General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNo, the Civil War is NOT Over. In fact, the South is slowly winning.
https://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/no-the-civil-war-is-not-over-in-fact-the-south-is-slowly-winning/TONS of source info at the link today.
Sorry to break it to you, Gentle Reader, but somebody had to. For all the orthodox history saying that the Confederacy surrendered at Appomattox, they have in fact continued fighting for segregation, class stratification, and other key Confederate values.
The most obvious example was the large number of Jim Crow laws imposed upon black Americans after the South surrendered. Pretty much slavery without the costs of feeding, housing, and clothing the oppressed black workers and their families. Apartheid, American style.
Then came the Civil Rights Movement. We made some progress then, no doubt about it. But starting in the 1980s, the NeoConfederates have slowly and systematically worked to restore their white-supremacist system, and in fact spread it to other, non-Confederate states.
Undoing affirmative action? Check.
Rolling back voting rights for Persons of Color? Check.
Lower wages paid to black workers than whites? Check.
All of this indicates a non-coincidental trend. It is a deliberate effort to re-fight the Civil War, albeit without obvious military force. And it is succeeding. Heres one tiny example:
Once upon a time in the Oughts, your humble correspondent had a girlfriend from a foreign country, and she traveled to America to visit, meet the family, see the sights, and so on. She really wanted to see the South, and so we spent some time there. During that sojourn, we stopped at one of Georgias state universities to look at dinosaur bones, and wandered into a historical exhibit about the War of Northern Aggression (indeed, it was thus labeled) and how bad it was for the formerly-contented slaves. This in an accredited, state-chartered university.
That was a shocker. A government-funded institution teaching and spreading lies about the Civil War. She was shocked, and so was B & C.
Since that incident knocked the scales off the eyeballs, it has become ever more apparent that the Reagan Revolution included a strong racist, neo-Secessionist component. But instead of leaving the Union, the South has decided to take the over the whole damned country.
We are still at war with the forces of racist evil, friends. And we are losing.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)That's really not a quibble. Any commentator who cannot even get the simplest facts straight, and who perpetuates a colloquial myth, is obviously more interested in his own message than in any kind of serious analysis.
-- Mal
riqster
(13,986 posts)Learn to tell them apart.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)The author has an agenda. In pursuing it, he perpetuates colloquial interpretions, which casts into doubt any other interpretations he may offer. Let's put it this way: if his rhetoric is more important than his message, then I tend to disregard the message.
-- Mal
heaven05
(18,124 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 10, 2015, 03:57 PM - Edit history (1)
appalachiablue
(41,174 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)THAT'S the point here, no distraction about who surrendered. Really a typical ploy here to divert attention from the point of truth....
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)Seems everything the repubs do now is negative towards everyone except their rich friends. The voting thing is scary.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Ohio has been blatantly suppressing the AA vote.
ananda
(28,876 posts)..
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)in particular, has been real blatant in gerrymandering. The liberal voice has been killed by the slicing and dicing of neighborhoods to silence us.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)people, diminishes people, persecutes them and create hostilities, they're all for it. Often, I wonder just WTF is their agenda, it seems their agenda is to totally destroy the human race, and somehow they think they're going to escape, which is another bunch of crap they carry around in their twisted despicable programmed minds. The GOP of today is a bunch of sick twisted minds.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Unless we all get a clue and fight.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)all dems rally behind them. We absolutely must be united.
riqster
(13,986 posts)As the saying goes.
cali
(114,904 posts)Not to mention that this takes South bashing to new lows. It's hardly only the South that has problems with racism and racist repubs.
riqster
(13,986 posts)You know, the part about the "whole damned country"?
ananda
(28,876 posts)I see a lot of valid arguments in the op.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)what the hell has happened to your rational?
Your posts used to be more thoughtful.
riqster
(13,986 posts)This is pretty typical.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)and racist evil people are living all over this world not just in the south.
riqster
(13,986 posts)And I would say that they are doing quite well at it, all over the country. Wage inequality by race, etc.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)funded by the 0.1%
riqster
(13,986 posts)The neo-confederate message dovetails nicely with that of the 1%.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)advantage. The blame should rest with the 1% and those from all over this country that buy into the bullshit.
riqster
(13,986 posts)The fact that the neo-Confederates have made common cause with the 1% doesn't mean that Confederates have gone away, or become fluffy little bunnies.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)The "whole damned country" bit.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)twisting it to bash the south. Your headline is misleading.
riqster
(13,986 posts)The fact that they spread their influence further afield does not change the origin, or take the regional actors off the hook.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Politicians ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY are doing it.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)You know who I see fighting the stupid war over and over again?
The south haters on DU.
Ignore them. They're jealous of our beautiful region.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)infuriates me.
Have you noticed southerners starting these types of threads? NO. NEVER.
although there are some self-loathing southerners on here they do NOT start these threads. (I know of at least two on here that are schizophrenic about their southern roots)
I will see you elsewhere on the board. I am trashing this thread.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)I do hope the poor things can forget about the war and move on with their lives.
riqster
(13,986 posts)The 1% of the antebellum South started the war, not the commons. Just like most wars. It's not an indictment of the individual inhabitants, any more than saying all Italians wanted to join the Axis.
In fact, the opposite is usually true.
But the Southern states started the war. The Italians fought against us in WWII.
This whitewashing is part of the problem. I have never met an Italian who takes personal offense at discussions of WWII, but man oh man, I know a lot of southerners who get their backs up over the Civil War and its continuance.
Actually proves my point.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)And your fellow haters.
I'm first generation American and have no southern ancestors.
But these type threads are so absolutely ridiculous...started simply to call out DUers of a certain region.
That's just despicable.
Now I will follow Tuesday to the trash heap and deposit this call out where it belongs.
South hate threads are so predictable and ALWAYs the same.
riqster
(13,986 posts)You see no increases in discriminatory legislation, such as came from the "black laws" and "Jim crow"?
You see no increases in income inequality based on skin color?
Or perhaps you see them but prefer to think that the documented actions of former Confederate states were not the origin?
Either way, you're ignoring facts.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)the Civil War left on this country.
This is not a 'South Hate' thread. It is about the continuation of an economic and social conflict that started over 150 years ago and still ripples through our social, political, and economic discourse today.
That the Rethugs have capitalized on their 'Southern Strategy' and expanded it to the rest of the nation does not alter the fact that he basis of the strategy comes out of the segregationist south and its politicians.
What is despicable are the continuing efforts of many to whitewash and 'move on' from a war that never truly ended in the minds of many from the South.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)no understanding whatsoever of current political, social, racial and sexual politics that the current wave of racist behavior and legislation has caused. NONE. geez
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The members of DU who enjoy keeping this War alive,
all seem to live somewhere else.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)us and regularly seek to pass more such legislation. Do you think it's 'South Bashing' to say I don't care to live in a State that offers me no protection from discrimination in employment or housing?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Idaho?
Montana?
Fresno?
Wyoming?
East Washington State? (Spokane)
Utah?
Indiana? (HQ for the KKK)
North or South Dakota?
Where did you find that has no racism, hatred, or discrimination?
I've seen more Rebel Flags in Fresno and in North Minneapolis than I have seen in the whole state of Arkansas.
My comments were NOT about the absence of racism and hatred.
You will find those anywhere you go.
My comment was about those here on DU who try to keep a dead War alive,
and where they live,
and somehow blame the South for all the racism & bigotry.
The Civil War is OVER.
It ended over 150 years ago.
The South LOST.
Racism and hatred live on,
and is not limited to The South US. (SEE: Middle East)
Racism, FEAR, and hatred were here long before there was a South.
THAT is what we should be fighting,
not some ancient War that was over long ago.
I assume you are aware that the US fought a War of Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing against the native Americans? Now THAT War isn't over yet.
The few remaining Native Americans are still in their internment camps.
Lets do something about THAT.
But don't deprive the south haters of their superiority complex and hatred.
It is sad and so predictable.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 11, 2015, 11:25 AM - Edit history (1)
and makes no sense whatsoever.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I live in the south (Texas). I don't think jealously of the (beautiful...not) region is the issue.
