for their slaves.) THAT is why West Point graduates fought for the South. They fought for the constitution they believed in and believed the North betrayed to acquire an economic advantage that the South held at the time. To the Southerners the war was a war to defend their constitutional rights and they believed this so strongly that they abandoned what they felt was a corrupt union. Almost without exception they were proud solid Americans who believed strongly in the constitution, so strongly that they felt they had to secede when the North abandoned the constitution in their effort to impoverish the South. Were they right and the North was wrong? I don't know because history and various factions have assured that the civil war will forever be attributed to be a war over slavery.
The real crime took place after the war. In their zeal to punish the South the North punished Southern whites and blacks ruthlessly such that the century of racism and discrimination that followed was inevitable. After all how would you feel as a poor Southerner who never owned a slave and likely never knew a slave but was punished and impoverished by the North 'because' of slavery that you had nothing to do with? The North split the union, then destroyed the South and followed it with years of misery which guaranteed the blacks and whites would hate each other.
For most Southerners in 1861 the war was not about slavery it was about states rights.
Maybe not. I am reminded of the Shelby Foote story about the Union soldier asking a captured Confederate, "Why do you fight?" "Because you're here."
But for those who spearheaded the secession movement, it was definitely about slavery. Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. I did a text search for "slave:" 19 instances.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."That document is all about slavery. Read it. Those who wrote that document would in no way have consented to peaceful emancipation, with slaveholders being compensated. They wanted slavery in perpetuity. Read it.
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
BTW, I am the product of a North-South marriage and had family on both sides who lost their lives in the war- if you include Harper's Ferry as part of the war.
Every individual involved in the civil war would probably point in a different direction if asked why they fought. The problem was that the war was the culmination of years of pushing and push back on both side. So like a bar fight between two people who don't like each other the reason gets lost or is something different depending on who you ask and when you ask.
But 98% of the Southern fighters did not have slaves. Most were dirt poor and slavery actually worked against their economic interests. Most of the Southern politicians and elite did have slaves, and they did resent the North telling them to free them. BUT! THIS was an economic argument not a "slavery" argument. The "slave" became a point of contention but the rich landowner was angry that the North would dictate to them and that as a result they would go broke and the Northern traders would become richer. For the elite in the North this was absolutely about economics and how they could grab some of the trade the South was enjoying.
For many in the North and the South slavery was an abomination but it was there and not easily ended. Again 99% of Southerners did not own slaves. And 100% of Americans did not bring the slaves here it was all done by the Dutch and English. 100% of the slaves were sold to these ships captains by Moslem slave traders and 99% of those slaves were sold to the Moslems by black tribal chieftains (very different from the movie Roots). All of the slaves were brought into an American port without regard to law or right in much the same way drugs are now smuggled in from Mexico and Columbia. To impune all Southerners over slavery when they had no say so about it happening, no country even during most of time slaves were brought in by foreign ships and no legal authority to prevent it (in spite of all the moralizing by the North) is just wrong and inaccurate.
So why did the South fight? IMHO it is almost identical to why the left/liberals riot and destroy stuff today because Trump was elected. The Southerners identified with being "Southerners" and were fully aware that the "Northerners" were against them. The North would push and the South would push back. Most of this happened in national politics, in congress and in the press and not typically by individuals. But every Southerner was aware that the North was pushing them and their pride made them willing to go give those Northern boys a whupping. They didn't have slaves they hoped to keep if the secession had been successful they only had their pride. What was said in the press and by individuals was more in anger than factual. Some good old boy share cropping 20 acres in Alabama with a wife and three kids didn't give two hoots about some rich plantation owners slaves but he was first and foremost a "Southerner" and no damned Yankee was gonna push him around. So he fought, he gladly joined the confederacy to teach those damned Yankees a lesson. Not for slavery...
But 98% of the Southern fighters did not have slaves.
Perhaps technically so, but the percentage of CSA troops whose parents owned slaves was substantially greater than 2%. As an example, consider my great-great uncle, who was a Colonel in the Confederate Army- and was killed in the war. No, he wasn't a slave owner, but his Daddy owned quite a few- which is probably why he was elected Colonel. At least my grandmother told me her uncle was elected Colonel. Daddy most likely paid for the uniforms. At least that is what often happened, I have read. It is a fair bet that though my great-great uncle, the Colonel, didn't own slaves, he had the same attitude towards slaves that his slave-owning father did.
The Civil War Home Page: Results from the 1860 Census
State PERCENT OF FAMILIES OWNING SLAVES
NORTH CAROLINA 28%
SOUTH CAROLINA 46%
Then there is Spengler's take on non-slaveowners fighting for the CSA.
GoneWiththeWind, as you are from Lynn, you might be interested to know that my ancestors from the Massachusetts Bay Colony got out as soon as they could. They turned renegade- became Quakers- and left Massachusetts when Pennsylvania started up.
GoneWithTheWind: But 98% of the Southern fighters did not have slaves.
