Posted on 10/29/2001 11:26:49 AM PST by aomagrat
ummm.... I guess you forgot the tag huh?
"The contrast between the activity and progress of a free state on the Ohio and the stagnation of of a slave state on the opposite bank was glaringly apparent to all beholders."
- "The Great Democracies", p. 119 by Wnston Churchill.
Unforntunatley, it's not very humorous.
The two flags are opposites. As symbols, they cancel each other.
Walt
I agree completely that it was a "Death Knell" for the South when Jackson was killed and Lee said as much, "I feel as though I have lost my right arm" and he acted like it. Jackson would have put a stop to the foolishness at Gettysburg and Lee would have listened to him.
I also agree Sherman had Johnston's number. I don't think Johnston was up to the task of facing Sherman he should have been relieved of his command but that was Davis' fault, he liked Johnston for whatever reason and was loyal to a fault. Your dead on, Johnston owned all the right real estate and should have prevailed.
I pretty much agree with everything else except Grant being a better General than Lee. I just couldn't admit that even if it were to be true, sorry :-)
Yep, your right, Joseph is the one Longstreet got chewed out about, Davis hated him. Why didn't Davis fire him, was it because he was so well thought of by his men?
Now, to be sure, the vast majority of Southerners looked on blacks with a less than wonderful view in regard to their intellect, and I would not suggest that racism was begun by the North-certainly not, as it has always been human nature to look down upon groups of people as a whole with no regard to individual merits, and such was the case for the pre-war black man. However, it is important to note that before the war, it was not at all an entire stigmata to associate with blacks-in fact, it might be common practise say, in the pine woods of Mississippi, for a black fiddler to play some reels along with white fellows on Friday night, and engage in acts of recreation at other times (it seems from Northerners views of the Celtinized South before the war, good work habits were not of particular esteem). Certainly no blacks found themselves at the end of an unjustified ripe as would become practise during and after Reconstruction, and hostility towards blacks was rather rare before the war. Instead, there existed a feeling that blacks were slightly subserviant to whites, but in a childlike manner-it was in general view that the black man best existed as a subordinate to whites. Now, you and I wold rightly say that that is not right-black men have the same mental capacity as anyone else. But this was the view in much of the South, and the North as well before the escape our inquiry. In fact, it was believed by many abolitionists after the war that blacks would need their tender care and some even went as far as to try to train them and instruct them educationaly. They soon found this to taxing though and generally gave up-the plight of the Negro was of no consequence any more now that they had been used for what was believed to be a noble purpose. It is something like our abandonment of the Afgahns once they had defeated the Soviets-the aftermath would be rather similar as you shall see.
Let us examine then ways in which animosity was stirred up betwix the white and blac men of the South during and after the war, and how it was resolved, or rather, left unresloved after the close of hostilities.
I will list several causes but will limit myself from going into them as it would likely bore you..
One, and particularly important to soldiers of the army, was the wide use of black soldiers. This was, as could been seen after the war, little more than a ruse to infiriate Southerners. As previously stated, they often had dim views of the black man's capacity in some roles, and the use of black soldiers was not only compounded upon by this, but the idea that these men would soon return to life in the South no doubt led to some bad ideas during the war, but the fact that former enemies now resided in large numbers around you was particularly bad after the war. And as soon as hostilities with the South were over, the black soldier was largely no more-very few black soldiers could be found in the post war army, and were not infrequently excluded or at least degraded upon application of military duty. They were but human pawns.
Then there is the complex issue of the violent end to slavery. This is most likely the greatest factor in bad racial relations, and it haunts us to this day. In most other Western cultures, slavery endend gradualy, and without ill effect. There are not groups of Irishmen still mad or disadvantged because they were once part of the slave class-slavery slowly disapeared in Ireland, not overnight in a violent conflict. And not only was slavery ended, but in theory, Southerners views of the black man were supposed to improve. They didn't-would you if you were forced at gun point to? Could you? Probably not-I doubt I could. And to make matters worse, Northerners quickly began explioting black voters to the expense of the South, bribing and coercing them by the droves to vote for schemes that were designed to rob states, counties, and individuals of what money and wealth they had remaining. The Reconstruction probably instilled more hatred in Southern hearts than did the war, and it was all intended by the North-a show em' not to mess with us type attitude.
In the end, both the white and black Sotherner was impacted horribly, and it continues to this day. You say how you wish blacks could control the South. Please do not misunderstand me, but I shudder at the thought, at least today. The poor black man has been so thouroughly used by the Federal government and corrupt politicians, that, coupled with a sad breakdown of black families (coming to the white man's culture as well), that all to often their communities and especially counties and cities dominated by African-American demographics have become swaths of poverty and crime-I'm sure you're aware that the term "going black" is not used in a positive sense. It is not because blacks are of some kind of inferior stock or some such nonsense (I believe that some of the most brilliant minds in our history were and are those of black men), but it is the result of a steady culmination of events brought down by a variety of factors, beginging with the Civil War and orchestrated by a falsely benevolent Federal governement who is good to the black man when it suits their purposes, whether it be getting elected, breaking the South, or trying out a new socialist program.
Thar, I'm done if you've gotten this far. I would appreciate any thoughts you have on my little piece, and certainly hope you don't brand me a "racists". Oh, and I would truely encourage you to purchase a book on Patrick Cleburne.
That is the reason why I think that Jackson could have succeeded. Jackson had no guile, no agenda. Had he succeeded then I think that Davis would have done with him what Lincoln did with Grant. As much as he would have liked to Lincoln didn't interfere with Grant and left him totally alone to plan the war. Davis might have done the same with a successful general, especially if he had confidence in him.
I read it cover to cover. I love a good fantasy.
So Davis fired him for not stopping Sherman it was Lee that brought Johnston back in 85 I guess.
In your opinion. Which, fortunately, doesn't count for squat in the interpretation of the Constitution. Just out of curiosity do you feel the same way in the case of Bush v. Gore? Of course not. Only decisions which you deem invalid are invalid, aren't they?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.