Secession re-enactments

[maxx]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/20/9370/1947

Larry Wilmore's take.
http://www.theroot.com/buzz/larry-wi...-its-secession

Self-deception is alive and well in the South and it's called history.

[Fury13]

They call the Civil War "the War of Northern Aggression" down there. For real.

[oldredfordette]

Then there's Haley Barbour, presidential hopeful:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...-sanitized-fak

[canuck]

Then there's Haley Barbour, presidential hopeful:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...-sanitized-fak

Yes, and nothing warms my heart more than the view of a confederate flag, especially in Quebec, say on a license plate [[we have no plates in the front). Ignorance is bliss, and deserves a kick in the derrière. What is it with these people who have a melancholy longing for the confederate south?
Is it only respect about their forebears having fought in the confederate army, or is something more sinister? What pride is there in that?

[lilpup]

just until they lose all their federal funding...

[oldredfordette]

They love the past because they hate black people, and women, and the poor. It was wonderful back then, when all three of those groups were to be used like animals for the pleasure of the wealthy white man. Yes, dem days are not forgotten.

[Detroitej72]

I like seeing the confederate flag, it reminds folks how the south got their asses kicked by the north.

[gibran]

sad thing is that prejudice knows no geographical boundary...sometimes ignorance has a symbol attached to it

[maxx]

Yes, and nothing warms my heart more than the view of a confederate flag, especially in Quebec, say on a license plate [[we have no plates in the front). Ignorance is bliss, and deserves a kick in the derrière. What is it with these people who have a melancholy longing for the confederate south?
Is it only respect about their forebears having fought in the confederate army, or is something more sinister? What pride is there in that?

The Quebecois have flirted with secession themselves from time to time.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...quebec-secedes

[maxx]

They love the past because they hate black people, and women, and the poor. It was wonderful back then, when all three of those groups were to be used like animals for the pleasure of the wealthy white man. Yes, dem days are not forgotten.

Look away, Dixieland.

[canuck]

The Quebecois have flirted with secession themselves from time to time.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...quebec-secedes

Yes, in the 1837-38 rebellion, French Canadians but also more democratically inclined anglos fought for better representation in what was then called Lower Canada [[Quebec) as opposed to Upper Canada [[Ontario). English governors intended to make Quebecers loyal british subjects and this was a difficult proposition in view of language and religion. The rebellion was squashed but anti-establishment sentiment was always strong in Quebec in that anglos were determined to have the upper hand and not have to stoop to learning the language. Cultural isolation of the two founding groups is still a part of life here like the black and white issue in Detroit. There is more cross-fertilization, hybridization now than ever though since 1970. All political parties in Quebec play the nationalist card vis-à-vis Ottawa because of the need to negotiate and not relinquish power in matters like education, natural resources etc... Quebec often negotiates one on one with France and other francophone countries, not to mention New England states without Ottawa. Also, the provincial parliament here is called the National Assembly. Likewise there are many institutions like The National Center for Scientific Research which refer to Quebec not Canada.

[ghettopalmetto]

I think the distinct difference here, is that the Anglos never owned the Quebecois as property, keeping them in bondage, and using the free labor as the fundamental basis of their economy.

To not understand this concept of the Antebellum South is to completely gloss over the motivations for secession. The slave holders knew that if slavery were outlawed, their economy and thus their personal wealth, would be destroyed.

[Papasito]

There are many sides to the North VS South story. Generalizing one group is a huge mistake. We all know slavery was wrong and needed to be abolished, but the school system and Government have done their best to make Americans believe the Civil War was 100% about slavery, and that it had nothing to do with States Rights VS Federalism [[An all-powerful central Government).

Even the orginal stories of the attack on Fort Sumpter have been squelched. The Southern news agencies reported the "South" fired upon the Fort because it blockaded trade goods and food from entering the Southern town located on the bay, and the people were starved into action.

The stories of our American history have been turned into something where butchering Native American families in thier own homes is considered herioc, that the North's massacre of a shoeless, starving Southern army on the plains of Southern Pennsylvania is considered glorious, and that napalming kids in Vietnam in the name of Capitalism to overthrow Communism is .patriotic.

I know some of you are going to disagree with my opinions but I have based them on books that I have read. Another point is textbooks are condensed and politically influenced, and what our kids are learning in history is a politically spinned watered down version of what actually happened. You could write a hundred books on the Civil War to cover all the angles and reasons behind it, but in our school's textbooks, you get one small paragraph pertaining to the causes behind the Civil War : "The Civil War was fought over slavery".

You should read the opinions of both sides and consider the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[ghettopalmetto]

There are many sides to the North VS South story. Generalizing one group is a huge mistake. We all know slavery was wrong and needed to be abolished, but the school system and Government have done their best to make Americans believe the Civil War was 100% about slavery, and that it had nothing to do with States Rights VS Federalism [[An all-powerful central Government).

