or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Confederate Memorial Day
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Confederate Memorial Day - Page 6

post #76 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpeirpont View Post
But much more than 5% held the belief that Black were only fit for slavery and that was Blacks caste because they were less than human. I don't think it is a stretch to say slavery was one of the main things the culture was based upon.

No more than the rest of the country. My point is not that the South was somehow noble in its regard for blacks, it is that most of the country held blacks to be inferior, not just the South. Certainly the average white southerner did not regard blacks as his equal, but nor did the average American, northern or southern. This type of bigotry is not equal to support of slavery. The wealthy southern plantation owner may have supported slavery, but that doesn't mean all southerners did. 95% of southerners, and the rest of the country, was simply filled with ignorant bigots.

For example, Lincoln on blacks:

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races"”that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
post #77 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post
Winning is evidence that it was superior in a military sense, but it doesn't prove that it was somehow culturally superior.


I would disagree - the US beat nazi germany because it had a superior system, it beat communism because it had a superior system, and it beat the south because it had a superior system.

look at it this way -

1. the north out produced the south. the south had the better fighters, the better infantry, the better cavalry. the north had better factories, better generals (onlny in the last years) and better overall stratgey. but that was because it had the better system

2. several of the best people the federal government had could just has easily gone to the south - sherman, espectially, could have gone to the south, he loved the south, didn't really like blacks, and spent a good part of his life in the south. but he didn't, because the northern system was better.


Quote:
The entire United States was based upon a slave economy. Even if we assume there weren't any slaves in the North (which is untrue), the industrial North was dependent upon the raw materials provided by the agricultural South. You can't ignore the interdependence of the U.S. economy.

that isn't a bad argument. I don't buy it, but I won't ick it apart


Quote:
The South grew the cotton, and the North turned it to cloth. Pretending slavery was only perpetuated by the South is like pretending people in NY don't pay less for fruit because of the cheap labor provided my migrant workers in CA. Slavery was undeniably evil, but it would be willfully ignorant to pretend that the South was the only part of the U.S. that benefited from its existence.

Also, given less than 5% of southerners owned slaves, I think it's a stretch to state that southern culture was based upon a slave culture. It was based upon agriculture, but I think it's inaccurate to assume that 95% of southerners bought into a culture of which they weren't a part. The average southerner in 1860 was a poor farmer trying to survive, not a plantation owner getting rich on the backs of his slaves.

the Us economy is dependant on industrial capitalism. what percentage of people own factories?

the basic culture of the south was a slave culture. sure, most people didn't have slaves, but what do you think they wanted to buy when they had more money? many people who didn't own slaves worked on plantations that did own slaves, or traded with slave owning plantations. sorry, the culture of the south was the culture of slaves, and slavery is a basically evil thing.

Quote:
Fukuyama would be proud of your last statement. While I am a defender of market economics and, to a lesser extent, democracy, I don't pretend it's the only legitimate system in existence. To assume the Western model is the best model for all is ethnocentric to a degree I find to be unpalatable.

sorry - I stand by it. the countries that practice the american system are the ones that provide the most good for the most people
post #78 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post
No more than the rest of the country. My point is not that the South was somehow noble in its regard for blacks, it is that most of the country held blacks to be inferior, not just the South. Certainly the average white southerner did not regard blacks as his equal, but nor did the average American, northern or southern. This type of bigotry is not equal to support of slavery. The wealthy southern plantation owner may have supported slavery, but that doesn't mean all southerners did. 95% of southerners, and the rest of the country, was simply filled with ignorant bigots.

For example, Lincoln on blacks:

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races"”that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."


Robert E. Lee was one of the great gentlemen of all time. have you read about his experience with his father in laws slaves? that is that the culture of slavery does to you
post #79 of 94
The Union also had an overwhelming population advantage.
post #80 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post
Robert E. Lee was one of the great gentlemen of all time. have you read about his experience with his father in laws slaves? that is that the culture of slavery does to you
If it requires a culture of slavery to do that to a man such as Lee, then how do you explain Lincoln's despicable views of Blacks in the presumed absence of such a culture? It's pretty naive to think that simply living north of the Mason-Dixon Line imbued a person with an enlightened view on slavery and blacks.

In the same way that "liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam" rather than "stabilizing a strategic part of the Mideast" was the moral justification for the Iraq War, slavery rather than consolidating federal power was the moral justification Lincoln used to make war on the South. While both wars achieved their stated moral aims, it would be pretty silly to think either were waged primarily for those stated reasons.
post #81 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post
Contrary to public perception, the South is statistically the most integrated region in the US.

