What are your thoughts on the Confederate memorials being taken down in NOLA?

Tidewater · May 15, 2017

Bamaro said:
Does anybody truly believe the south would have still seceded if there was no slavery issue? I'm not trying to say there weren't other contributing factors but slavery was the elephant in the room.

The South would not have seceded if northerners had not resorted to violence (Harper's Ferry), cheering on/celebrating those who committed violence (all across the north on the day of Brown's hanging), protected perpetrators of violence (Republican governors of Iowa and Ohio shielded Harper's Ferry perps from prosecution) and promised to commit more violence once Republicans headed the Federal government (Lincoln's political ally Long John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat promised that northerners were sneaking into the south to assist the next slave uprising).

Exhibit A evidence for this is: US history between 1789 and October 1859. No antislavery violence, no secession. (The only exception was 1856, the year John Brown did his antislavery terrorist bit in Kansas, and even then, enough northerners were disavowing Brown's terrorism that very few southerners were urging secession.)

But your basic premise is true. If there had been no slavery in the US in 1860 and Lincoln got elected, there would most likely have been no sizeable secession movement. When and how we had magically/counterfactually achieved a slave-free United States is important, however.
If no Africans had ever been brought to America in 1619 or thereafter, there probably would have been no civil war in 1860, but then again you'd have a very white country in that instance and who knows how a "whites only America" would have acted between 1789 and today.
If someone had suggested in 1789 that the new constitution simply outlaw slavery, there would have been no union. Maybe New England and Pennsylvania could have formed a union on such a basis, but the union as we know it would have been broken up before it started.

Tidewater · May 15, 2017

TIDE-HSV said:
This is very true. The same GGF who belonged to The Union League also owned eight slaves. The Confederate State of Alabama confiscated them too. I was just pointing out why I had no feelings pro or con. Another GGF fought in the 1st Alabama, Union, Sherman's personal bodyguard (gasp!) I'll hasten to add that I consider Sherman a war criminal...

Did not know that (or had forgotten). That'll make a man madder'n a wet hen. Morality aside, that is a hunk of change.

Tidewater · May 15, 2017

AUDub said:
Ad homs don't make the chart untrue.

I look at those dates and see the passing of the generation that fought in the war. A 20 year old in 1860 would be 60 in 1900. A 30 year old in 1860 would be 70. That generation started dying off and the South recovered enough economically that they could afford monuments they could erect while the veterans were still alive to appreciate the gesture.

TIDE-HSV · May 15, 2017

Tidewater said:
Did not know that (or had forgotten). That'll make a man madder'n a wet hen. Morality aside, that is a hunk of change.

Well, you're bright, but you're no Selma.

Yes, I'd told you that. He sued the state after the war for damages but they defended successfully on the grounds that the confiscation had been carried out by an illegal, criminal regime, not related in any way to the legitimate State of Alabama (Union). And, yes, he was a wealthy man, a UVA grad. He wasn't rich after confederate Alabama got through with him. As I said, there are many reasons I don't have warm fuzzy feelings for the Confederacy...

81usaf92 · May 15, 2017

Bamaro said:
Does anybody truly believe the south would have still seceded if there was no slavery issue? I'm not trying to say there weren't other contributing factors but slavery was the elephant in the room.

Yes. It almost happened multiple times before that. Maybe not "the South', but many states had threatened secession before that. South Carolina included. In South Carolina's first attempt it was stopped by.... wait for it... Andrew Jackson. Even Jefferson and Madison threatened secession against the Adams administration. Point is with or without slavery the country was heading for a Civil War or states seceding the Union due to the newly formed concept of federal power. Slavery was just the big issue in the Civil War among the politicians and the elite

Tidewater · May 15, 2017

TIDE-HSV said:
Well, you're bright, but you're no Selma. Yes, I'd told you that. He sued the state after the war for damages but they defended successfully on the grounds that the confiscation had been carried out by an illegal, criminal regime, not related in any way to the legitimate State of Alabama (Union). And, yes, he was a wealthy man, a UVA grad. He wasn't rich after confederate Alabama got through with him. As I said, there are many reasons I don't have warm fuzzy feelings for the Confederacy...

