An attempt to desecrate Gettysburg

[JerseyBart]

Scots,

I have no problem being asked to explain myself. I do it all the time. It's why I joined this message board when I happened upon it. It's my job actually. And I may be "one with a historical education," but more importantly to me, I am also "one of free-thinking adulthood" who doesn't enjoy being told what I really meant or should have meant in a post that I typed. They are my words and thoughts. I think that I know them and what I meant better than others do. Take a look at the end of the slaveholders after emancipation thread. Most others don't like it either. I said that before on this thread to you, so I'll say it again. Everyone registered on this message board is more than entitled to have and share their own opinions, debate and discuss them freely with everybody else on the board. I'll discuss and debate any topic with anybody of this board and give to and take from those people gladly and somehow try to shake his or her hand after the discussion or debate is over through the computer. That's what these message boards are here for, but if I'm going to be lectured at, and yes nitpicked, odds are that I'm not going to take to kindly to it. Again, I look forward to discussing and debating Civil War and present day issues with you.

Respectfully,


Bart

[JerseyBart]

And now back to the spirit of this thread.

(earlier post rerun)

Good for the Texas Cav!!!!! I'd gladly suit up and fall off of a horse for that cause.

Maybe some of those famed Gettysburg battlefield ghosts will show themselves to the clansmen and turn a portion of their lilly white costumes a few different colors. I'd say the colors, but you get the point.


Bart

[Scotsman]

Bart,

I completely agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I do not believe, however, that all opinions are correct. Further, I believe any person who takes it upon themself to give their opinion in a public setting must be prepared (or at least expect) others to not only disagree, but to question them. In short, an opinion in a historical discussion means very little to others unless it can be competently defended, and with evidence.

I too come to discussion boards to hear other viewpoints, to be challenged and to challenge others. You should check out historychannel.com, if you haven't already. I've been enjoying discussions and debates on the Civil War and other topics there for over 6 years, and it is definitely a place that a debater has to be ready to defend every single thing they say. Some people can't take the critique (which can and does sometimes turn into petty arguing...particularly in the Current Events thread which is more political than anything) and they don't hang around long.

You state that you, like others, don't "enjoy being told what I really meant or should have meant in a post that I typed. They are my words and thoughts." Well, that is understandable. I'm not sure exactly which examples you may be referring to. But, one problem with history, and the Civil War in particular, is that it is a subject, a field, in which a lot of people with very little formal education or experience confidently and strongly hold on to opinions they have developed. Many of these opinions are shaped by certain ideologies, schools of thoughts and "biases" they harbor or are taught. And, unfortunately, many people (well, everybody to some degree) form their opinions with certain assumptions that they have not questioned.

It actually takes another person to point out the holes and realities of these assumptions to help invigorate the learning.

Perhaps you are familiar with the Socratic method of teaching. It is often used by law professors, as well as history professors. It involves not lecturing, per se, but constantly challenging a student's answer. It is a terrific way to learn, and one that some of my best professors used. It forces a student to literally rethink their answers. And good professors will often challenge answers they even agree with because they still want the student to be able to defend their answers.

This method is also great for the person asking the questions, because it gives them a chance to fully hear the other person's position and ideas.

For instance, take the issue of "honor" in my discussion with Wild Rose. In the conversation, I asked (something along the lines of):

S: How do "legitimate" bearers of the CBF treat the flag?

WR: Like the original bearers.

S: And how did the original bearers treat it?

WR: With honor.

S: What do you mean by honor? Honor can mean many different things, as it is subjective.

Is this nitpicking? Well, if nitpicking means the continual quest for more information and explanation, then yes. But even with that brief exchange, I see that Wild Rose incorporates some idea of honor in her perception of the flag. I continue to question her on the point because honor is not a self-standing idea.

Now, it is possible that Wild Rose, like most other people, has never really had to consciously explain her perception of "honor." One reason I bring this up is because some terrific historians have debated this very issue -- what is "honor"? Bertram Wyatt-Brown has written a few books on Southern honor. I agree with many of his conclusions, but some are still a bit questionable. One of my Southern history professors argues that honor doesn't actually exist (and never has in any true sense), but instead is a construct that has been used to describe or package many other more specific factors.

I had never thought to question "honor," what it was, what it meant, etc., until I had someone sit down and challenge my perception of it.

Now, a response to this challenge can be either a sincere attempt to think and answer, or it can be frustration and anger at perceived "nitpicking." Not everyone is suited for deep historical analysis and study. Some students I know and have known had a very hard time in class when they were forced to defend their essays and arguments. They took each challenge to their beliefs and conclusions as a personal attack against them. If that is a person's response to a serious historical discussion, then I believe that person may not be ready for historical study -- at least at a deep level.

To get back to the issue of what a person "means," there are some very real cases of people not actually understanding deeper or secondary meanings to their arguments. What they believe is a simple and straightforward answer might really draw in a whole other world of possibilities, meanings, and interpretations. They may not realize it (because they have not experienced or learned of the depth behind the points they make), but that does not mean that their statements can be taken so simply.

Finally, you mention the issue finishing a discussion as respectfully as possible and "shaking hands" when through. Of course every person would like to have a reasonable and respectful discussion. But, I admit that I do not come here for a nice little tea party and to compliment each person on their opinion. I come to discuss history. I respect someone more for showing skill and knowledge in discussing history and defending their conclusions, rather than some sort of forced or gratuitous words of "respect." And I don't expect someone to handle me with kid gloves. More good comes from two people discussing the matter seriously and proving to each other to be competent and mature debaters.