FL:

"There's lies, damn lies, and statistics."
"Statistics are like a bikini, what they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."
"Do not put your faith in statistics until you have carefully considered what they do not say."

Just some famous quotes on the matter of statistics.

I for one support the notion that most Southerners fought for an ideal, Wade Hampton etc..., and that they should be honored. Perhaps that its 150 years old makes it easier to forget the horrors of what some of those ideals were in actuality. But they were, and now remain Americans, so should be honored for fighting, even if it was in a revolutionary way.

Now, while the South today may statistically be integrated, I find most southern cities and towns to be horrifically segregated when compared to the North. There are distinct "white" and "black" parts of Charleston, Savannah, Memphis, Mobile, New Orleans etc...the older the city, the more segregated they are. Rural areas are just as segregated, with black towns and white towns. While it may not be specifically racial, the economic inpact of the war, and more specifically Reconstruction and its end, has led to this continued segregation in the South well after the Supreme Court said it was illegal to do it through legislation. How many African Americans do you see on Hilton Head Island?

Even modern cities like Atlanta, have several "segregated" wealthy neighborhoods. Black elite and white elite generally don't live together there. Gnatty, I know you're in ATL, please correct me if I'm wrong.
post #82 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post
No more than the rest of the country. My point is not that the South was somehow noble in its regard for blacks, it is that most of the country held blacks to be inferior, not just the South. Certainly the average white southerner did not regard blacks as his equal, but nor did the average American, northern or southern. This type of bigotry is not equal to support of slavery. The wealthy southern plantation owner may have supported slavery, but that doesn't mean all southerners did. 95% of southerners, and the rest of the country, was simply filled with ignorant bigots. For example, Lincoln on blacks: "I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
There was plenty racism everywhere. But living in the South where the caste system was a rigid as it was in regards to Blacks was far more repressive. Their were communities of Blacks living in a manner in the North that just couldn't be replicated in the South, even after slaver, unless you were a Mulatto in N.O, Charleston or Savannah. I think the south system was based on Black being chattel that is why the people interacted and fought violently to maintain. The whites who weren't slave owners place in society was influenced by the existence of slavery.
post #83 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewYorkRanger View Post
FL:

"There's lies, damn lies, and statistics."
"Statistics are like a bikini, what they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."
"Do not put your faith in statistics until you have carefully considered what they do not say."

Just some famous quotes on the matter of statistics.

I for one support the notion that most Southerners fought for an ideal, Wade Hampton etc..., and that they should be honored. Perhaps that its 150 years old makes it easier to forget the horrors of what some of those ideals were in actuality. But they were, and now remain Americans, so should be honored for fighting, even if it was in a revolutionary way.

Now, while the South today may statistically be integrated, I find most southern cities and towns to be horrifically segregated when compared to the North. There are distinct "white" and "black" parts of Charleston, Savannah, Memphis, Mobile, New Orleans etc...the older the city, the more segregated they are. Rural areas are just as segregated, with black towns and white towns. While it may not be specifically racial, the economic inpact of the war, and more specifically Reconstruction and its end, has led to this continued segregation in the South well after the Supreme Court said it was illegal to do it through legislation. How many African Americans do you see on Hilton Head Island?

Even modern cities like Atlanta, have several "segregated" wealthy neighborhoods. Black elite and white elite generally don't live together there. Gnatty, I know you're in ATL, please correct me if I'm wrong.

But there is good segregation and bad segregation. I think the South could be said to be more culturally integrated than the North and less physically integrated, if that makes sense. To be honest it also seems to have a healthier view on race than the North these days.
post #84 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post
The Union also had an overwhelming population advantage.

true. but

1. that would also indicate a superioriority of the system - people either immigrated to a free state or a slave state, or children were born and reached adulthood in either a free state or a slave state. the fact that more people chose to live in free states, or that more people lived to adulthood in free states may indicate that the economic system had advantages

2. the south started with more and better soldiers and officers.
post #85 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by dah328 View Post
If it requires a culture of slavery to do that to a man such as Lee, then how do you explain Lincoln's despicable views of Blacks in the presumed absence of such a culture? It's pretty naive to think that simply living north of the Mason-Dixon Line imbued a person with an enlightened view on slavery and blacks.


the union leadership didn't like blacks, and they weren't very nice about the whole thing. but there is a differnce between that and what happened to slaves in the south.

seriously, are you familiar with the story or REL and his father in laws slaves?

essentially, REL's father in law left a number of slaves when he died, and left them their freedom. he also left REL his estate. REL didn't free the slaves for a period of several years, even though he knew that they had been given their freedom, because he needed to their labor to put the newly inherited house in order. when the slaves objected to this violation of their legal rights (according to local law) REL hired a proffetional to beat them and keep them in line, because he wasn't used to beating his slaves, himself. all in all, a pretty nasty thing to do, and something that happened, in my opinion, because of the economic nature of the culture.