Yes, now that you mention the defense ("Hey, that was Confederate Alabama. Sorry. No help here. This is US Alabama.") Playing that defense takes cajones.

AUDub · May 15, 2017

Tidewater said:
I look at those dates and see the passing of the generation that fought in the war. A 20 year old in 1860 would be 60 in 1900. A 30 year old in 1860 would be 70. That generation started dying off and the South recovered enough economically that they could afford monuments they could erect while the veterans were still alive to appreciate the gesture.

That's fair. A possible explanation. And the spike in the Civil Rights era?

AUDub · May 15, 2017

Tidewater said:
The South would not have seceded if northerners had not resorted to violence (Harper's Ferry), cheering on/celebrating those who committed violence (all across the north on the day of Brown's hanging), protected perpetrators of violence (Republican governors of Iowa and Ohio shielded Harper's Ferry perps from prosecution) and promised to commit more violence once Republicans headed the Federal government (Lincoln's political ally Long John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat promised that northerners were sneaking into the south to assist the next slave uprising).

Exhibit A evidence for this is: US history between 1789 and October 1859. No antislavery violence, no secession. (The only exception was 1856, the year John Brown did his antislavery terrorist bit in Kansas, and even then, enough northerners were disavowing Brown's terrorism that very few southerners were urging secession.)

But your basic premise is true. If there had been no slavery in the US in 1860 and Lincoln got elected, there would most likely have been no sizeable secession movement. When and how we had magically/counterfactually achieved a slave-free United States is important, however.
If no Africans had ever been brought to America in 1619 or thereafter, there probably would have been no civil war in 1860, but then again you'd have a very white country in that instance and who knows how a "whites only America" would have acted between 1789 and today.
If someone had suggested in 1789 that the new constitution simply outlaw slavery, there would have been no union. Maybe New England and Pennsylvania could have formed a union on such a basis, but the union as we know it would have been broken up before it started.

I've noticed you like to focus on Brown. Don't get me wrong. Brown was a murderer and terrorist in every sense of the word, but what of the violence of the pro-slavery side in the time leading up to the war? By some accounts, the border ruffians killed more than the freesoilers, after all.

Tidewater · May 15, 2017

AUDub said:
I've noticed you like to focus on Brown. Don't get me wrong. Brown was a murderer and terrorist in every sense of the word, but what of the violence of the pro-slavery side in the time leading up to the war? By some accounts, the border ruffians killed more than the freesoilers, after all.

A good question.
The location of the violence has a significant effect on how the violence was perceived. In both cases (Free Staters and Slave Staters), violence in Kansas was on "neutral" territory.
John Brown's raid on Missouri (December 1858) and especially Harper's Ferry (October 1859) were on southern territory. Secessionists like William Lowndes Yancey of Alabama and Robert Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina, had been urging for years, without much success, secession as an answer to the encroaching northern menace. Harper's Ferry convinced a lot of white southerners that they had been right all along. John Brown brought with him a new "Provisional Constitution and Ordinances for the people of the United States" (drafted in Chatham, Canada West in 1858) which showed he planned on overthrowing the entire United States government and setting up a new government. Also, in his luggage, police founds maps of every state from SC to Miss. with certain counties (usually with black majorities) with strange undeciphered marks, which most took as a map showing where Brown planned on taking his slave revolt, if he could get it off the ground at Harper's Ferry. Slave revolts are notoriously indiscriminate (most of the Virginians killed by Nat Turner were not slaveholders, including an infant swung like a bat by his legs and his brains dashed out on a fireplace mantle), so Brown's plans showed non-slaveholding white southerners that they could not avoid this problem by sitting on the sidelines. Men like John Brown and Long John Wentworth made antislavery violence the problem of every white southerner whether he owned slaves or not.

I am not aware of any white southerners taking violent pro-slavery to the northern states, other than slaveholders trying to recover escaped slaves in accordance with Article IV of the US Constitution.