WRONG.

From the South Carolina Declaration of Secession [[20 December 1860):

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/south...eclaration.asp

That's not anyone's interpretation. That's not selective manipulation of facts. Those are the words actually written and attested to at First Baptist Church in Columbia, SC 150 years ago this week. In other words, they were pissing their pants that newly-elected Abraham Lincoln was going to abolish slavery, and thus deprive them of the well-to-do lifestyle of plantation owners who benefitted from an entrenched system of forced, no-cost labor.

I don't think it can be any clearer than that. But keep fooling yourself.

Even the orginal stories of the attack on Fort Sumpter have been squelched. The Southern news agencies reported the "South" fired upon the Fort because it blockaded trade goods and food from entering the Southern town located on the bay, and the people were starved into action.

"The people" were starved into action? How about cadets at The Citadel.

Citadel Cadets To Re-Enact Firing Of First Civil War Shots

Event Part Of 150th Anniversary Of Civil War


CHARLESTON, S.C. -- With the 150th anniversary of the Civil War approaching, cadets from The Citadel plan to re-enact the firing of what many consider the first hostile shots of the conflict.

In January 1861, just weeks after South Carolina seceded from the Union, Citadel cadets on Morris Island fired on the federal steamship Star of the West.

The ship was trying to resupply Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, but the firing forced the ship to turn back and the war began the following April with the Confederate bombardment of the Union fort.


About 20 faculty and cadet re-enactors from the state military college will re-enact the firing on the ship on Jan. 8.

http://www.foxcarolina.com/news/26120246/detail.html


Opinions are like assholes, Papasito: everybody has one. Unfortunately, that does not mean they are equivalent, nor do all opinions carry equal weight. Some opinions are informed, others not informed at all. While "averaging" all the bullshit you come across might be simple enough for you to grasp, that doesn't make it the least bit correct.

If we take your advice, a primary source and the opinion of a racist redneck carry the same weight.

[Gistok]

There are many sides to the North VS South story. Generalizing one group is a huge mistake. We all know slavery was wrong and needed to be abolished, but the school system and Government have done their best to make Americans believe the Civil War was 100% about slavery, and that it had nothing to do with States Rights VS Federalism [[An all-powerful central Government).

Even the orginal stories of the attack on Fort Sumpter have been squelched. The Southern news agencies reported the "South" fired upon the Fort because it blockaded trade goods and food from entering the Southern town located on the bay, and the people were starved into action.

The stories of our American history have been turned into something where butchering Native American families in thier own homes is considered herioc, that the North's massacre of a shoeless, starving Southern army on the plains of Southern Pennsylvania is considered glorious, and that napalming kids in Vietnam in the name of Capitalism to overthrow Communism is .patriotic.

I know some of you are going to disagree with my opinions but I have based them on books that I have read. Another point is textbooks are condensed and politically influenced, and what our kids are learning in history is a politically spinned watered down version of what actually happened. You could write a hundred books on the Civil War to cover all the angles and reasons behind it, but in our school's textbooks, you get one small paragraph pertaining to the causes behind the Civil War : "The Civil War was fought over slavery".

You should read the opinions of both sides and consider the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Just which "Southern News Agencies" are you talking about as gospel??

Let's see... Fort Sumpter was surrounded by secessionist southerners... but it was the southerners who were starving... not the "low on rations" Fort? Odd that... I didn't know that Charleston was so isolated, and provisions couldn't be gotten by land??

I know that the fort was NOT shooting at passing ships... in fact they were not shooting at anyone... maybe your "Southern News Agencies" can explain how to stop shipping from traversing Charleston Harbor... without the use of cannons? Did your "Southern News Agencies"... remember to tell you that the southerners fired the first shot??

And since we're on the subject... who told you that the Government and school systems were making the civil war 100% about slavery?? I don't remember it that way when I was in school or at college... and my minor was in History. We were told that it was about "preserving the union". Slavery may have been the spark that started the downward spiral of the Civil War... but it was not the only reason behind the war.

You need to stop listening to "News Agencies" for your historic information.... it's akin to using Cliff Notes to get an education...

[ghettopalmetto]

Let's see... Fort Sumpter was surrounded by secessionist southerners... but it was the southerners who were starving... not the "low on rations" Fort? Odd that... I didn't know that Charleston was so isolated, and provisions couldn't be gotten by land??

Oh, come on, Gistok. It's not like Charleston was surrounded by plantations full of rice and cotton, and seas full of seafood, and fields full of corn, and pigs and chickens and...well, they barely had anything!

[maxx]

ghettop:
That's not anyone's interpretation. That's not selective manipulation of facts. Those are the words actually written and attested to at First Baptist Church in Columbia, SC 150 years ago this week.