To pretend that the south doesn't perpetuate racism is silly.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)the Confederates(repubthugs) and racists (tea partiers), both interchangeable, are slowly winning the war? What was primarily in the south(slavery) and the slaveocracy, was, among other issues, a primary cause of the Civil War. The Confederates were the southern army of sedition and revolt against the established elected government of the time. The south is still fighting the Civil War along with many northern, mid western and western allies, as it was in that time, it is again this time. The headline is not so misleading. THE SOUTH is hoping to rise again with the help of political loyalist that are taking back the civil and voting rights so hard fought for by POC, women and concerned citizens of conscience.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Do you know where the biggest Slave Market in the World was located?
Do you know which state holds the US Record for the most Black Men lynched in a single day?
"The South is hoping to rise again"
Only if by "The South" you mean Idaho and Wyoming separatists.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)metaphor, metaphor for the bundy RW crowd who want a war with the government. They are screaming, I want to be the supreme being again with all women and POC falling to their knees and kissing the supreme beings feet. It seems the confederacy has infected the whole country herein 2015. No need for a quiz. I know and have known the score as concerning my color in america. Bundy types and southern, midwestern, northern racist types won't be satisfied until blood is shed and they can kick off a white rebellion against the black man in the white house, POC and all 'others' not verifiably WHITE. Period. No one is living in a bubble here.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Doesn't New York hold the National Record for the most Black Men lynched in a single day?
riqster
(13,986 posts)It's socioeconomic subjugation.
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)... the South is still at war with the Federal government. They will NEVER surrender.
"Union General Joshua Chamberlain remarked to Southern counterpart Henry Wise that perhaps now "brave men may become good friends."
Wise's reply was bitter as smoke. "You're mistaken, sir," he said. "You may forgive us, but we won't be forgiven. There is a rancor in our hearts which you little dream of. We hate you, sir."
http://www.sunherald.com/2015/04/07/6163808/leonard-pitts-150-years-after.html#storylink=cpy
riqster
(13,986 posts)appalachiablue
(41,174 posts)NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Initech
(100,103 posts)If you look at statistics, we're more divided now than we were in the 1850s, and a lot of that is thanks to AM hate radio and Fox News. And when you take in things like the economy, LGBT rights, and other situations, we're headed down that path. Look at all the gun laws being passed. Look at our rights being rolled back. It's a powder keg just waiting to be set off.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)calimary
(81,498 posts)To this very hour, here in the 21st Century? That disgusting "stars & bars"? Which, to me (and I'm not alone) is just a symbol of all that's bad. They still use it. They still embrace it. They still fly it in public. They still keep it hanging in their living rooms (something I've noticed repeatedly in video clips). They're still proud of it - almost militantly, and definitely with defiance. Hell, sometimes they even WEAR it. That's what disturbs me.
It's just what I see, and what I keep noticing, month after month, year after year.
You're not gonna surrender if you think you're still right.
You're not gonna surrender if you think you're still right."
So true.
calimary
(81,498 posts)How many times have we seen that?
And it filters down to this very day in the opposition of the Voting Rights Act AND ESPECIALLY ROE V WADE!!!!!
Roe v Wade is supposed to be "settled law" too. And look what that side of the aisle has done to it!!!!!!!!
They don't give up if they don't think they're wrong.
They won't accept, or even acknowledge laws, judges' rulings, or even the expressed will of the majority.
They didn't accept the duly elected President of the United States when he was not merely NOT of their party but also not of their skin color.
They didn't accept the verdict from the Supreme Court that a woman has the right to choose.
They didn't accept the Voting Rights Act - and the very idea that voting is a right for every citizen.
They refuse to accept climate change.
They refuse to accept that church and state are and should be separate.
They refuse to accept that they can't shove their guns in everybody's faces.
They refuse to accept that rights are across the board and not just for an elite or privileged few.
They refuse to accept that the Person or the Concept of GOD may have a different face and form to different peoples and cultures.
And unfortunately, they're not giving up on ANY of this. Which means WE, on our side, are stuck. We're condemned to have to keep fighting these battles again and again and again and again. And AGAIN. I'm not sure if there will ever be a winner on this. I'm not even sure the fight will ever be completely won and the issue will ever be permanently resolved. As long as there are people on that side who keep fighting us, this is what we're going to face. And it's daunting. And frustrating as hell.
But that's what we have to be prepared for. That's what we have to face.
They don't give up if they don't think they're wrong. They WON'T give up if they don't think they're wrong. Won't EVER.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)succinct and to the point true!
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Living in Texas (ugh) I have cherry picked this:
"They didn't accept the duly elected President of the United States when he was not merely NOT of their party but also not of their skin color."
Yet somehow they accepted two fucking carpetbaggers from the Northeast.
They will never explain.
calimary
(81,498 posts)AHEMrandpaulA-A-AHEMMM!
I swear - he reminds me of trying to pick up an earthworm. They flip and flap and whip and writhe all over the place. So it's hard to get a good finger-hold. Til the worm tires and stops its physical apoplexy.
'Course it doesn't stop with rand paul.
1939
(1,683 posts)The surrenders of Confederate forces were only those of organized military forces. The Confederate States of America (their national government) never surrendered, it just fell apart as various cabinet members drifted off with the last piece being the capture of Jeff Davis in northern Georgia by James Wilson's cavalry. The various state governors approached the commanders of Union occupying troops to offer cooperation in the reestablishment of functioning local government.
calimary
(81,498 posts)Glad you're here! Interesting historical notes. Thanks! "Organized military forces." Makes sense. Seems to me, anyway, that this kinda sums up the whole Confederate attitude. All about states' rights. Didn't like larger over-arching authority "telling them what to do." They all wanted to be on their own, not answerable to some big bad ol' federal government off in the distance somewhere. The whole "don't tread on me" thing. Their own sovereignty that didn't want to belong. Wanted to separate, secede, go their own way. No surprise there would be a residual refusal to recognize an authority that surrendered.
It's all about goin' rogue, I guess.
B2G
(9,766 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)I think it was Georgia Southern or Athens. Wouldn't swear to it.
We had actually been looking at the Uncle Remus museum that day, to settle a bet: many Brits have been told that Enid Blyton wrote those stories, so I took her to Joel Chandler Harris's museum to set the record straight.
Also happened upon the Rock Eagle on that trip. Wow.
Somehow found out about a paleontology exhibit at one of Georgia's state universities, and it wasn't much of detour so we went.
That's all the grey cells have on tap, I'm afraid.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)A blunt swing and a cranky miss.
Racism and the class war are much, much older than the American Civil War. They were and are everywhere. Calling these things as neo-Confederate has some validity as a popular American branding, but misses the larger picture of haves and have-nots.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)yes. thank you.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)of course racism is as old as the races mixing. Why? Some people want to be superior based on flawed notions and those alleged superior folk, MUST HAVE someone to look down on and trample underfoot. Simple as that. Good swing and a home run.
erronis
(15,335 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)The 1% of the antebellum South pushed the war for their own enrichment, as often happens. When the military solution failed they tried other means, which also happens in such matters.
The fact that the 1% of the South has linked up with their brethren in other regions does not mean that the situation described in the OP doesn't need addressed.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)It's also much older than the American Antebellum South, which was merely a last stronghold of Western chattel slavery. The economic and cultural drivers predated, and will likely outlast, the Stars 'N' Bars. I don't want to minimize the South's keeping the flame alive with a peculiar flavor--really, I don't--but neo-Confederates are just one branch of the tree of class stratification and racism.
We're talking about something fundamental to human nature, and not just about Alabama or even the United States.
riqster
(13,986 posts)It is the shape in which that djinn has chosen to show itself in our time, however, and so I feel comfortable addressing it thus.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)I thought "Terrorism?" Really? Who were the "terrorists?"
Well, who assassinated President Lincoln?
By targeting Lincoln and his two immediate successors to the presidency, Booth seems to have intended to decapitate the Union government and throw it into a state of panic and confusion.[100] The possibility of assassinating the Union Army's commanding general as well was foiled when Grant declined the theatre invitation at his wife's insistence. Instead, the Grants departed Washington by train that evening for a visit to relatives in New Jersey.[32] Booth had hoped that the assassinations would create sufficient chaos within the Union that the Confederate government could reorganize and continue the war if one Confederate army remained in the field or, that failing, to avenge the South's defeat.[101] In his 2005 analysis of Lincoln's assassination, Thomas Goodrich wrote, "All the elements in Booth's nature came together at once his hatred of tyranny, his love of liberty, his passion for the stage, his sense of drama, and his lifelong quest to become immortal."[102]
As a famous and popular actor who had frequently performed at Ford's Theatre, and who was well known to its owner, John T. Ford, Booth had free access to all parts of the theater, even having his mail sent there.[103] By boring a spyhole into the door of the presidential box earlier that day, the assassin could check that his intended victim had made it to the play and observe the box's occupants. That evening, at around 10 p.m., as the play progressed, John Wilkes Booth slipped into Lincoln's box and shot him in the back of the head with a .44 caliber Derringer.[104] Booth's escape was almost thwarted by Major Henry Rathbone, who was present in the Presidential box with Mrs. Mary Todd Lincoln.[105] Booth stabbed Rathbone when the startled officer lunged at him.[82] Rathbone's fiancée, Clara Harris, who was also present in the box, was unhurt.
