The War Is Over - So Why The Bitterness?

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 10 April 2011 | Richard G. Williams, Jr.

[Davy Buck]

"The fact that it is acceptable to put a Confederate flag on a car *bumper and to portray Confederates as brave and gallant defenders of states’ rights rather than as traitors and defenders of slavery is a testament to 150 years of history written by the losers." - Ohio State Professer Steven Conn in a recent piece at History News Network (No, I'll not difnigy his bitterness by providing a link)

This sounds like sour grapes to me. Were it not for the "losers" . . .

[Celtic Cross]

Well, there IS that :)

[servantboy777]

>>Stop! You’re scaring me!<<

Not attempting scare you, just pointing out what kinda lil pu$$y you are.

[Rebelbase]

“The fact that Abraham Lincoln is worshipped as a god and revered for preserving the Union is a sign that history is written by the winners.”

The best I can tell that attitude attained religion status in the years leading up to the 50th anniversary of the end of the war.

[Idabilly]

Dr. Conn puts it well. The confederate flag is a symbol of treason, a crime of which every soldier who volunteered to fight for the confederacy is guilty.

As does Ann Coulter:

The Confederate battle flag today has nothing to do with race. It stands for a romantic image of a chivalric, honor-based culture that was driven down by the brute force of crass Yankee capitalism, which was better at manufacturing weapons than using them, and that shortly thereafter gave us the Grant administration and the Gilded Age. (We'll leave out trebling the average life span, ending chattel slavery, creating a world in which half the human race gets beaten up a whole lot less by the other half, and various other things that those money-grubbing followers of that awful Hobbes guy somehow accomplished despite caring only about making a buck.)

It stands for a proud military heritage shared by both blacks and whites in the South. The reverence for tradition and pride in historical antecedents are precisely what make Southerners, black and white, such stalwart patriots.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter020100.asp

[stormer]

I couldn’t live much further from the south than I do right now, and that suits me fine. Whatever you’re selling, I don’t want any part of it...

[Rebelbase]

Looks like upper Michigan to me.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I’m just amused by the fact that a thread that starts with an article about how northerners are bitter about the Civil War has turned into yet another Lost Cause whinefest.

[Who is John Galt?]

...even broken clocks get the time right twice a day...so i suppose it goes for marx and engels on politics.

If I remember correctly, Marx and Engels were Union enthusiasts:

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
Writings on the U.S. Civil War
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war/index.htm

(And if they admitted that tariffs were an issue, perhaps they were just a bit more honest than some of the Union enthusiasts who post here... ;>)

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I've looked through Durand's site in the past. Believe it or not, it's not the first time that he's come up in these threads. It's the same material that's been rehashed over and over again. And frankly Lerone Bennett and Tommy DiLorenzo are at the very least better writers. That you act like Durand discovered all this and that it's the absolute truth instead of yet another collection of half-truths, out-of-context quotes, questionable analysis and outright misstatements speaks to your gullibility more than anything.

Please accept my apology for offering a suggestion to the FR community that appears to have somehow offended you personally.

I'm not offended at all. I am, on the other hand, heartily amused.

[servantboy777]

Damn, hopefully he’ll stay outta Texas.

[phi11yguy19]

I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say. I said from the beginning I thought Durand’s source was one of the best because of all of the original sources both referenced and included right in the supplements. My favorite authors on the subjects are Madison, Lincoln, Calhoun, Lee, etc., not DiLorenzo or Durand.

I could care less about the author’s style, nor do I see the point in comparing styles when we’re discussing the things they cited. If you want to make a actual point, please pick any of my posts and show where I quoted Durand’s words ONCE! Since you cannot, your statement is folly.

I prefer to make up my own mind based on facts. You apparently think it’s all about who is the best narrator of a story, not the story itself.

[curiosity]

I agree that for most people today, the battle flag has nothing to do with race. However, it has everything to with treason.

It stands for a proud military heritage shared by both blacks and whites in the South.

I'm sorry, but to say that blacks somehow share in Confederate "military heritage" is just plain stupid.

[Who is John Galt?]

I agree that for most people today, the battle flag has nothing to do with race. However, it has everything to with treason.

A rather amazing conclusion, given that the Constitution nowhere prohibited State secession...

;>)

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Okay, if you want to talk about facts, let’s talk about your assertion that the confederate constitution forbade the expansion of slavery. Did you get that from Durand?

[Joe 6-pack]

"McClellan, possibly one of the most inept generals in American history, was actually re-assigned to a position that he failed at."

Say what you will about his generalship, he designed the one piece of military equipment, the M1859 saddle, that has seen the longest, unbroken, continuous use by our military. It was used operationally up until WWII, and by ceremonial units since. The USMC Mameluke Sword would outdate it had it not been taken out of service from 1859-75.

[Salamander]

Oh, snap.

[Idabilly]

I'm sorry, but to say that blacks somehow share in Confederate "military heritage" is just plain stupid.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

[x]

Like I said, original draft of the Declaration, both in the Jefferson Papers, or AC Ch. 25, supporting doc 1:

I didn't say Jefferson didn't write that in an early draft of the Declaration. He did.

You said it was taken out because Northerners wanted it removed.

So far as I've been able to find out, it was because South Carolina and Georgia planters wanted more slaves.

There is some discussion about whether Northern merchants opposed an immediate ban on the slave trade in the Constitution, but I haven't found that said about the Declaration.

It may be that Northerners and Southerners joined together to suppress the passage, I don't know, but it definitely wasn't a case of Southerners supporting an attack on the slave trade in the Declaration of Independence and the Northerners opposing it.

[K-Stater]

If I remember correctly, Marx and Engels were Union enthusiasts...

You must remember that Marx and Engels wrote that early in the conflict - October 1861. Before Davis' contempt for his Constitution had become clear, before Davis nationalized industries, trampled civil rights, and seized private property. Had they waited a few more years then perhaps the two could have overcome their dislike of slavery and embraced Jefferson Davis as a kindred spirit.

And if they admitted that tariffs were an issue, perhaps they were just a bit more honest than some of the Union enthusiasts who post here...

But later the two are far more specific on the cause of the conflict - a great deal more honest than the Southern enthusiasts who post here are:

"The question of the principle of the American Civil War is answered by the battle slogan with which the South broke the peace. Stephens, the Vice-President of the Southern Confederacy, declared in the Secession Congress that what essentially distinguished the Constitution newly hatched at Montgomery from the Constitution of Washington and Jefferson was that now for the first time slavery was recognized as an institution good in itself, and as the foundation of the whole state edifice, whereas the revolutionary fathers, men steeped in the prejudices of the eighteenth century, had treated slavery as an evil imported from England and to be eliminated in the course of time. Another matador of the South, Mr. Spratt, cried out: "For us it is a question of founding a great slave republic." If, therefore, it was indeed only in defense of the Union that the North drew the sword, had not the South already declared that the continuance of slavery was no longer compatible with the continuance of the Union?"

[phi11yguy19]

When i said "The U.S. Constitution never outlawed expansion of slavery. The CSA one did.", the obvious (to most people) implication was "...expansion of slavery BY TRADE". There's no way to increase the slave population (aka "expansion") except by bringing more into the country. This was already addressed in post 214, so why rehash?

Are you trying to convince us that "expansion" doesn't mean adding to the institution, but simply protecting the right if owners moved west? That would be accurately called geographic dispersion of a diminishing population, and even that was never a serious debate since big cotton isn't so big in the desert and the rockies. The CSA line you quoted was there to protect against a history of northern aggression and confiscation when southerners traveled through the territories.

More to the point, how does your (mis)interpretion change anything or have anything to do with "facts"? I clarified my point (twice) - the CSA outlawed slave trade from day one, the US did not, nor had they EVER rigidly enforced the importation act of 1807 even through the end of the war. Those are the facts presented to your original assertion that the north "did end (slavery)" before the war. Unfortunately they did not, and what you or I say about them is inconsequential.