As Larry Wilmore said on The Daily Show: "That's not politically correct. That's correct, correct."

Papasito: We all know slavery was wrong and needed to be abolished, but the school system and Government have done their best to make Americans believe the Civil War was 100% about slavery, and that it had nothing to do with States Rights VS Federalism [[An all-powerful central Government).

And the main state's right they all were willing to fight for in the South was the right to hold slaves.

[canuck]

I think the distinct difference here, is that the Anglos never owned the Quebecois as property, keeping them in bondage, and using the free labor as the fundamental basis of their economy.

To not understand this concept of the Antebellum South is to completely gloss over the motivations for secession. The slave holders knew that if slavery were outlawed, their economy and thus their personal wealth, would be destroyed.

Absolewdly! There was an FLQ [[Quebec Liberation Front) member who wrote a pamphlet entitled The White Niggers of America which likened the quebecois to the negros in the US in terms of human rights. Nothing could be have been further from reality both historically and in contemporary terms. It was a spiteful, ignorant and opportunistic stance. While economic power was overwhelmingly in the hands of a few anglos, the french canadian bourgeoisie was strong enough to bloom into what it has now become. Besides that, the church dominated society imposed a certain disdain for the business class which in the view of church leaders meant a further dilution of mores and acceptance of anglo dominance. The classically educated french catholics chose liberal professions and became lawyers and notaries and politicians. There was a sizable anglo underclass as well as a sizable french bourgeoisie, some of whose families had been landed gentry [[seigneurs) never dispossessed from colonial days. There was also a large class of folk who owned farms and lived as well as any farm family in North America, and conversely, as poorly as the most downtrodden sharecroppers whether they be white or black.

As you say, nothing can compare to what african americans endured, except for the aboriginal people of North America. There was slavery among the aboriginals too following victories in battle, and there was slavery in Canada also. One black female slave [[Angélique) was tortured and executed in 1734 for having set fire to the city of Montreal.

[ghettopalmetto]

While economic power was overwhelmingly in the hands of a few anglos, the french canadian bourgeoisie was strong enough to bloom into what it has now become. Besides that, the church dominated society imposed a certain disdain for the business class which in the view of church leaders meant a further dilution of mores and acceptance of anglo dominance. The classically educated french catholics chose liberal professions and became lawyers and notaries and politicians. There was a sizable anglo underclass as well as a sizable french bourgeoisie, some of whose families had been landed gentry [[seigneurs) never dispossessed from colonial days. There was also a large class of folk who owned farms....

This is off-topic, but I find that very interesting, as it has a very close parallel to Poland. Historically, the merchant class in Poland consisted of Germans and Jews. The bourgeoisie [[szlachta) tended to be classically educated and owned large estates [[about 10% of the population) while the rest of the nation consisted of peasant farmers. They didn't quite have the same feudal system, but I wonder if the Church didn't have some role in development of the class system in both countries.

[oldredfordette]

I want to know what books Papasito read to come up with this "interesting" version of the Civil War.

[PaulieG63]

A couple of points:

The North neither started the war or initially fought it over slavery...

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if i could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.What I do about slavery and the colored race I do because I believe it helps to save this union." March 16, 1862

Which begs the question, what was so sancrosanct about the Union...nothing actually.
Like ALL wars, this one was no different...it was all about the $$$.

In 1860, there were NO federal taxes. The coffers of the Federal goverment were filled more or less by taxes on goods. In 1860, total exports by the South totaled 214 million dollars...from the North, around 47 million dollars. In both instances, the percentage for the South [[in taxes and exports) was 87% from the South - 13% from the North. Hence Lincoln's famous quote...
"What then will become of my tariff" [[If the South was allowed to leave the union freely.)

Another point to remember. The North wanted high tariffs to protect an infant industrial base from cheaper and in many cases better quality imported products from Europe. The South on the other hand was a purely export driven economy...cotton was king. High tariffs led to trade wars and Southern cotton being unduly hurt in competition with European counter parts. The South desire extremely low tariffs.

So, what does this all mean? Well, the North couldn't AFFORD to let the South go. Charleston after all was one of they biggest, if not the biggest port on the eastern coast. The South viewed the high tariffs of the North as inflicting great damage to their economy, while at the same time, they felt agrieved that they were in fact putting most of the money into the federal coffers [[which incidentally, they also felt was being spent disproportionately in the North...which was most likely true.) So both sides had an economic reason for the conflict...with the South having the additional econmic incentive of protecting slavery...

It was fought in the North [[at least initially) to keep the money spicket of the South turned on...nothing more or less. It was fought in the South to protect their economic interests, namely low tariffs/trade and the defense of slavery.