Booth then jumped from the President's box to the stage, where he raised his knife and shouted "Sic semper tyrannis" (Latin for "Thus always to tyrants," attributed to Brutus at Caesar's assassination and the Virginia state motto), while others said he added, "I have done it, the South is avenged!"[40][106][107] Various accounts state that Booth injured his leg when his spur snagged a decorative U.S. Treasury Guard flag while leaping to the stage.[108] Historian Michael W. Kauffman questioned this legend in his book, American Brutus: John Wilkes Booth and the Lincoln Conspiracies, writing in 2004 that eyewitness accounts of Booth's hurried stage exit made it unlikely that his leg was broken then. Kauffman contends that Booth was injured later that night during his flight to escape when his horse tripped and fell on him, calling Booth's claim to the contrary an exaggeration to portray his own actions as heroic.[109]
Wikipedia
Oh, and how about Andersonville?
Robert H. Kellogg, sergeant major in the 16th Regiment Connecticut Volunteers, described his entry as a prisoner into the prison camp, May 2nd 1864:
As we entered the place, a spectacle met our eyes that almost froze our blood with horror, and made our hearts fail within us. Before us were forms that had once been active and erect;stalwart men, now nothing but mere walking skeletons, covered with filth and vermin. Many of our men, in the heat and intensity of their feeling, exclaimed with earnestness. "Can this be hell?" "God protect us!" and all thought that He alone could bring them out alive from so terrible a place. In the center of the whole was a swamp, occupying about three or four acres of the narrowed limits, and a part of this marshy place had been used by the prisoners as a sink, and excrement covered the ground, the scent arising from which was suffocating. The ground allotted to our ninety was near the edge of this plague-spot, and how we were to live through the warm summer weather in the midst of such fearful surroundings, was more than we cared to think of just then.[9]
Wikipedia
Fighting terrorism? Ask this guy if the South was fighting terrorism--
(A Union soldier who survived Andersonville)
Yeah, the "War of Northern Aggression." Give me a f*cking break!
B2G
(9,766 posts)It ain't pretty.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)I'm glad he did it.
B2G
(9,766 posts)NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)and equipment as forfeit by reason of sedition and turned them over to the freed slaves. Sherman didn't go far enough by a country mile.
B2G
(9,766 posts)What was left in his wake?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)human chattel). WTF? Historically, the penalty for sedition has been forfeiture of life and land. The 'revolution' of 1865 was only a half-success. Were the slaves ever compensated for the labor and life that was stolen from them before 1865?
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)and their whining descendants will forever feel deprived.
It's weird to see them on DU.
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)NONE of the prison camps were fit for anything on either side. Andersonville rightly gets a drubbing in history. However, the Union wasn't much better.
world wide wally
(21,755 posts)Too bad we never fight back..... or just let them secede.
riqster
(13,986 posts)In the hope of avoiding a guerrilla war. That may have allowed for the continuation of the confederate agenda via legislation, but it's kinda late now to second-guess.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It has turned to a socio-economic issue with AA's taking the brunt of it. Abolishing slavery did not bring about equality and couldn't bring about equality. Not enough was done after it was abolished. This many years later it has morphed into a socio-economic issue. AA's take the brunt because little was ever done to bring equality to a whole race. The souths views are somewhat prevailing because they changed their tune from that of race to simply creating a permanent sub-class of poverty.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Thanks.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)It's easy to see they are waging a modern day civil war on the American people. Economically, Politically, Literally stealing our civil rights, Stealing our freedoms, Mass poisoning of our air water soil, Causing mass sickness and suffering, Flooding our country with guns-ammo-drugs-gangs-hate, Filling prisons with slave-wage workers, Brainwashing the masses, Dumbing down our kids...
Who is going to stop this!? How are we going to stop this!?
riqster
(13,986 posts)Then we need to provide a message to counter theirs. Gonna take a long time.
kairos12
(12,873 posts)strategy to win national elections: dark money, disenfranchise the vote, and gerrymandering. They have long planned this.
riqster
(13,986 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Then they win, in their minds, by default, because they would just as soon see the place in flames as see you win. The fight against them is impotent and ineffective. In addition, a number of people who should oppose them are traitors who profit from things being this way instead of working for the people, so they will probably get their wish.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Far right always includes elements of racism, intolerance, greed, cruelty, bias, inequality and every sort of bigotry, that if left unchecked, will always escalate into violence.
There is nothing positive or good about the political far right. Name one positive far right attribute if you can. I want to hear it.
The Secessionist South was the far right in this nation and their actions eventually led to a civil war. There was nothing noble about the South's secession.
During WWII the Fascist nations of Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy and Imperial Japan represented the Far Right.
riqster
(13,986 posts)The far right isn't conservative: it's regressive.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Always a risky topic.
SansACause
(520 posts)The success of the Southern Strategy by the GOP continues, except now it's been exported to all the red states. One needs only to turn on FOX News to see how the vilification of black people continues unabated. "Thug" is the new "N*****".
riqster
(13,986 posts)I said "Reagan" in my OP, but of course it started long before that.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)defeat and surrender of the Confederacy. It was not a Civil War to abolish racism, nor a war for pay equality. It was a war (became one during its course) to end chattel slavery. The North won that war. Chattel slavery (at least in the U.S.) went into the dustbin of history where it rightly belonged.
You are conflating the literal and figurative meanings of the word 'war' to make a rhetorical point. I agree with your rhetorical point but wish to note that the Civil War resulted in the abolition of chattel slavery and the emancipation of all chattel slaves.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Although slavery was the casus belli, it was not the only factor. And the fact that blacks were still held in a different form of bondage after the war seems to be more of a question of methods than intent.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)variants (like 'wage slavery,' for example). After 1865, former slaves were no longer another person's 'property' (chattel) to be disposed of at the owners' whim.
The post-1865 'bondage' you refer to is more metaphoric than actual, since large numbers of blacks could and did migrate from the deep South to the urban, industrial North in search of better economic opportunities and life experiences.
riqster
(13,986 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Jim Crow" documents that it actually started in northern states and migrated to the South after 1865. Weird (and not to be construed as any defense of or excuse for the South). Blacks were migrating from South to North while Jim Crow was migrating from North to South. Very weird the cross-currents of history and their intersection with actual life as lived by the people.
riqster
(13,986 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 11, 2015, 02:33 AM - Edit history (2)
economic conflict between Northern Industrialists and their Southern Plantation owning counterparts.
Slavery formed a focal point for the public, and still does, for a much broader and harder to understand war.
What the war ultimately caused the South to realize was that they didn't need to own the slaves to keep them in bondage.
Rather, they had to keep them disenfranchised and uneducated. The same goes for poor southern whites as well.
That mentality is what is being exported to the rest of the nation.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Better than I said it.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)enlisted for war if the war was an 'economic conflict between Northern industrialists and Southern plantation-owning counterparts.'
Slavery was the principal reason for the war. Anything else falls back on stale determinism. Even Marx himself recognized and knew that the war was about chattel slavery - whether to contain it, end it or allow it to spread.
English teacher here: 'principal' (meaning 'most important') and not 'principle' (meaning rule or moral guideline).
riqster
(13,986 posts)Slavery in the strict dictionary sense may have been eliminated, but not as an absolute.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)motivate people to do things that go against their own interests.
This happened during the Civil War and still happens today.
And I fixed the word so as no to offend your English teacher principles...
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)to enlist because he opposed the Southern plantation economy. He probably rushed off to enlist because a) all of his friends were enlisting, b) life in an Iowa corn field is boring as all fuck and c) he had a sentimental attachment to the idea of the 'Union' and perhaps a mild moral aversion to slavery. By the same token, the son of the Virginia Tidewater plantation owner did not rush off to enlist because he opposed Northern industrialism. Said Johhny Reb probably rushed to enlist because a) all of his friends were enlisting, b) life on a Tidewater plantation was boring as all fuck and c) he had the foolish notion that his state was under attack and perhaps a sentimental attachment to the institution of slavery.