That's like saying Ashley Wilkes and Scarlett O'Hara weren't slave owners, because the slaves that worked their fields and waited on them hand and foot were titled in their fathers' names. About one in four families in the slave states owned slaves.
You are correct, though, that soldiers fight for many reasons other than politics; patriotism, adventure, escape, comradeship, and so on. However, secession was clearly meant to preserve the institution of slavery. The parents had to convince themselves of the rightness of their 'Lost Cause', to which they sent so many of their children to their doom.
GoneWithTheWind: in 1861 there were maybe 10,000 or so people in the U.S. who owned slaves and about 600,000 total African slaves.
That is incorrect. There were nearly 400,000 slaveholders at that time, and nearly 4 million slaves. There were nearly 4 million slaves at that time. About 26% of families in the slave states owned slaves. In the deep South, about 37% of families owned slaves.
GoneWithTheWind: For most Southerners in 1861 the war was not about slavery it was about states rights.
The problem with that position is that the rebelling states declared their reasons for secession.
Mississippi: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery
Georgia: For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
Texas: We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
After all how would you feel as a poor Southerner who never owned a slave and likely never knew a slave but was punished and impoverished by the North 'because' of slavery that you had nothing to do with?
The South's economy was much worse after the war- no doubt about it. The main reason was that the price of cotton was much lower.
Why was it lower? Before the Civil War, Southern cotton was the main source for British textile mills. During the Civil War, alternate sources for cotton were developed in other countries, such as Egypt or India. The decision of the Confederacy to initially withhold cotton from the market, in the hope that would bring the British to the Confederate side, spurred finding alternate sources of cotton. Shooting oneself in the foot?
When Southern cotton re-entered the international market with the end of the Civil War, the result was an oversupply of cotton and a drop in the price of cotton.
King cotton was king no more.
BTW, my mother had some cousins who picked cotton during their adolescence. It wasn't just poor blacks who picked cotton. Poor whites did, too.
My mother told me that growing up in the 1930s, she heard her elders re-fighting the Civil War. She made the decision to not re-fight the Civil War. Her marrying a Northerner, a consequence of WW2 migration, made that an easy decision to follow.
The right side won the Civil War. IMHO, the conflict was inevitable. While I believe that my Southern ancestors, while courageous, were mistaken in their fight, they were doing what they considered to be the right thing. Future generations may also consider some of my beliefs mistaken. Those of the present who consider themselves so much virtuous than those of the past, are apparently unaware that future generations may also consider those of the present to be not-so-virtuous.
It wasn't just our ancestors who had feet of clay. We do, also. As such, we should be restrained in condemning those of the past.
IMHO, the conflict was inevitable.
Consider this book by Robert E. May: The Southern Dream of a Caribbean Empire, 1854-1861.
The conflict was inevitable because the Constitution as adopted didn't finally address slavery because of the need for compromise. It even delayed the end of the slave trade until 10 years after ratification. The compromises in westward expansion -- free and slave territories -- didn't work in the end. Much less so for the hope of expanding south into the Caribbean.
I'm fairly specific about who to blame in the past. you don't get nuanced political beliefs from most people the average age of a CW soldier (under 25), all you have to do is mention "states rights", king, country, il duce, the emperor ad nauseum and they'll flock to the colors. the ones to condemn are those leaders who betrayed oaths and actively lead the rebellion.
"Jim Crow" laws were bad, and they were struck down in the 1920s. It was California and Massachusetts and Kansas - Northern, Midwestern, West Coast states where "separate but equal" lawsuits led to school desegregation in the 1950s, before I was born.
But the East, North, Midwest, and West Coast have still not admitted that TODAY'S race problems in their own states an cities stem largely from their own practice of Apartheid via "Race Restrictive Covenants", that were used even by the Federal Government to force segregation, and which were still tacitly and silently in use until the 1980s.
Even today, why is it that Facebook et al aren't willing or able to hire Black Americans in any location for any job... and the same people who still love to shout "Jim Crow", simply shrug their shoulders and make sad faces when they learn that Facebook built an ap deliberately to allow their real estate advertisers to exclude Black Americans from even seeing the ads?
Who is it that puts their fingers in their ears and cover their eyes when shown that all the most segregated cities are in those same North, East, Midwest, and West Coast cities that practiced Apartheid for so long?
Oh but quick quick look over there in the South where there is a statue....
What happens when the statues are all gone? What will the North do then?
Our nation will never heal as long as a vast part of it continues to deny culpability and promote apartheid in their own backyards, while pointing far and away at the now-fairly-innocent South.
About one-half west pointers appointed from southern states betrayed the United States, all but one from northern states remained loyal.
Your beloved right to own slaves was decisively ended.
Regardless, you people lost the War but gained most of the the social inequality back after Reconstruction ended (a fact you a no doubt very proud of), and it wasn't until the mid-20th century that most of the jim crow laws were finally bitchslapped out of you, and that must have hurt somethin' awful.
I see you are so very proud of your virtue signaling. So be it. It suffices for intelligence and knowledge.
