An attempt to desecrate Gettysburg

[JerseyBart]

Yes!!! I just bucked the system. **** the man!!! lol

Bart

[JerseyBart]

Darn!!! Maybe I should have said "Darn the man!!!"

Bart

[william42]

Hey everybody, I emailed Ami ab*** the over-zealousness ** the auto-censor. She answered me back just now that some extra words were added to help cut down the spam attacks on the board, and perhaps that's the reason. Said they would take another look at it and see if perhaps they can tweak it somewhat to correct this.

Terry

[william42]

Rosie, I tried to PM you ab*** a discussion that's been taking place on this thread, but I don't think you're set up to receive PM's. Just thought I'd let you know, in case you weren't aware. If you are aware, then that's fine. Take care.

Terry

[Scotsman]

Wow, these asterisks are a pain. Rose, I will try to respond to your post as best as I can. I'll try to reduce the problem letters so hopefully others can read this.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

I agree. And that was an important point of mine -- that when it comes to flags and symbols, they can mean many different things to different people.

I still wonder how you interpret "honoring" and "dishonoring" the flag. What some people consider honorable, others may not. For instance, getting back to the Klan, that group sincerely believes that they are an honorable, just and proper organization and they believe the symbols they use are legitimate in that cause. You and I may, and do, disagree with them. Who can decide an objective scale of honor?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

I am not trying to be antagonistic on this point. I am honestly interested in what you believe the "Southern Cause" is. The term is fairly confusing. Do you mean the cause of secession? The cause for independence? The cause of protecting Southern society? Or is it something more modern and more ideological?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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."

That helps clear up matters a bit. You see the Southern cause as something specifically related to the war and secession. Some may say that the Southern cause was more comprehensive than just the war -- that it was the goal to protect Southern "rights" and interests before, during and after the war. In this interpretation, the war was merely a major chapter, rather than the entire cause.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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

We should not believe that Southerners were objective towards the Constitution. While Southerners certainly believed they were adhering to Constitutional principles, over half of the country disagreed. Were Southerners wrong? I don't necessarily believe so. But I do not believe they were completely right. The Constitution, like the Bible, can be interpreted in many different ways. And those interpretations are most often specifically related to interests of a given community.

For instance, Arthur Schlesginer, Jr., wrote an excellent article found in Kenneth Stampp's Causes of the Civil War (I believe it was) called "States' Rights Fetish." His argument is that the interest of "states' rights" was never a consistent position taken by any person or group in the U.S. People, political parties, etc., interpreted the Constitution according to their direct interests. When the federal government protected or championed a local interest, states' rights were usually pushed aside -- take the Fugitive Slave Law, for instance. When the federal government was either apathetic or even hostile to a local interest (such as slavery), the ideology of "states' rights" was grasped.

Southerners took on the idea of "states' rights" and state sovereignty because their chief interest (slavery) was local. The federal government, which consisted of many anti-slavery representatives and figures, could not always be trusted to have the same concern for "Southern" interests. Thus, an emphasis on local authority could help Southerners protect those rights and privileges they enjoyed.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

Well, even integrity is not a full answer. Really, honor is a matter of public image -- particularly in the South (or at least it was). Bertram Wyatt-Brown has written a number of books and articles on Southern conceptions of honor. He described the difference between honor in the New England states as being more internal. That in the Old South, he said, was much more external and public. Much of this difference at the time was due to differing religious and social ideologies. Within New England, more emphasis was placed upon faith and self-imagery in a Puritanical society. In the Old South, public standing was extremely important. An action's status in "honor" had less to do with a person's conscience and more to do with public perception.

An example Wyatt-Brown gives, in more depth, is fidelity. Extra-marital relations in New England were more often deemed dishonorable internally--as the husband felt guilt because of religious convictions, etc. In the South, many men engaged in extra-marital affairs---particularly with slaves---and it would be well known among their buddies. But they had to keep it in a certain context. As long as their actions did not pass certain social boundaries, these men felt no sense of dishonor.

This also explains the prevalance of dueling, the very public show of one's "honor," in the South and not in New England. Being that honor in the South was external, or based on what someone else thought about you rather than what you thought about yourself, dueling was a matter of potentially sacrificing oneself for the public image. (As a sidenote, much of the midwest during the nineteenth century also maintained some of this external perception of honor.)