That said, slavery was the sine qua non (without this, nothing) of the Civil War. No other casus belli could stir up regional hatred to the level of sedition. (Every Confederate state's Bill of Secession explicitly mentions the preservation of slavery and, in a few cases, its expansion, as a reason for secession.)
As for 'hegemonic pressures that motivate people to do things that go against their own interests,' please remember that Lincoln in his 1862 Winter Address to Congress called the U.S. "the last best hope of Earth." He did not utter those words lightly or cynically in those days. He and many Unionists believed sincerely that the decadent aristocracies and monarchies of Europe represented a dead end and that only a system of popular sovereignty held any hope for mankind's future. Surely you are not saying that those who enlisted on the Union side did so against their best interests? When the stakes were to lose the 'last best hope on Earth' and revert back to some inbred European hereditary dynastic system, a decision to enlist in the Union armies was most certainly in behalf of one's best interests.
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/congress.htm
blackspade
(10,056 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Texasgal
(17,047 posts)UGH.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)As we see, not everyone is willing to do so.
B2G
(9,766 posts)"Such explicit prohibition was necessary, because even after the code was in place, sexual violence was common to the wartime experience of Southern women, white and black. Whether they lived on large plantations or small farms, in towns, cities or in contraband camps, white and black women all over the American South experienced the sexual trauma of war.
Union military courts prosecuted at least 450 cases involving sexual crimes. In North Carolina during the spring of 1865, Pvt. James Preble did by physical force and violence commit rape upon the person of one Miss Letitia Craft. When Perry Holland of the 1st Missouri Infantry confessed to the rape of Julia Anderson, a white woman in Tennessee, he was sentenced to be shot, but his sentence was later commuted. Catherine Farmer, also of Tennessee, testified that Lt. Harvey John of the 49th Ohio Infantry dragged her into the bushes and told her he would kill her if she did not give it to him. He tore her dress, broke her hoops and put his private parts into her, for which he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. In Georgia, Albert Lane, part of Company B, in the 100th Regiment of Ohio Volunteers, was also sentenced to 10 years because he did on or about the 11th day of July, 1864
upon one Miss Louisa Dickerson
then and there forcibly and against her will, feloniously did ravish and carnally know her.
Black women were in even more danger. Rape was one of the many horrors of slavery, though whites rarely recognized it as such. Interestingly, it was only in the context of war that Southern whites for the first time were forced to acknowledge the rape of black women. In the spring of 1863, John N. Williams of the 7th Tennessee Regiment wrote in his diary, Heard from home. The Yankees has been through there. Seem to be their object to commit rape on every Negro woman they can find. Many times, troops and ruffians raped black women while forcing white women to watch, a horrifying experience for all, and a proxy rape of white women. B. E. Harrison of Leesburg, Va., wrote a letter to President Abraham Lincoln complaining that federal troops had raped his servant girl in the presence of his wife. Gen. William Dwight reported, Negro women were ravished in the presence of white women and children. Just as the rape of white women implied that Southern men were unable to protect their mothers, wives and daughters, the rape of slave women told whites they could no longer protect their property."
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/rape-and-justice-in-the-civil-war/
riqster
(13,986 posts)And which relates to the anecdote but not the point of the OP in any case.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I seldom resort to cartoons, but
riqster
(13,986 posts)Sure sounds like confederate victory to me.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)This line is fallacious:
Slave-owners bore no burden of "costs" as 100% of their wealth was generated by the slaves they held captive. The salves themselves bore the ENTIRE burden of the system of slavery. Slaveowners were 100% parasitical.
riqster
(13,986 posts)But not on a plantation owner's balance sheet. To those rapacious bastards, the purchase price, clothing, feeding, housing and other costs of slave ownership showed upon the debit side of the ledger. Once the slaves were freed, those costs disappeared.
True, the former slaveholders had to find other ways to compensate their employees, but overall the human capital management side of their business model decreased rapidly. The profits remained privatized but the costs were socialized.
The modern equivalent is Wal-Mart.