As someone once said to Ross Perot; whatya mean "you people"? I am not a Southerner, not a fan of Jim Crow or discrimination, but also not willing to curb my opinions to fit political correctness.
Don't let my nom de plume fool you I liked the movie and that was pretty much the entire reason I chose that nickname.
There were some pretty bad things that happened in the old South. On both sides. Today, there is a new South. Racism by whites is rare. However racism by blacks is rampant. Who could have seen that coming??? In 1964 I could walk anywhere in New Orleans day or night . Today, I wouldn't walk anywhere at night in NO and would skip a lot of NO during the day. Ditto for about a couple dozen other large cities in America. Who commits all this crime, who makes it unsafe to walk the streets of big cities today. Not the Muslims (yet). Not the Mafia. Usually not the illegal aliens. Nope, just one group of people are the cause of most of those murders and violent crimes. This is the new South or more correctly the new America where there is literally a race war on unreported by the press and the left. Why? Because it is the "wrong" race causing all this mayhem. The Democrats can't get elected by telling the
truth about that and the elite want to make believe it isn't happening and AGW is the biggest threat.
So slur everyone who lived South of the Mason Dixon line if it makes you feel good but even in the entire bad "old South" the actual murder rate in 1964 or 1954 was less than just Chicago. And incredibly, no one cares how many blacks are killed in Chicago. Why? Because the politicians can't mine it for votes, the race baiters can't mine it for dollars, and the elite don't want to be disinvited from the cocktail parties. So... what to do... I know, lets resurrect all the hype about the Jim Crow laws, that should be good for some virtue signaling...
You're confusing enough without your decision to conflate an MGM movie with history because it is a fact, you are living in fantasy world. that you fear blacks today I get, but your personal insecurities aren't on the table.
when Lincoln wrote the 2dAD (hmmm... who to believe, Lincoln or a guy who thinks GWTW is a documentary) the end of slavery was a stated war goal.
As I stated my nom de plume choice had nothing to do with the civil war or what I know about the civil war. I have to assume that you choose that argument because you don't have anything else.
Here is where I think you went wrong: Although I am debating why most Southerners fought the civil war YOU are debating what the war was about as decided by historians. You may be right; the historians may be right. But that is not why most Southerners fought. They fought out of pride and because they were being pushed into it and in their minds they had little other choice. Most Southern soldiers didn't own slaves and didn't want slaves.
Your beloved right to own slaves was decisively ended.
Far be it for me to come to the defense of sub-normal narcissistic bloviation, but that little nugget is just rich, Donnie Tommy Gun (can I call you Donnie Tommy Gun?)
What kind of special hubris does something like that take, anyway? No really: What actually paints the inside of one's cranium to toss of a canard of that proportion? I mean, that's some Montana-sized baiting projecting right there, pal.
^ Sorry, Tina. I thought Donny was going off on Windtard and his usual one-note broken clock sensibilities. Apologies for the friendly fire.
The only thing this place is good for is seeing Mr. Morrow and our windy Windtard go at each other. It's like Godzilla vs King Kong on the same planet that somehow brought us Socrates and Mozart.
Awww Ten, You are still unhappy because I don't believe in magic food.
Comment 7.1 should have been linked to Goen With WInd.
"Jim Crow" laws were bad, and they were struck down in the 1920s.
Did you go to school with Gone with wind?
you're going to have to look these up and figure out why they were necessary if jim crow laws were "struck down" in the 1920s.
Brown v Board of Education (1954)
24th Amendment (1964)
don't play ignorant.
Jim Crow laws segregated the South but the Davis-Bacon Act along with the unions segregated the North.
Taken from an article on the Christian Post today:
A.L. Long's Memoirs of Robert E. Lee contains an incredible story concerning the last day of battle at Gettysburg. It's the account of a Union Army veteran on that fateful day.
"I was at the battle of Gettysburg myself ... I had been a most bitter anti-South man and fought and cursed the Confederates desperately. I could see nothing good in any of them. The last day of the fight I was badly wounded. A ball shattered my left leg. I lay on the ground not far from Cemetery Ridge, and as General Lee ordered his retreat he and his officers rode near me.
"As they came along I recognized him, and, though faint from exposure and loss of blood, I raised up my hands, looked Lee in the face, and shouted as loud as I could, "Hurrah for the Union!"
"The general heard me, looked, stopped his horse, dismounted, and came toward me. I confess that I at first thought he meant to kill me. But as he came up he looked down at me with such a sad expression on his face that all fear left me, and I wondered what he was about. He extended his hand to me, and grasping mine firmly and looking right into my eyes, said, 'My son, I hope you will soon be well.'
"If I live to be a thousand years I shall never forget the expression of General Lee's face. There he was, defeated, retiring from a field that had cost him and his cause almost their last hope, yet he stopped to say words like those to a wounded soldier of the opposition who had taunted him as he passed by. As soon as the general left me I cried myself to sleep there upon the bloody ground."
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/words-for-kathy-griffin-and-the-nation-from-gen-robert-e-lee-186507/#GIQq3fC0oO5JvuE4.99