The firing on Sumter was a direct result of Lincoln attempting to provision the garrison. The Federal troops there were being supplied by the Confederates. They continued to be supplied food/water etc. as the South negotiated for the removal of Federal troops in Southern territory.
The South learned that an armada was being sent to bring additional troops and armaments to Fort Sumter. The Confederates made the decsion to draw the proverbial line in the sand as far as surrendering the fort. With the armada a day or so away from the fort, and Anderson refusing to budge, the fateful decsion was made to fire on Fort Sumter. The South has always insisted that they were cornered into firing the first shot, which undeniably hurt their cause, perhaps fatally. They insisted that the first one who throws a punch in a fist fight isin't always the aggressor. This most likely was Lincoln's most underappreciated, but important strategy decsion of the conflict, manuevering the South into firing the first shot.

[canuck]

I can tell you I own two pretty good books on the civil war. One is entitled aptly enough; The Civil War by Robert Paul Jordan. It is an illustrated text by the National Geographic Society and was published in the sixties. I also really like the more recent The Civil War Day by Day by John S Bowman and Dorset Press. The latter is abundantly illustrated and features portraits of the key figures in the drama. It is a journal that enters chronologically all major events for the length of the war.

[1KielsonDrive]

These re-enactors are as surely living in the past as anyone who's had a flashback. Hey re-enactors, try some acid. Maybe some mesc? Or some psilocybin? Easier, cheaper and quicker. You don't have to buy all those costumes and weapons.

[maxx]

Which begs the question, what was so sancrosanct about the Union...nothing actually.

So you're willing to vote for someone who doesn't care whether this nation stays intact?

The firing on Sumter was a direct result of Lincoln attempting to provision the garrison.

The issue of the extension of slavery into new states was an ongoing series of battles. Remember "bleeding Kansas"? Presidents prior to Lincoln are measured on how well they put off the Civil War.

[PaulieG63]

Maxx,

The question at hand on March 4th, 1861 [[when Lincoln was inauguarated) was one of war. Reading the contemporary periodicals of the day, everyone [[north and south) ...cared whether the nation stayed intact...it was always a question of at what cost.

Lincoln, one of the most adept politicians of his age [[or argueably, any since) understood the emotional power of phrases like "saving the union." He proved himself to be a politician, which in fact he was, by using that very rhetoric to prepare/incite the country for war. This has been true of all politicians, of all stripes from the beginning of time [[ a rather blatant and contemporary example of this is playing out as we speak...in the Middle East...I just can't quite put my finger on the name of the President in question...hmmmm.) Anyways, my larger point was that politicians almost always use emotional rhetoric to justify war. That emotional rhetoric seldom, if everm, squares with the root underlying causes of the war.

Lincoln surely was much more interested in what would become of the federal treasury if the south was allowed to leave peacefully...the south after all was providing roughly 85% + - of the revenue. Equally, he was well aware of the decades long battles fought in congess over the tariff. The south desired an extremely low tariff. The north, for reasons stated earlier, wanted an extremely high tariff. If the south was allowed to leave the union peacefully, there was NO question what their position would be on tariffs, nor, what that would do to northern ports and commerce if they [[the north) didn't substantially change theirs. These were the fundemental questions of the day. Lincoln understood them well. None, however, are discussed by the public at large when discussing the war. As if they were incidental to or extraneous to the matter at hand...why? Because of rhetoric. Becuase it wasn't about money [[incidentally, when is it ever not about money?) but about "...saving the union." It was the emotional appeal vs. the economics of the day. Politicians will always prefer to talk about the former, while seldom [[if ever) talking about the latter. Lincoln was no exception.

Also, when it comes to talk about "...saving the union..." or "...this nation staying intact."[[some might say..not "...allowing for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another...") you do realize this is codespeak for [[usually) the use of force to supress a peoples God given right to self determination, don't you? When you argue for saving the union or keeping this nation intact, you are using the language [[rhetoric) of despots. You are singing from the same music of George III NOT Thomas Jefferson. You are, in fact, uncomfortably close to argueing against the very ideals that this nation was founded upon.

As for your statements regarding "...the extension of slavery into new states..." and "...bleeding Kansas..." could you please clarify what your point[[s) were/are...as I am not at all sure...thank-you!

Finally, on your last point about presidents being measured/judged on their ability to put off the civil war. Presidents/Congress have been dealing with secession issues as far back as December 15th, 1814 with the Hartford Convention [[the New England states were debating secession) to the Nullification Crisis of 1832 [[South Carolina and John C. Calhoun argueing against HIGH TARIFFS...i.e. the Tariff of Abominations) to the lead up to the civil war.
Lincoln was the only president to make the fateful decision to wage war on his fellow/former citizens and thereby repudiate the Declaration of Independence.