Quote:


In the same way that "liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam" rather than "stabilizing a strategic part of the Mideast" was the moral justification for the Iraq War, slavery rather than consolidating federal power was the moral justification Lincoln used to make war on the South. While both wars achieved their stated moral aims, it would be pretty silly to think either were waged primarily for those stated reasons.

the northern leaders, at least the sane ones, didn't give a rats ass about freeing the slaves. they didn't like the idea of slavery, but they didn't want to free the slaves, they wanted to keep the union in one piece.

the south wanted to seperate from the union for a number of reasons, but all had to do with the fact that its economy and culture was based on slavery.
post #86 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post
seriously, are you familiar with the story or REL and his father in laws slaves?

essentially, REL's father in law left a number of slaves when he died, and left them their freedom. he also left REL his estate. REL didn't free the slaves for a period of several years, even though he knew that they had been given their freedom, because he needed to their labor to put the newly inherited house in order. when the slaves objected to this violation of their legal rights (according to local law) REL hired a proffetional to beat them and keep them in line, because he wasn't used to beating his slaves, himself. all in all, a pretty nasty thing to do, and something that happened, in my opinion, because of the economic nature of the culture.
Yes, I know it. You are leaving out the detail that the will provided for their freedom no later than five years from the time of his father-in-law's death which Lee followed. I agree that Lee's behavior was still wrong, but you can't argue that he didn't follow the terms of the will.

It sounds like you agree with me regarding the motivations for the war. The North's opposition to slavery was rooted more in the economic advantage it gave the South rather than a recognition of the humanity of the black person. After all, as Lincoln's quote demonstrates, none of them favored full rights for blacks.

Although clearly not waged for altruistic motives, the war was the price to be paid to end slavery in the US. It's just tragic that neither the North nor the South had some like a Wilberforce that could have brought it about bloodlessly.
post #87 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by dah328 View Post
Yes, I know it. You are leaving out the detail that the will provided for their freedom no later than five years from the time of his father-in-law's death which Lee followed. I agree that Lee's behavior was still wrong, but you can't argue that he didn't follow the terms of the will.


true, but that is the point - REL, one of the most gentile of gentlemen America has ever known, did something that was horrible, but it was perfectly within cultural and legal norms, and he "needed" to do it from his economic perspective.

Quote:
It sounds like you agree with me regarding the motivations for the war. The North's opposition to slavery was rooted more in the economic advantage it gave the South rather than a recognition of the humanity of the black person. After all, as Lincoln's quote demonstrates, none of them favored full rights for blacks.

Although clearly not waged for altruistic motives, the war was the price to be paid to end slavery in the US. It's just tragic that neither the North nor the South had some like a Wilberforce that could have brought it about bloodlessly.

true. this whole thing was a tradgedy, and it is too bad that somebody wasn't there who could have talked the nation through it without bloodshed.
post #88 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpeirpont View Post
But there is good segregation and bad segregation. I think the South could be said to be more culturally integrated than the North and less physically integrated, if that makes sense. To be honest it also seems to have a healthier view on race than the North these days.

+1, I could not agree more..
post #89 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post
oh, no, having thought it through carefully, I would like to make that claim

So then you're fine with imperialism. Good to know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post
true. but

1. that would also indicate a superioriority of the system - people either immigrated to a free state or a slave state, or children were born and reached adulthood in either a free state or a slave state. the fact that more people chose to live in free states, or that more people lived to adulthood in free states may indicate that the economic system had advantages.

It actually proves nothing about the relative strengths or weaknesses of one system vs. another.
post #90 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpeirpont View Post
But there is good segregation and bad segregation. I think the South could be said to be more culturally integrated than the North and less physically integrated, if that makes sense. To be honest it also seems to have a healthier view on race than the North these days.

Perfect sense...what is "black" down south is Southern, what is "white" down south is Southern, so what it means to be Southern is the common heritage of both blacks and whites, despite neighborhood demographics.

It appears there are many ways to define integration. One socio-culturally and one demo-geographically. The South may not be integrated demo-geographically, but is socio-culturally.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Confederate Memorial Day