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

There are some people who have adopted the Confederate cause (being direct descendants from the Confederacy or not) due to modern political concerns. I do believe that the Jeffersonian government is still an important part of our nation. It has obviously changed quite a bit, but local governments still control an extremely large portion of every-day life.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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".

So you mean that what it "still means today" varies? If so, I agree with that.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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

Yes and no. You and I could argue today, 145 years later, that slavery in the South, where it was legally protected, was not directly threatened by Lincoln's election. But, when looking at the words of Southerners at the time, we find overwhelming evidence that they believed their institution as a whole was in danger.

For instance, John Townsend gave a lengthy address, which was then published, in October 1860 bemoaning the fears of Republican rule and overall "northern" opposition to slavery. He began his remarks as such (emphasis added):

"As we are organized for the object, especially, of protecting our slave institutions, it is proper that we should hold frequent counsel together, and carefully consider the modes by which it might be assailed.
the crisis is fast approaching, and a few brief weeks will decide ,whether we are to drag out a few years more of dishonored existence,—under a Black Republican rule, which has openly declared their purpose to destroy us—or whether, casting all unmanly fears to the winds, we shall stake our destiny under our own control, and with, God to help us, resolve that we will be ruled only by ourselves. From all present indications, Lincoln will be elected by the Electoral College; but if not by that mode, then by Congress afterwards. With the whole North thoroughly sectionalized and given over to Abolitionism (a very small and uninfluential party only excepted), every Douglas Democrat, and every Bell and Everett supporter, in all that populous region, may be classed, as between Breckinridge and Lincoln supporter of the latter. In opinions and feelings they affiliate with the party which sup port him, as against the South; and when the day of trial shall come, when they shall be required to indicate their preference, it will be found that they will be governed by their Abolition proclivities, and give their support in Congress to the nominee of the Black Republicans. The principles, then, of that dangerous party may be considered as those which are to control the Government after the 4th March next."
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/townsend.html

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

You are correct, no one was asking the South to give up slavery. This did not mean, however, that Southerners felt that their institution was safe. In fact, all evidence shows that they were very fearful for its safety. Some obvious evidence of how they perceived Lincoln and the Republicans is the general secessionist terminology. Jabez Curry was an individual, like Townsend, who spoke in great detail of his fear of Republican rule. In his essay on the sectional crisis drawn up in November 1860, we find some interesting section headings:

"BLACK REPUBLICAN PARTY SECTIONAL AND HOSTILE"
"WHAT ABOLITIONISM HAS DONE AND PROPOSES TO DO"
"CONSEQUENCES OF ABOLITIONISM"
"INTEREST OF NON-SLAVEHOLDERS IN SLAVERY"
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/curry.htm

He, like others, equated Republicanism with abolitionism. In an essay over the result of an election of Lincoln and the Republican party, Curry spends a great deal of time on "abolitionism" and its consequences.

Whether or not Lincoln and the Republicans were going to attack slavery in the South, Southerners believed he and the party were a direct threat to the institution and their interests as a whole.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

It definitely did not all come back to economics. While this interpretation, championed by the Progressive school of thought in the early 20th century (whose most famous advocate was Charles Beard) placed everything in the context of economics, has been extremely powerful, it has also been discredited in its more absolute interpretation for about 80 years. Economics played a role, but any person who tries to ignore the ideological element of secession and its response ignores a great deal of the conflict and the people involved.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

I agree with much of your statement...but some of it is confusing. For instance, above you say that slavery was not threatened. Here you say that it was a "fact" that more and more northerners did want to free Southern slaves. Since the Republican party was sectional, it is clear that Southerners did see the election as a referendum on the preservation ** slavery in the South.

Still, I think you are very right with your explanation of Southern perceptions...except with the last statement. While slavery may not have been the obvious cause to all Southern complaints, the institution was related to them all. In fact, it was because of slavery that the southern states created a "Southern" identity with its own somewhat consistent Constitutional interpretations.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

Leverage for what?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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

Many consider Delaware, including me, a "border" state, like Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland. Take a look at this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U..._Divisions.png

Delaware was not always politically united with the north, and often sided with the South. During the debate over Kansas statehood in 1856, at least one Delaware senator joined some Deep South officials in denouncing the Free State cause.

