An attempt to desecrate Gettysburg

[JerseyBart]

Ole,

I guess that I should have put in my post somewhere that I didn't disagree with my professors gearing me toward reading college and university presses. Most of the books that I've read from college and university presses have been very reliable, informative and interesting. I just thought it was funny to hear my professors tell me to find the author's bias/opinion (college or university press book of course), then have them tell me that Rutgers University Press expects their history professors to be in the book writing business for them. Hmm, pumping up business are we??? lol

Good talking to you,

Bart

[william42]

Bart, just curious. What's a "mummer"?...

Terry

[JerseyBart]

Terry,

Oh dear!!! You just ordered a pandora's box as we are a very difficult bunch to explain. I'll give it a try. Every New Years Day people in the Philadephia region (Jersey and Delaware as well) parade up the Philadelphia's main street, Broad Street, with props, in costumes and either dance to music or play music to central themes. It's like a competitive parade.

Sounds confusing, it is, but here's an example. This year, the club I belong to paraded with a pirate theme, called A Pirate's Life For Me. In our routine, we danced to pirate music, obviously in pirate costumes, had sword fights, pulled pirate wenches from 4 foot tall and wide treasure chests and danced with them. It's a lot of fun, a little nerve-racking and steeped in family tradition.

Take a look at mummers.com and it may give a better definition of it than I did. I hope that I helped.

Bart

[william42]

OK. Thanks for the info Bart. Had never heard of that before. Sounds almost like the Mardi Gras. I think every town should have a similar affair where folks can just dress weird, get crazy, and have fun.

Terry

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Who exactly do you refer to when you speak of the "sons and daughters of the Confederacy"?

All people with roots in the Confederacy.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

What "Southern Cause" are you talking about?

The one that united the Southern states in 1861.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

So the "legitimate" bearers are only those people who believe a certain way?

No.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

And exactly what "standards" did Confederates hold the flag?

Honorable.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

It was a symbol directly related an opposition to the federal government. Do you mean to say that only people who oppose the federal government are legitimate bearers?

Are you talking about then or now?

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Again, I have to ask for clarification. What are the "collective Southern voices"? And, further, is the modern "collective" voice---if there is one---legitimate when it differs from the historic "collective" voice of the South.

No....well, perhaps somewhat. Many modern Southerners don't have the same patriotic and passionate fervor for the flag as their ancestors did.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

So you know what it means for all "Southern people"?

Of course not. What gives you the idea that I claim to know that?

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Why are you bringing up why the North went to war, when the CBF is supposed to represent South at war?

Because you said: "The flag was specifically linked to opposition to the United States and an attempt to preserve the slaveholding South."

The opposition you refer to was not because of slavery. The opposition was because the Southern states wanted to leave the Union. Mr. Lincoln said, in every way he could, that the South could keep slaves, he didn't care, but they could not leave the Union. Slavery wasn't at stake. Political power was. By denying the South access to the territories and making them free states it was placing the Southern slave states in a political minority. The protective tariff was finally at a low rate. With the admission of new free states the tariff was sure to soar (which it did at the first opportunity).

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Some northern states had had slavery in their borders at one time. Yet, slavery there was voluntarily ended, even if gradually, without force. This was not true with the southern states, who went to war to protect their slaveholding society and interests.

Slavery in the north and the institution in the South were not comparable.

You claim that slavery had died in the North by the time the war started? The slave holding state of West Virginia was admitted to the Union after the war started. Slavery was still practiced in at least two other Northern states, but it's true that slavery was more likely to be found in the Southern states.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Other than the fact that in the South they were literally enslaved. The argument that blacks "fared no better" is, frankly, ridiculous. It fails due to its extremist position. One can easily, and accurately, say that blacks in the North did not enjoy a great deal of rights or privileges. But to say that they "fared no better" blacks in the South is laughable.

I'm sure there were no blacks enslaved during Reconstruction. I'm also sure the many slaves that fled North and found they weren't welcome there and were treated with even less respect than they had in the South didn't find it "laughable", either.

You are responding to a comment I made in reference to your claim: "The widespread resistance to black rights in the South during Reconstruction and after "Redemption" shows evidence of a broad acceptance of white supremacy."

Originally Posted by Scotsman

And don't forget the fact that slavery was institutionalized in the South, and that around four million blacks were enslaved. We are not talking about the unfair sensationalizing of black oppression, but the very real nature of race relations in the South.

And again, you are referring to statements I made in regard to your comments on happenings that ocurred after the war. We weren't talking about slaves. Race difficulties in the South were sensationalized and the sheer number of blacks in the South obviously made the number of incidents higher than those in the North. By considering ratio of blacks to whites, the North probably had as many, if not more, racial problems as the South did.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Your arguments are not even close to keeping things in perspective. Trying to minimize the differences between the non-slaveholding North and the slaveholding South is not keeping perspective. It is, in fact, trying to tip the scales in some sort of defense of the South.

You keep wavering between the antebellum and post antebellum eras. Again, you are referring to comments I made regarding Reconstruction and later.

Rose: "Then there was the problem with Union occupiers pitting blacks against Southern whites in an effort to further demoralize and humiliate the South. The North had their share of race riots and discrimination. Not to mention that the Klan has chapters all over the U.S., including the Northern states and even Canada. I am not arguing that any racial discrimination was ok in the South because it existed in the North, too. My objective is to keep it in perspective."

We were discussing the time after slaves were emancipated, therefore, I couldn't have been comparing the differences of slave holding states to non-slave holding states.

Sorry, this is so lengthy I'm going to have to finish my response later.

Regards,
Rose

[JerseyBart]

Rose,


Feeling kinda nitpicked/being told what you "really" mean or "should" mean are you? Yeah, I didn't really care for it much either. There's a difference between debating and discussing and being lectured at. Keep up the good work defending yourself!

Bart

[JerseyBart]

Terry,

Yeah, it's like Mardi Gras meets puppet theater (parade announcers and some participants with their heads up their rears call it "Broadway on Broad Street") but...aahh, no. Not even close.

It's a lot of fun and a lot of work too. I think that WGN and the Travel Channel televise it nationally, so if you remember 4 months from now, check it out.

Bart

[johan_steele]

Ladies & Gents Behave...

I don't know what has been going on w/ this thread as I haven't followed it. The thread has been brought to my attention and likely Ami's as well. I remind all to talk to others as you would be talked to. Most importantly... BE NICE!!!

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

All people with roots in the Confederacy.

The question still remains, does the flag mean the same to all of them?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

The one that united the Southern states in 1861.

Can you be more specific than this?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Honorable.

Again, what does this mean? Honor is a subjective term. It is based on social perceptions which vary among societies, communities and individuals.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

No....well, perhaps somewhat. Many modern Southerners don't have the same patriotic and passionate fervor for the flag as their ancestors did.

I think that is true, since many modern Southerners do not advocate secession or open rebellion against the United States.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Of course not. What gives you the idea that I claim to know that?

In your previous post, you said: "What we are talking about is modern interpretation of a historic symbol and what it meant then and still means today to Southern people and the 37th‘s attempt to dispel the misinterpretation of that symbol by people that believe the Klan represents the CBF." You state that there is a modern meaning of the flag to "Southern people," and that this meaning does not include the "misinterpretation" of the Klan's role. Thus, what do you believe it means today to Southern people"?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Because you said: "The flag was specifically linked to opposition to the United States and an attempt to preserve the slaveholding South."

The opposition you refer to was not because of slavery. The opposition was because the Southern states wanted to leave the Union. Mr. Lincoln said, in every way he could, that the South could keep slaves, he didn't care, but they could not leave the Union. Slavery wasn't at stake. Political power was. By denying the South access to the territories and making them free states it was placing the Southern slave states in a political minority. The protective tariff was finally at a low rate. With the admission of new free states the tariff was sure to soar (which it did at the first opportunity).

Your statement above is contradictory. On one hand you say that it "was not because of slavery." A few sentences later, you admit that the conflict over the territories was about slavery, as the slave states would be in a minority if the institution could not expand. The institution of slavery was behind the sectional identities and the sectional conflict. If it was "not about slavery," then why would the exclusion of slavery from the territories be a problem? You say it was about power...power for what? What made a division of power in the government form along sectional lines? In fact, you say what it was about -- free versus slaveholding states.

Your post shows a common habit among many people discussing Civil War hsitory -- the subconscious understanding of slavery as the key to sectional conflict, but the conscious denial of its importance. You deny that slavery was in danger, and either deny or at least ignore the South's perceptions of slavery's future, yet discuss the threat to the South according to its slaveholding identity.

The argument that slavery was not at stake ignores the mountains of evidence from secessionist Southerners pressing for secession. The secession debates, the secession commissioners, the attempts at compromise all focused on slavery.

I am sure you are familiar with Epperson's site on the causes of the Civil War. There is an editorial from the Richmond Enquirer dated March 23, 1861 that is fairly illuminating. I will quote part of it here:

"We are not without an ultimatum which will re-construct the Union; the States sought to be brought back are the only parties whose ultimatum can restore the Union. Virginia’s ultimatum may determine the conditions upon which she will remain with the North, but further than this it cannot go; if the re-construction of the old Union is the real object of the Convention, the adoption of the ultimatum of the seceded States will attest its sincerity and convince the people of the country that they are not scheming for party purpose, and that they have not given up to party the time and labor they were directed to bestow upon the country. The ultimatum of the seceded States is left in no uncertainty; it is to be found in the solemn action of the Montgomery Constitution and may be analyzed as follows:

1. That African slavery in the Territories shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the Territorial Legislatures.
2. That the right to slaveholders of transit and sojourn in any State of the Confederacy, with their slaves and other property, shall be recognized and respected.
3. That the provision in regard to fugitive slaves shall extend to any slave lawfully carried from one State into another, and there escaping or taken away from his master.
4. That no bill or ex post facto law (by Congress or any State,) and no law impairing or denying the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed.
5. That the African slave trade shall be prohibited by such laws of Congress as shall effectually prevent the same."

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/richmond.html


For a conflict not about slavery, these Virginians were certainly bent out of shape over it. Notice that the editorial was dated March 1861, before Virginia's actual secession. This is just one example of Southerners outlining their concerns over Lincoln's election and the sectional crisis.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

You claim that slavery had died in the North by the time the war started? The slave holding state of West Virginia was admitted to the Union after the war started. Slavery was still practiced in at least two other Northern states, but it's true that slavery was more likely to be found in the Southern states.

Do not make the mistake of equating all Union states as the "North." I have found others who have tried to argue that Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware (as well as West Virginia) were part of the "North" because they did not officially secede. This classification does not accurately reflect the sectional divide or the identities of the states.

Which two other Northern states are you referring to? The only truly "northern" state which had slaves in 1860, according to the census, was New Jersey. It had 18 -- the remnants of that state's voluntary gradual emancipation program.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

I'm sure there were no blacks enslaved during Reconstruction. I'm also sure the many slaves that fled North and found they weren't welcome there and were treated with even less respect than they had in the South didn't find it "laughable", either.

I am not going to argue that blacks were treated well in northern areas, but the nature and the scope of the racial social strata in the South was not matched by many, if any, places in the North. Even as late as the 1960s, the "South" stood out across the nation and the world for its institutionalized white supremacy and racial problems.

And exactly how much "respect" had these blacks experienced in the South?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

And again, you are referring to statements I made in regard to your comments on happenings that ocurred after the war. We weren't talking about slaves.

My original comments incorporated Southern race relations before, during and after the war, as shown by this statement: "White supremacy was a fundamental part of Southern history before, during and for decades after the Civil War---and it was entwined with the cause of the Confederacy and post-Reconstruction Southern society."

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Race difficulties in the South were sensationalized and the sheer number of blacks in the South obviously made the number of incidents higher than those in the North. By considering ratio of blacks to whites, the North probably had as many, if not more, racial problems as the South did.

What do you mean by "sensationalized"? Do you mean that race problems weren't as bad as they appeared? That is an interesting argument.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

You keep wavering between the antebellum and post antebellum eras. Again, you are referring to comments I made regarding Reconstruction and later.

I am "wavering" because my posts are talking about the South (and your treatment of the South) as a whole. While slavery technically ended in 1865, the legacy of race relations in the former slaveholding society differed greatly from that of most of the nation. Your attempts to downplay the differences between northern and southern communities even after the Civil War is not a matter of keeping perspective.

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by JerseyBart

Feeling kinda nitpicked/being told what you "really" mean or "should" mean are you? Yeah, I didn't really care for it much either. There's a difference between debating and discussing and being lectured at.

Bart, as one with a historical education, you should know that people should be prepared to defend their arguments. Most often, complaints about "nitpicking" are by people unaccustomed or unprepared to actually having to think about and explain their position.

Historians don't simply accept everything spouted off by someone. They question it closely.