Skim through historical journals and read book reviews. Historians don't pull punches because they don't want to "upset" someone. They may try to soften criticism, but they most often pull out the big guns and really critique each other's work. It is part of the job...part of the field. These same historians will also compliment those authors who really do well. And while each person will likely take part of it personally, they understand how it works.

History is a great thing for every person to enjoy. But it is also a serious field, with a great deal of meaning and complexity that the average person does not always understand or appreciate. Taking it seriously and always trying to learn is a good way to help build one's education.

[unionblue]

Scotsman,

Welcome to the board and please, continue with your excellent questions and posts.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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

No more so than the U.S. flag means the same to all Americans, but I don't believe anyone that dishonors the American flag represents the U.S.. The same is true for the Confederate flags.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Can you be more specific than this?

The Southern Cause is well known, although, many today ridicule it and claim it was something other than what it was. I can be more specific, but I suspect you know what it is and simply want me to say it in order to argue the point. Very simply put, it was independence, although, some saw it as more. General Lee said, "We had, I was satisfied, sacred principles to maintain and rights to defend for which we were in duty bound to do our best, even if we perished in the endeavor."

Those "sacred principals" were adhering to the Constitution as it was written. State sovereignty and the right to self-government.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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

I don't think the Southern definition of "honor" is any different than that of the average American. My definition of honor is "integrity". Webster's probably can give you a more detailed definition than that.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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

While it's true we are all mostly nice obedient sheep, we still honor our ancestors for making a stand for their beliefs. It's also true that the Jeffersonian type of government our ancestors fought for is certainly never going to happen and it's not an idea that most of us, in this era, even entertain.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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"?

No, you are mistaken. I did not say there was a modern meaning of the Confederate battleflag to Southern people. Read my words, again. I said "what it meant and still means today".

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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.

(sigh)

Rose: 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.

Above is what I said. Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

Issues regarding slavery were definitely important issues, but the preservation of slavery was not the issue. Slavery issues had a direct effect on secession, because those issues were intertwined with political issues. I'm not saying the South was ready to give up slavery, only that no one was asking her to.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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.

I think, perhaps, it seems to you and others of your opinion, that slavery was the end all cause of the war and secession. Anything that has nothing to do with slavery isn't an issue, or at least, not an important issue, in your mind. If I had to single out one single issue that was the cause it would be economics for both North and South. It had nothing to do with anything so noble as "saving the Union" or anything so negative as preserving slavery.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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.

There was a certain degree of hysteria regarding slavery that was promoted by the fire eaters, however, it was far more than merely owning slaves at stake. Fact is that slavery was legal. Lincoln had said he couldn't change that fact if he wanted to. More Southerners than not didn't care if 25% of them owned slaves or not. It was more the fact that a growing number in the North wanted to free Southern slaves that infuriated Southerners than the actual fear of the slaves becoming free. It was an insult that the North believed they had any right to meddle in Southern states affairs...their legal affairs. The divide between the sections was more than political, there was a growing deep resentment along with a difference of opinion about the government and Constitution. Slavery is not the "end all" of secession causes.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

"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.

I have never and do not now deny slavery was an issue, but more than that, the high-handed manner of the Northern people's attempt to control the Southern states by using slavery as leverage was unacceptable to the Southern people.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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..

I've made no mistake.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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. ..

Delaware was a Northern state, both geographically and politically. There was never a division or serious thought for Delaware about leaving the Union.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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.

Comparing the ratio of blacks to whites in the South and in the North, the North doesn't come out better than the South for racial equality. In fact, Southerners had lived and interacted with blacks closely for decades prior to emancipation. Northerners had not and did not wish to find out what it was like. They wanted Negroes to be free, but they wanted them to be free in the Southern states.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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

More than you would believe so I'm not going to try to convince you. But, speaking from experience I can tell you, I was born in the South prior to desegregation. Had I ever forgotten to apply, "ma'am" or "sir" when I was addressing an adult of any color, I could expect to be reprimanded or worse. When schools became desegregated in my town, it was quietly and peacefully, just as it was in most Southern towns.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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."

When you ask specific questions you must specify, and you generally did, which era you are speaking of. The answer usually isn't the same depending on which era you are talking about.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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

Precisely. News coverage played up the worst of it and never mentioned the peaceful transition to desegration that was more common than not. I guess you don't sell many newspapers by printing boring, dull news. As an example, I remember one tv coverage of a demonstration where there was one CBF and the camera chased this flag around to get numerous shots of it in order to make it appear as if there were several such flags. It was laughable, but of course people that weren't looking for such discrepancies probably didn't notice it was the same flag every time.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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.

Maybe not in keeping with your perspective. I think if you would review the race problems in the North, then compare it with the number of Northern blacks, you may find yourself seeing it from a different perspective.

Rose

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thanks Bart. What I'm really feeling is kind of silly arguing such nit picking points. I feel like I've been through the Spanish Inquisition. I've just taken up a large chunk of board space arguing points that will not be resolved and I'm all too aware of that. It was silly.
Rose

[ole]

I was following this thread but got distracted in trying to figure *** why "***" and "**" were *d *** ** the preceding posts. Just an aside.
Ole

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by ole

I was following this thread but got distracted in trying to figure *** why "***" and "**" were *d *** ** the preceding posts. Just an aside.
Ole

Ole, the "bleep meter" cut *** so much ** your message I can't make *** what you are saying.

Rose

[Miss Markie]

I gave up trying to follow this post as the words or letters within words that make up "**" and "***" keep getting cut. Any ideas ** what dastardly things "**" and "***" can mean ? Can someone explain it to me? I'm usually pretty creative with 'word puzzles' and double-entendre, but this has me stumped.

[JerseyBart]

The censors must be *** ** other words to censor, so they decided to censor o.u.t and o.f.!!!

Bart