Unfortunately, I have to go right now. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my questions and points. I am enjoying this conversation as I think we are finally starting to get somewhere. I will try to respond to the rest of your statements as soon as I can.

[unionblue]

Wild_Rose and Scottsman,

Please, continue your debate, as it is most interesting to me and I admire both o.f. your positions and cannot wait for the next round!

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by william42

Rosie, I tried to PM you ab*** a discussion that's been taking place on this thread, but I don't think you're set up to receive PM's. Just thought I'd let you know, in case you weren't aware. If you are aware, then that's fine. Take care.

Terry

Terry, I didn't realize that. I have corrected it and should now be able to receive PM's.

Rose

[william42]

Copy that Rose... one comin' atya.

Terry

[Scotsman]

Okay, to continue the discussion...sorry for the delay.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

I agree to a point. Certainly the large number of blacks in the South resulted in a more substantial racial division and system than that in the northern states. We see similar developments in other areas as well -- great prejudice towards Asians, for instance, in the western states during the latter 19th century and early 20th century due to the influx of Chinese for mining.

But, these great differences are not simply a matter of degree. The institutionalized racism towards blacks in the South was not matched in scope or in complexity in other parts of the nation. So, while northern blacks in many areas faced great prejudice, the system of white supremacy in most northern areas did not develop to the same level -- politically, socially or economically -- as found in the South. This is why even during times when racism as endemic across the nation, the southern states were still seen as being excessive, or somehow at a different level.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

Good point -- although some in the north were more progressive. Americans in the midwest, in states like Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, harbored a great deal of prejudice towards blacks, and implemented "black laws" to reduce the influx of free blacks before and after the war.


I asked: "And exactly how much 'respect' had these blacks experienced in the South?"

You replied: "More than you would believe so I'm not going to try to convince you."

I'm not sure if you are limiting your discussion of respect towards blacks to the last 30 years or so, but one would be hard pressed to find any high level of respect towards blacks from the 1860s to the 1950s. Of course, we should also clarify what the term "respect" means in this case. Many whites "respected" blacks...as long as they stayed in their "place." Those black individuals who pushed the line of the established racial hierarchy were often not respected.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

Many Southerners today describe a similar experience. However, many of these same Southerners will explain that there were certain unspoken or assumed rules between whites and blacks that in no uncertain terms shaped their society.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

True, race relations did change in the South over time. However, that change was often slow, and the remnants of slaveholding society died hard in the South.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

While that may be true, the level of opposition truly did overshadow what success was being achieved in much of the South. We find the governor of Alabama, George Wallace, championing a segregationist message and virtually ruling the state throughout much of the 1960s. Literally blocking (or attempting to do so in the face of federal authority) the desegregation of the University of Alabama, Wallace was cheered by a large number of white Southerners -- perhaps a majority, as he was re-elected.

Some Southern historians have tried to explain why so many white Southerners who were not so opposed to desegregation did not fight harder against the white supremacist element in their society. For some communities, it was because they were the minority element. For others, they were either fearful of the vehement segregationists, or felt general pressure not to try to create further dissension in their communities.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

What perspective emerges? Even if we are to take a simplistic view of race relations and compare simple events or evidence of "race problems" in both northern states and southern states, we would, as I think you agree, find a high number of incidents in the South. You point to problems in the North and say that the fewer number of incidents corresponds to the fewer number of blacks. The simple conclusion may appear to be that white prejudice towards blacks in both northern and southern areas was roughly equal in proportion.

There are a few problems with this analysis. First, the conclusion still remains the same: race problems were a much more significant issue in the South. The perspective, then, seems fairly constant, as the North does not compare to the South in overall scope.

Second, this basic comparison disregards more subtle, yet absolutely vital, social and ideological differences. Because of the larger proportion of blacks in the South, racial issues were fundamentally more significant in Southern society. With a black community numbering 40%, or sometimes as much as 70%, of a region's population, relations between whites and blacks will be an extremely important and crafted matter -- especially by a white population trying to maintain a dominating position. Compare this to a community where the black population measures 10% or less.

Comparing southern race relations to northern race relations does not work well because these were very different areas and situations. The way in which race relations and white supremacy were worked into everyday life (which did not need to include actual conflict) differed greatly.

[Will Posey]

seems to have faded off. How thoughtful of it.