Understanding History: Slavery and the American South

EverVigilant.net ^ | 06/09/2005 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[justshutupandtakeit]

If you detest Lincoln you do not have an open mind in the slightest. That is like detesting Washington.

[Ditto]

They were very pro Confederate, and predominately Irish. To give you a taste of your Draft Riot heroes, take a gander of this account.

On Wednesday July 15, rioters continued to attack African Americans who had not fled the city. A group of white men pulled Abraham Franklin, a disabled African-American coachman, and his sister Henrietta out of their boarding room on Manhattan's West Side. Henrietta was beaten as Abraham was hanged. After his body was cut down by passing soldiers, the crowd hanged him again to loud cheers of "Jeff Davis!" Patrick Butler, a 16- year old Irish butcher, later cut Franklin down again and dragged his body through the streets.

Those riots, lootings and murders were as much about the Draft as the 1968 riots were about M.L. King's death. Like King, the Draft was simply a convenient excuse for lawless mob action.

[RegulatorCountry]

"If you detest Lincoln you do not have an open mind in the slightest."

And, if you fervently think that Lincoln was a saint, beyond reproach, your mind is... what, then?

[Ditto]

I thought it was hilarious, during the 2000 election recount fiasco, that Albert Gore (of all people) suddenly turned pro states rights. Any port in a storm, I guess. LOL.

His daddy was pro states rights too --- when it came to the Jim Crow laws he always defended. Other than than that, he was a pure socialist, like his son.

[RegulatorCountry]

"To give you a taste of your Draft Riot heroes"

They're no heros of mine... they're firmly in your camp. Deal with it.

[RegulatorCountry]

"anti-war Democrats and gangs"

It's tempting to say that some thing never change. But, these lynchings were the result of draft riots in Union territory, and no amount of cynical deflection or demonization of some unsympathetic "other" can erase that fact.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since we have not been speaking of the period after the War there has been nothing for me to ignore. But if you want to discuss the horrors visited on the Freedmen by the unreconstructed Slavers and their followers we can. The thousands of lynchings, mass killings, attacks on Republicans black and white are all subjects that should get wider exposure particularly since the Defenders of the Slaverocracy pretend they never happened.

These atrocities led to the idea that hatred of blacks was predominant in the South along with the continued suppression of Black political rights well into the second half of the twentieth century. It is very amusing to find you flailing about ranting of "deconstructionism" decades before the concept was even current trying to deflect attention from the actual causes, the formation of the KKK terrorist group by Democrats to prevent Blacks from exercising their constitutional rights. Democrat party power in the South was, for over a century, predicated upon the prevention of Blacks obtaining full civil rights. I experienced this warped and anti-Christian attitude during my youth and can truthfully testify to its strong influence throughout the region.

I am sure your misstatements about Marx are equally invalid particularly since he viewed the conflict as changes occurring within the economic basis transitioning a semi-feudal economy to a capitalistic one. His view was that socialist Revolution could only occur after the stage of capitalist development had reached its peak. Hence he supported the North not for any love of Lincoln or capitalism but because it was a stage to be gotten through in order for socialism to eventually triumph.

[Ditto]

They're no heros of mine... they're firmly in your camp.

How the hell do you figure they are in "my camp?" They suported the Confederacy.

[stainlessbanner]

You ignore at least forty years of propaganda created to undo the goodwill that the veterans, both north and south, managed to find for one another after the war was ended.

The goal is to create a division. The race-baiters, liberals, jihadis, etc want to see America divided and weak.

Polybius has shared photos of the G'burg reunions where men in blue and gray embraced their old adversaries on the battlefields where they once fought. A number of the posters on FR have an intense hatred of the South, its people, and conservatives in general.

The name of the game is North = good, South = bad. They are splitting conservatives, they are splitting America. A few notable posters voted for Clinton and later for Gore.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I know of no one who considers him a saint. Is there a movement to beatify St. Abe?

We are discussing men. Men who make mistakes men who are flawed but also men who recognize their duty to their country and to history. It is in that light that Lincoln shines.

In fact, objectively looking at his leadership during this period that one is almost forced to conclude that we are dealing with divine intervention in order for him to have done as well as he did. Minority president, surrounded by men who believed him to be inferior to them, backstabbing Cabinet members, press hatred and ridicule unseen until Bush, a nation completely unprepared for even a small war, a nation filled with delusion as to what would be required to fight the war, an invasion of Mexico by a foreign power, European hostility to the war, traitorous Democrats in the North ready to sabotage his efforts. My God you can go on and on before any positives come up.

[stainlessbanner]

Thanks for the link to shucks.net. I just visited for some great news and information.

[justshutupandtakeit]

These were not "Unionists" who were rioting but criminal elements and fifth columnists. Many were Irishmen fresh off the boats not even citizens. See "Gangs of New York" for an interesting display of the forces at work.

Accurate description is not "cynical" deliberate misrepresentation such as you try certainly is.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You try and set up a false dichotomy. There is no North=good, South=bad HERE. But rather Union= good, attacks on the Union = bad. Many of us arguing with those who support the attack on the Union are FROM the South and love the South. But we do hate it when people, for odd pyschological reasons, ignore history and fact to once again attack the defenders of the Union. Those are the true enemies of the South.

[RegulatorCountry]

"These were not "Unionists" who were rioting but criminal elements and fifth columnists. Many were Irishmen fresh off the boats not even citizens."

I've been tarred with every brush imaginable for every single historical action that can even plausibly be pinned on "the south" and southerners. Fair is fair. They're yours, not mine. By mere virtue of geography.

[Ditto]

A number of the posters on FR have an intense hatred of the South, its people, and conservatives in general.

You're cracked. No one here hates the South, it's people or conservatives.

What I intensly dislike, however, is the distortion beyond recognition of our common history and especially when done with the intent of creating division where none exist. That distortion comes from a very small, but highly vocal band of zealots like you who pretend to speak for millions of fellow Americans who happen to live in the South.

You don't represent their views in the least.

[RegulatorCountry]

"I am sure your misstatements about Marx are equally invalid particularly since he viewed the conflict as changes occurring within the economic basis transitioning a semi-feudal economy to a capitalistic one. His view was that socialist Revolution could only occur after the stage of capitalist development had reached its peak. Hence he supported the North not for any love of Lincoln or capitalism but because it was a stage to be gotten through in order for socialism to eventually triumph."

You certainly know your Karl Marx. I bow to your superior knowledge.

[stainlessbanner]

You don't represent their views in the least.

Never claimed to. Since you are not familiar with Southerners, we are very individualistic folks. Even during the War, we disagreed with each other.

For an introdcution to the American South, UNC has a great collection of documentation about the American South. Enjoy.

[stainlessbanner]

No one here hates the South, it's people or conservatives.

Some of the more outspoken ones have been banned from FR recently.

[stainlessbanner]

Is there a movement to beatify St. Abe?

Ask the Claremonsters.

[x]

That is the most ridiculous theory I have ever heard. Even Robert E. Lee was opposed to slavery. He fought for his home. A much more basic reason. I can approve of the Confederacy, without agreeing with slavery. There were more reasons for the war than that.

Obviously it depends on what you mean by "basic." "Fighting for home" is a pretty primal reason, but if you hoisted the Jolly Roger right now and went to war against the US for your "home" it wouldn't make much sense. You wouldn't have much of a reason for fighting. Politically and historically, slavery was a more "basic" reason for war than "home."

In other words, if you love your home but don't have any more fundamental reason for fighting there's no war. If you have something else to fight over, people will line up on this side or that on the basis of where their home is. It may be a reason why a particular person fights or sympathizes with this side or that, but no, it's not a "more basic" reason for the war.

And no, Robert E. Lee didn't "oppose" slavery, any more than he "opposed" intemperate drinking or bad language. Even that is too strong, as he accepted slavery in a way that he wouldn't put up with rudeness or coarseness. "Disapprove" is too strong too. Maybe, "regret" is the best word for Lee's feelings about slavery.