Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: BroJoeK

“No, it’s an editorial, an opinion piece — an argument in support of some idea or cause, and clearly labeled as such.”

I don’t care how it’s labeled; the only “argument” being supported here is the North’s argument - claiming that the South’s argument is a myth and a lie.

You can call it whatever you want - I call it pre-war propaganda.

The South’s claim of anti-South hatred was a legitimate reaction to hit pieces like this one, where Northern “editors” were attempting to turn Northern opinion against the South, leading up to the war.


9 posted on 06/06/2021 1:01:05 PM PDT by enumerated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: enumerated
enumerated: "I don’t care how it’s labeled; the only “argument” being supported here is the North’s argument - claiming that the South’s argument is a myth and a lie.
You can call it whatever you want - I call it pre-war propaganda."

So let's start here: the Confederacy formally declared war against the United States on May 6, 1861.
"Today" is June 6, so that is hardly "pre-war".

Second, this Northern editorial addressed only one of the South's arguments -- the one from "rebel leaders" which claimed "Northern hatred to the South".
The editorial argues, entirely correctly, that claim is, as you say here, a myth and a lie.
It was a lie in 1861 and still is in 2021.

Third, back to the definition of your word "propaganda".
So it's not hard to find dictionary definitions which refer to normal commercial advertising as "propaganda", thus rendering the term harmless & meaningless.
But the truth is that in political discourse propaganda is always understood to mean lies, deceptions, misdirections & biases.
I don't see any of those in this particular editorial.

enumerated: "The South’s claim of anti-South hatred was a legitimate reaction to hit pieces like this one, where Northern “editors” were attempting to turn Northern opinion against the South, leading up to the war."

Except, first, that you've reversed the sequence -- this editorial is in response to "rebel leaders" claims of "Northern hatred to the South", not the other way around.

Second of course, that "today" we're not "leading up to the war", but rather Confederates have already provoked war, started war, formally declared war and begun to wage war against the United States.
Under such circumstances that Northern editorial was entirely appropriate and unusually kind to average Southern citizens.

In case you missed them, here is a listing of Civil War engagements "so far", meaning through June 6, 1861.
There have been eight, producing about 150 casualties (plus an unknown number of Baltimore civilians wounded), of which killed total around 60:

DateEngagementMilitary UnitsLossesVictor
April 12-14Fort Sumter, SCConfederate artillery, Union garrisonNoneCSA
April 15Evacuation of Fort Sumter, SCUnion garrisonTwo Union soldiers killed, four wounded by accidental explosionN.A.
April 19Baltimore Riots, MDMA 6th, PA 26th vs secessionist crowd4 Union soldiers killed, 12 civilians killed, hundreds woundedUSA
May 10St. Louis Riots, MOUnion forces vs secessionist crowd4 Union soldiers killed, 3 prisoners, 28 civilians killedUSA
May 18-19Sewell's Point, VAUnion naval squadron vs Confederate shore artillery10 totalinconclusive
May 29- June 1Aquila Creek, VAUnion naval squadron vs Confederate shore artillery10 totalinconclusive
June 1Fairfax Court House, VAdetachments from CSA & USA armies8 on each side, 1 each killedinconclusive
June 3Philippi, WVAUnion Dept of Ohio (McClellan), CSA infantryUnion 4, CSA 26 (killed or wounded)USA


10 posted on 06/06/2021 2:59:57 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...) )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson