What Does It Mean "The South Shall Rise Again":

The Wichita (KS) Eagle ^ | 23 May 2007 | Mark McCormick

[Rebeleye]

...he was stunned to see two large Confederate flags flying from trucks...emblazoned with the words "The South Shall Rise Again." I'm stunned, too, that people still think it is cool to fly this flag. Our society should bury these flags -- not flaunt them...because the Confederate flag symbolizes racial tyranny to so many... ...This flag doesn't belong on city streets, in videos or in the middle of civil discussion. It belongs in our past -- in museums and in history books -- along with the ideas it represents.

[Badeye]

The South did not view it the way you do. Period. You don’t like what the government that ceased to exist in 1865 stated and died for, not my problem.

[Badeye]

Your welcome. That said, we’ve beaten this to death.

[Mr. Silverback]

We can debate the lyrics, but do so actually reading them in their proper context of 1861 and without the childishness.

Childishness? Oh my, are you getting the vapors or something?

They are a “hymn” stating that the Army of the Potomac was the Army of God and was going to stomp out the South.

Yes, and it was written in 1861, a time when everyone believed that stomping would take place between armies on a battlefield. Sherman would not be marching on Savannah for almost 3 years. So, there goes your idea of Howe promoting civilian deaths, which would be ludicrous even if the song had been written over Christmas in Savannah by Sherman himself.

Killing the enemy is justified, as it’s God’s punishment.

Written during a war, and used as a marching song by warriors. Again, nothing about civilians. Though the Civil War was tragic and both sides prayed to the same God, it is delusional to think someone is acting like a jihadist if they go to fight a culture based on slavery and they think that might have something to do with the mission of the God who freed the Hebrews, and later the entire human race. John Calvin once said that the soldier in just war is a minister of love because he restrains evil.

Not exactly Christian, here, either.

Why is the word "gospel" not capitalized? Well, that's because when the word is not capitalized it means a tale meant to change an opinion. And though this will likely enrage you, calling it unchristian to desire the defeat of a slave state is your opinion, not doctrine. We and other nations have carried "a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel" to other nations that were doing the works of darkness when it was necessary. Again, Calvin is right.

Here's where we come to the fun part:

“As ye deal with My contempters, so with you My grace shall deal” If you kill the enemy, you serve God and go to heaven.

Oh, sorry, you messed up there. As we've discussed, words mean things. And the word "contemn" means "to treat or regard with disdain, scorn, or contempt." So, God, in Howe's hymn, is saying that He will give mercy to those who show mercy to those who scorn Him. Then it goes on to say that it is the Hero born of woman who must crush the serpent.

So, just in case you're keeping score, you're now trying to say that a song written before total war, that tells those singing it to show mercy, is a set of instructions to kill Southern civilians. You've even "supported" that view by saying that a crucial line says the exact opposite of what it really says. I can only say "Oops!"

He doesn’t address the hymn or those who supported the idea - popular in some avenues of the North - to so punish the South that it would amount to genocide.

Having trouble with linear thought again, eh? What I said was that Lincoln's address...well, addressed, the grapes of wrath. I never said it mentioned Howe's song, and the whole "genocide" idea is yours alone. Here's the pertinent section:

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. 'Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.' If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether'.

That's the grapes of wrath.

[Badeye]

‘Only if you think the entire war was fought in Northern Virginia. In the Western theater from Kentucky to New Orleans, the Confederates were second to none in fielding incompetent commanders.

The big difference is that Lincoln canned the incompetents while Jeff Davis tended to just shuffle them around.’

Hmmm. Bragg, Polk, and The Great Retreater (Johnson) stand out in contrast.

And Lincoln...how to explain his selection of Burnside? Five generals in around what? six months at one point?

I think Lincoln finally got to Grant, and its a good thing he understood the new era of warfare, because if he had screwed up in 1864....the world would be a much different place today.

[Badeye]

“I see your point very well and at least I now know what I’m dealing with.”
‘Yes. Someone with a better grasp of both history and the English language.’

(chuckle)

Its always fun watching somebody overcompensate on the internet, as you do here.

[Badeye]

I thought Waxman was from Florida. Sorry for the mistake.

[Badeye]

‘Think how much the western theatre would have changed if Johnston would not have been killed at Shiloh. Most battle experts believe without that event the results would not have been a stalemate. i.e. dominoeing to Vicksburg, etc. etc.’

I think you can make the argument Albert Sidney Johnston was one of the top two or three flag rank officers in the entire CSA. Would that have carried the day against Buell and Wallace’s additional troops?

The math says no, but the CW was a war where numbers didn’t matter in so many battles you can’t say for sure. The South was almost always outnumbered.

[FredHunter08]

“That’s the second one. Am I the only one that finds it odd that someone wouldn’t be interested in museums, theaters, concerts, or restaurants?”

How many restaurants do you need? It’s not as if New York is the sole repository of culture in the world....

“But to consider all that New York has to offer to be totally worthless and not worth visiting just baffles me.”

I have visited it. I just wouldn’t want to live there. Not that there would be work in my field, either.

“The difference between yogurt and the South is that yogurt has a living culture.”

We prefer our culture to one based on having 14,000 restaurants. The "culture" of NYC is not American and hasn't been for a long time.

[lentulusgracchus]

[Redbob] You haven't ever driven around, say, downtown Detroit, and compared it to any Southern city, have you?

[You, cracking wise] You mean like...New Orleans? Even pre-Katrina?

I lived in pre-"Katrina" New Orleans for a while. What do you want to know about it? What's your point?

Visited Detroit, too, come to think of it.

[beckysueb]

See, theres what we mean when we say southerners have more class than northerners. What a silly thing to say. We are just different. You enjoy you’re bustling city, I enjoy my peace and quiet. To be honest with you, I have lived in Chicago and the people are just so different from the people here. always in a hurry and so rude. Chicago didn’t impress me at all. The air stunk. I just couldn’t hardly bear it. I couldn’t wait to get back to my beloved Dixie. New York, to me, would be Chicago multiplied about 20 times. More of the same. Keep your cities. Just give me a soft southern breeze. But if you want culture, ever heard of Atlanta, or Memphis? Even New Orleans has alot of things to do. And if you ever wanted to get down in the gutter with us commom folk and actually listen to some really good music, we have Nashville, Tn. And we have Dolly Parton. Now thats no chump change. By the way, Ashville, NC, has the biggest house in the world. Its called Biltmore. So, you’ll come see us sometime.

[Mr. Silverback]

You’re having trouble hiding your true agenda and attitudes to both a large segment of the Republican Party and the country.

Hiding my true agenda? This guy agrees you're right on the mark in deducing that I have a dark secret agenda:

You claim the Davis government was tyrannical in action, so the South couldn’t have seceded for “freedom”. This is not logical.

Apparently English is your second language (it's my first)...although I think anyone will be able to conclude from reading this discussion that the real problem is that you hear what you want the other person to have said, rather than what they said. Or perhaps you feel that you're justified reading more intent into it then was plain from the text. Either way, it's intellectually sloppy. Here's the post where I first mentioned Confederate economic micromanagement:

Everyone interested in the Civil war should also check out the section on Southern Big Government in LS's "A Patriot's History of the United States." A real eye-opener...the Confederate government was pretty much running the entire economy down to the smallest detail.

And here's the one where I answered your post:

Let's say for a moment that what you are saying is true. Even so, it would make all this stuff lost causers say about the tyrannical Lincoln and the freedom-loving South a whole lot of horse-hockey.

That said, go read what LS and his co-author wrote about it. There is no comparison.

There is no discussion here of the reasons for secession.

Did the South secede in a search for freedom? Yes, they wanted the freedom to continue slavery and expand it West. But just as they didn't practice freedom on their plantations, they didn't practice it in their government.

[beckysueb]

I have to leave in a few minutes but I would like to see some of those documentarys.

[FredHunter08]

“No, they Rebelled!”

Isn’t it the claim that it’s the same thing? After all, Lincoln considered the States “in rebellion”.

“He was charged. With the passage of the The 14th Amendment punishing all confederate leaders, the charges against him were dropped because of double jeopardy.”

Since he never had his day in court, double jeopardy didn’t apply. Oh, and since when is the punishment for treason denial of the right to run for office and vote?

The government was nervous about the outcome. The “double jeopardy” thing was a lame excuse.

[FredHunter08]

“Texas v. White decision ruling the Southern acts of unilateral secession unconstitutional,”

He did so by fiat, by the way. One of those emanations from the penumbra.

[beckysueb]

Unbelievable. Your ignorance knows no bounds.

[FredHunter08]

“I suppose that would be true if you are talking about backwoods racist redneck inbred uneducated American English suitable for banjo lyrics.”

Ah, the true bigot emerges. I was wondering how long it would take for your true agenda to surface.

You aren’t very well educated, are you?

[beckysueb]

I know that. We are talking about the big sprawling urban areas. The country folks are fine. Just not enough of them.

[beckysueb]

Well thats because the people there are as racist as you can get.

[FredHunter08]

“Yes, and it was written in 1861, a time when everyone believed that stomping would take place between armies on a battlefield. Sherman would not be marching on Savannah for almost 3 years. So, there goes your idea of Howe promoting civilian deaths, which would be ludicrous even if the song had been written over Christmas in Savannah by Sherman himself.”

The radical abolitionists wanted that very thing. Her husband, after all, was in with Brown.

“Written during a war, and used as a marching song by warriors.”

Certainly no Christian hymn. Considering it was directed at fellow Americans, not a very patriotic hymn these days either.

“And though this will likely enrage you, calling it unchristian to desire the defeat of a slave state is your opinion, not doctrine.”

Defeat or mass slaughter? What do you think those rows of bayonets lines means?

“So, God, in Howe’s hymn, is saying that He will give mercy to those who show mercy to those who scorn Hi”

“Oh, sorry, you messed up there.”

Interesting twist on the wording, but not true. It clearly indicates service in the war is a path to salvation. If you deal with the contempters with vigor, grace will be so applied.

“So, just in case you’re keeping score, you’re now trying to say that a song written before total war, that tells those singing it to show mercy, is a set of instructions to kill Southern civilians.”

It’s a song written by friends of John Brown about punishing the South. “Stomping out the vintage” and all that.

“Having trouble with linear thought again, eh?”

Having trouble keeping your hatred for half the country out of your argument? You must be a lawyer.

“Having trouble with linear thought again, eh? What I said was that Lincoln’s address...well, addressed, the grapes of wrath. I never said it mentioned Howe’s song, and the whole “genocide” idea is yours alone. Here’s the pertinent section:”

Of course Lincoln didn’t support mass murder of Southernors. He wasn’t a radical abolitionist. His view of this war has nothing to do with their view.

[FredHunter08]

“Its always fun watching somebody overcompensate on the internet, as you do here.”

Actually, he does. I have no need to “overcompensate” anything. Perhaps you do?