The smart play for southern Democrats in 1860, I think, was to propose a new Federally-mandated minimum wage of $1/hour (a laborer working 60 hours a week in 1860 was making $6, a machinist made $10 a week) and watch the Republicans squirm. Republicans would have quickly responded that the Federal government has no power to set a Federal minimum wage, but the damage would have been done. I think Democrats would have swept every state in the Union in the elections of 1860.

TIDE-HSV · May 15, 2017

You mean for slaves also? That would do violence to the theory and theology of slavery...

Tidewater · May 15, 2017

AUDub said:
That's fair. A possible explanation. And the spike in the Civil Rights era?

The Civil Rights era monuments are, I would think, a direct response to Brown v. BOE.

Tidewater · May 15, 2017

TIDE-HSV said:
You mean for slaves also? That would do violence to the theory and theology of slavery...

The minimum wage plank? No, that's just the thing, increasing the cost of white labor would greatly increase the value of slave labor.
It would be great politics for the Democrats (but terrible policy): help a core constituency (slaveholders) and give your party a chance to demagogue the issue and club Republicans over the head with it. "See, the Republicans, who profess to favor free labor, are standing in the way of a Federal minimum wage that would help free labor earn a decent wage. The Republicans are hypocrites. Vote Democratic."
Of course, a $1/hour minimum wage would be a disaster for American industry (it would probably cause the greatest recession in American history), but I have not seen any indication that economic literacy was any better in 1860 than it is today.

TIDE-HSV · May 15, 2017

Tidewater said:
A good question.
The location of the violence has a significant effect on how the violence was perceived. In both cases (Free Staters and Slave Staters), violence in Kansas was on "neutral" territory.
John Brown's raid on Missouri (December 1858) and especially Harper's Ferry (October 1859) were on southern territory. Secessionists like William Lowndes Yancey of Alabama and Robert Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina, had been urging for years, without much success, secession as an answer to the encroaching northern menace. Harper's Ferry convinced a lot of white southerners that they had been right all along. John Brown brought with him a new "Provisional Constitution and Ordinances for the people of the United States" (drafted in Chatham, Canada West in 1858) which showed he planned on overthrowing the entire United States government and setting up a new government. Also, in his luggage, police founds maps of every state from SC to Miss. with certain counties (usually with black majorities) with strange undeciphered marks, which most took as a map showing where Brown planned on taking his slave revolt, if he could get it off the ground at Harper's Ferry. Slave revolts are notoriously indiscriminate (most of the Virginians killed by Nat Turner were not slaveholders, including an infant swung like a bat by his legs and his brains dashed out on a fireplace mantle), so Brown's plans showed non-slaveholding white southerners that they could not avoid this problem by sitting on the sidelines. Men like John Brown and Long John Wentworth made antislavery violence the problem of every white southerner whether he owned slaves or not.

I am not aware of any white southerners taking violent pro-slavery to the northern states, other than slaveholders trying to recover escaped slaves in accordance with Article IV of the US Constitution.

The smart play for southern Democrats in 1860, I think, was to propose a new Federally-mandated minimum wage of $1/hour (a laborer working 60 hours a week in 1860 was making $6, a machinist made $10 a week) and watch the Republicans squirm. Republicans would have quickly responded that the Federal government has no power to set a Federal minimum wage, but the damage would have been done. I think Democrats would have swept every state in the Union in the elections of 1860.

That $1 would be about $28 today...

selmaborntidefan · May 16, 2017

Just to let you know, I always find the discussions with Tidewater about what Granny Moses called "the war between the Yankees and the Americans" fascinating. And yes, I had one family member I know of fight for the Confederacy and no, nobody in my line ever owned slaves, save for my great-great-great uncle Simone Legree Selma.

CaliforniaTide · May 16, 2017

selmaborntidefan said:
Just to let you know, I always find the discussions with Tidewater about what Granny Moses called "the war between the Yankees and the Americans" fascinating. And yes, I had one family member I know of fight for the Confederacy and no, nobody in my line ever owned slaves, save for my great-great-great uncle Simone Legree Selma.

Y'all should've seen Tidewater in a graduate history class at UA. He and I had a couple together, I wish I had my popcorn ready looking back on it.

It is interesting to me to see how the discussion turns for me, as the Civil War was taught in California, but just not all that heavy on the actual war. It was more of the things that led to the Civil War, and then what happened after the war ended.

Intl.Aperture · May 16, 2017

selmaborntidefan said:
Just to let you know, I always find the discussions with Tidewater about what Granny Moses called "the war between the Yankees and the Americans" fascinating. And yes, I had one family member I know of fight for the Confederacy and no, nobody in my line ever owned slaves, save for my great-great-great uncle Simone Legree Selma.

My great-great grandfather rode in the 15th Cavalry, C Company from Baldwin county and my family owned slaves as far back as the revolution. Wasn't my idea but that's the reality. I'm not gonna try and hide it like Ben Affleck.

Bamabuzzard · May 16, 2017

selmaborntidefan said:
Just to let you know, I always find the discussions with Tidewater about what Granny Moses called "the war between the Yankees and the Americans" fascinating. And yes, I had one family member I know of fight for the Confederacy and no, nobody in my line ever owned slaves, save for my great-great-great uncle Simone Legree Selma.

I've noticed when discussions like these come up people who have ancestors from the south feel the need to make it a point to say "but my ancestors didn't own slaves." What if they had? Not directly pointed at you Selma, but what difference does it make for an individual today if their ancestors owned slaves or not? If they did own slaves, is the person living in today's time supposed to carry some sort of guilt for something their ancestors did? I sure hope not.

Tidewater · May 16, 2017

Bamabuzzard said:
I've noticed when discussions like these come up people who have ancestors from the south feel the need to make it a point to say "but my ancestors didn't own slaves." What if they had? Not directly pointed at you Selma, but what difference does it make for an individual today if their ancestors owned slaves or not? If they did own slaves, is the person living in today's time supposed carry some sort of guilt for something their ancestors did? I sure hope not.

Steve Martin in the film All of Me berates a rich woman. "Just because my grandfather didn't rape the environment and exploit the workers doesn't make me a peasant. And it's not that he didn't want to rape the environment and exploit the workers, I'm sure he did. It's just that as a barber, he didn't have that much opportunity."
I have several ancestors who fought in the war (one for the Union, several for the Confederacy). None of them owned slaves, although to paraphrase Steve Martin, I'm sure they would have if they could. Thus, not owning slaves confers no more merit on them than actually owning slaves. It certainly conveys no moral merit on me, in either case.

Intl.Aperture · May 16, 2017

Tidewater said:
Steve Martin in the film All of Me berates a rich woman. "Just because my grandfather didn't rape the environment and exploit the workers doesn't make me a peasant. And it's not that he didn't want to rape the environment and exploit the workers, I'm sure he did. It's just that as a barber, he didn't have that much opportunity."
I have several ancestors who fought in the war (one for the Union, several for the Confederacy). None of them owned slaves, although to paraphrase Steve Martin, I'm sure they would have if they could. Thus, not owning slaves confers no more merit on them than actually owning slaves. It certainly conveys no moral merit on me, in either case.

If you think you can escape white-guilt just because your ancestors didn't own slaves, you are DEAD WRONG, PAL!

crimsonaudio · May 16, 2017

I have no idea if any of my ancestors owned slaves - I suppose if you go back far enough that someone somewhere probably did.

Most of my more recent ancestors (Civl War era) were poor, not the wealthy land-owner types that would have owned slaves.

That said, I couldn't care less either way - it has zero affect on me. I'm not guilty of another man's sins.

What are your thoughts on the Confederate memorials being taken down in NOLA?

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Senior Administrator

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Senior Administrator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Senior Administrator

TideFans Legend

All-American

All-American

FB Moderator

Hall of Fame

All-American

Administrator

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!