Serenity

"To Our Confederate Dead"

Recommended Posts

The 'noble south'?

Compared to the union, the south fought a much cleaner war. I don't remember any southern generals burning down cities to demoralize the enemy... and then get a tank named after them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You DO know the South started the war, right? Swerto. No, you dont. Cause you're bad.

Also, both sides had internment camps, you twit.

They didn't start a war, they demanded to be recognized as an independent nation.

And the Union was all like "Lol No."

And the Feds were all like "Fine, make us!"

And then there was pew pew.

You can't BLAME either side for the war. Because really, is it wrong to desire independence? And is it wrong to desire unity?

There has never been good or evil in war, just hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the south started the war because they wanted freedom, not like they were all like "let's kill some Yankees and tear the U.S. Apart in civil war" Szordrin. Just sayin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, while I have no problem with southern pride I have to say that slavery wasn't this -small- issue as to why they wanted to be their own nation. I'm not saying this because they taught me this in elementry it's just common human need and yes...i'mma pull an aleria and say it's economic as well. It's not that the southeners wanted to keep their slaves to whip them and abuse them, it was cheap labor and it threatens their wealth. The south was fighting for their property which includes their slaves. So while it isn't the only reason it is a bigger reason then you're letting it off to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pointed that out earlier. The southern economy was completely dependent on slave labor, by removing the slave labor and giving no alternative the North was pretty much choking the life out of the south.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say we all just de-unionize and separate into 50 separate countries. Then we can be like Eastern Europe. Win/win?

Let the citizens living in the city decide whether to keep the silly statue up. That's what we do, here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I say we all just de-unionize and separate into 50 separate countries. Then we can be like Eastern Europe. Win/win?

Let the citizens living in the city decide whether to keep the silly statue up. That's what we do, here!

Only if I get to party with you in a club like the one in Bratislava,(sp, not important enough for me to lookup) in Eurotrip.

But yeah, just let em vote. /agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They didn't start a war, they demanded to be recognized as an independent nation.

And the Union was all like "Lol No."

And the Feds were all like "Fine, make us!"

And then there was pew pew.

You can't BLAME either side for the war. Because really, is it wrong to desire independence? And is it wrong to desire unity?

There has never been good or evil in war, just hate.

Well the south started the war because they wanted freedom, not like they were all like "let's kill some Yankees and tear the U.S. Apart in civil war" Szordrin. Just sayin.

Actually, you are wrong. The South fired the first shot on Fort Sumter. Hit the books, kids. The Civil War did not happen the exact moment states became separate entities from the federal government and actually took place a few months after the fact.

Every war has prison camps Szo, welcome to war.

If youre going to bring up the conditions who did "worse things", the Southern camps were far worse. Dont bring up a point and then use a blanket statement to make yourself look intelligent. You aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good discussion; let's keep it that way. As with most American history - depending on where you live is going to depend on how you perceive it. Why? Well, because we're American ... and if there is one person right in this world, it's us! And by us, I mean me... and by me - I mean I'm brilliant!

I'm going to keep the posts previous to mine clean of edits; but anything after mine that even has a *hint* of insults or bait ... I will crush you. As this is a historical conversation; we have as much opinion as we do fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arlington Confederate Memorial

One thing that can be done by those who think the memorial should stay ... is pension to make it a national memorial - that way it can't be touched. Though, I'm sure there has to be some story of irony there!

There is a lot of history in the American Civil War (The War Between The States... or the War Against Northern Aggression... or the War For Civil Liberties... or the War to Preserve the Union), and that history is still effecting us today.

Taking down a memorial? I can't agree with that ... because it's attempting to hide the history of who we are. Frankly, the United States does not have that much history (in comparison to the rest of the world) to be able to toss away at our current cultural whim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As with most American history - depending on where you live is going to depend on how you perceive it.

There's also the "I'm right and the rest of you are morons" dynamic at work here, which is why this should be in the politics room anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Confederate War was not fought to abolish slavery
I'm sorry, while I have no problem with southern pride I have to say that slavery wasn't this -small- issue as to why they wanted to be their own nation.

I should probably caveat this. Slavery was important part of the southern economy, as much of it was based on agriculture. The abolishment of slavery was definitely one of the laws the southern states didn't want to be forced upon them. While I'm in NO way condoning it, nor trying to paint the old south as a bunch of martyrs, if cheaper slaves came from, say, Canada (xD), then the South would have still gone to war. I guess the point is, it wasn't really about race, which is the reason the people want to tear the statue down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The war was about cotton prices until Frederick Douglass got Lincoln's ear and got him to make it about slavery. The whole slavery angle was basically clever marketing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's also the "I'm right and the rest of you are morons" dynamic at work here, which is why this should be in the politics room anyway.

Not sure what there is to dispute here. The Southern Secession started four months prior to the war. While Slavery was not the only issue, Alexander Stephan (the Vice President of the Confederate Republic) gave a speech known as the Cornerstone Speech. In this speech, he discussed the differences between the Union and the Confederate Republic. This speech laid out the reasons for a civil war and defended slavery among the reasons.

During this speech, the war hadn't even started.

But, let me quote was gave this speech it's name for all of you to see,

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

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.

While his comments later after the war varied and said that it was fought for stronger, different reasons. You cannot ignore his initial words and... everyone says something different after their face just got kicked in.

Am I saying that I believe the monument should be torn down? No. I haven't made my mind up on that, however these are the issues I am taking into consideration. Unfortunately, history and the world is not so (for lack of better words) black and white.

I am also considering: who funded this monument, when it was created in relation to Northern Occupancy leaving the South and extreme segregation coming forth shortly there after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History channel just said it was about slavery on their 'America: the story of US' special.

I fucking -hate- the history channel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, the war wasn't (inherently) a result of the South's slave practices. However, regardless as to how many may try to portray the Confederacy as some under-dog simply fighting for its freedoms, it ought to be noted that their freedoms did not in any foreseeable future (as written by them) include "the slaves' freedoms," as well. The Union had its share of racist attitudes, that is certain, but they were not slavers like the south were slavers; they were industrialists (which in the concern of Laborer's rights was in itself an important issue of course attended to several decades later).

This is why so much emphasis is placed today on what was (at the time) an apparent side-note of the war. Today, there are many people who still "fight" (thankfully in a generally more reasonable manner than bloodshed) for States' Rights around the country; for this cause our moral character is not offended by the South's intention in this way, so it is not unusual to select something to demonize the Confederate agenda. Slavery is the clearest culprit for this purpose.

No matter one's opinion on the matter of the war itself, slavery IS bad, and god forbid the Confederacy had won for the sake of millions of individual freedoms. It took long enough for the Civil Rights movement to come about even under the victor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada had abolished slavery by 1834 so purchasing "cheap slaves" from Canada wouldn't really have made much sense. Purchasing slaves in any British Colony past the beginning of the 1800s would also have not made much sense. While there were still poor indentured workers, they were "freed" by 1834 in an act of the Commonwealth.

I'm just a bit confused here since what I've learned about economics in the South during the years up to the civil war was that slave owners were making massive profits because they didn't have to pay wages. While not all slave owners were bastards who beat their slaves, these folk were just considered livestock. And yes, Uncle Tom's Cabin was a book that brought the plight about slavery to the forefront (while also making black people seem like stupid puppets) and into the homes of many Americans that by this time didn't have slaves.

But I think I'm mostly confused because I remember the big huge issue about the statue of Saddam Hussein being torn down by American soldiers in Iraq. It was supposed to be a symbol of that country's freedom from oppression. You know... tearing down a statue that immortalised times that most people didn't want to remember. A symbol of times before occupation or before a war was fought. When that went down it was a big triumph.

When this goes down it's a travesty to history?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The war was about cotton prices until Frederick Douglass got Lincoln's ear and got him to make it about slavery. The whole slavery angle was basically clever marketing.

Marketing? Thats rather shallow.

Making it 'about' slavery (I'm saying, at the time, now years later for history books), was also a way to moralize the war, to make it less about an economic issue, and make it 'human'. It turned, for both sides, one of a moral high ground, and the other about dissident movement. That can be swapped easily for the North and South.

North wanted the Union to stay intact, keep economic things stabilized as well they could, and keep foreign powers from influencing their nation at a weak time, and yes, to start the slow steady process of eliminating the need for slavery as economic hold, something the rest of the world was already well on its way with. South wanted to make strong changes to the State way of organization, problems with taxation, and the right to yes, keep slavery as a reliable way of cheap (or really, free) labor.

It honestly was just a way of making a strong, emotional and human (pardon the pun) connection to the war.

The South wanted freedom, the North wanted slavery abolished. Just general and really quite old tactic of getting the populace to back your play. Though back then, most of the times, it was less just wording, and some actual genuine feeling behind it.

Plus. It was the vampires.

Can't forget them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll concur with Ellsbeth in this case; is it because the statue in question has been about for a hundred years longer that protects it? And while many may say that Saddam Hussein wasn't himself a "soldier" (which is what many argue the statue ought to remain for, to immortalize the soldiers), replace the Hussein statue a moment with the Revolutionary Guard, and we have a very similar scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slavery was the economic "issue." The North didn't want more slave states and without expanding to more slave states, the Southern economy would crumble under industrial economy of the North. Not sure how people forget that the entire tiff was about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll concur with Ellsbeth in this case; is it because the statue in question has been about for a hundred years longer that protects it? And while many may say that Saddam Hussein wasn't himself a "soldier" (which is what many argue the statue ought to remain for, to immortalize the soldiers), replace the Hussein statue a moment with the Revolutionary Guard, and we have a very similar scenario.

I believe (though our current service personal could definitely correct me), that the US military eventually established a policy NOT to destroy these monuments after this, because sure, they may be of a political nature that was part of the result of the conflict, but we as a nation have ZERO right to destroy the art/monuments of another because of the context.

There are HUNDREDS of old Soviet monuments deserted in fields that have been preserved only cause of the history, not necessarily the direct context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slavery was the economic "issue." The North didn't want more slave states and without expanding to more slave states, the Southern economy would crumble under industrial economy of the North. Not sure how people forget that the entire tiff was about.

Ah good one! Right, the North had a better industrial revolution (albeit internally) than the South. This was a very subtle, though FUNDAMENTAL cause as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead