What terms are proper was Calling True Southern Sympathizers, Confederates, and Rebs!

E_just_E

Captain
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Location
Center Valley, PA
Don't argue silly things that are indefensible.
....
2. Most important Confederate leaders were **** and racist

How about these 2 facts:

The word "racist" first appears in the English language in 1936.
The concept "****" first appears in the English language around 1945.

So, they were as much that, as they were Nazis, Communists, Zionists, or Moonies, or Red Sox' fans.

Using 20th Century concepts to describe actions in the 19th Century is anachronistic and bad historical scholarship. No matter that it happens all the time regarding the ACW and historical inaccuracies running amok, if their fairy tale is politically favorable.

If something is not a crime when committed, there are no criminals.
 
How about these 2 facts:

The word "racist" first appears in the English language in 1936.
The concept "****" first appears in the English language around 1945.

So, they were as much that, as they were Nazis, Communists, Zionists, or Moonies, or Red Sox' fans.

Using 20th Century concepts to describe actions in the 19th Century is anachronistic and bad historical scholarship. No matter that it happens all the time regarding the ACW and historical inaccuracies running amok, if their fairy tale is politically favorable.

If something is not a crime when committed, there are no criminals.
Problem is how to communicate a concept. Yes If veryone is a racist then it is not remarkable, but what term is to be used?
 
This would force us to lean all the words use during the Civil War. Beside this, I see nothing wrong with using modern terms to describe contemporary actions.

Contemporary to now, sure. Contemporary to then, not that sure. It is like wondering where Lee's tanks were at Gettysburg...
 
Singling out the Confederacy and the South for the crimes of slavery and racism is just plain bigotry.

That's just hogwash - a self-created chimaera. Nobody here (AFAIK) "singles out" the Confederacy and the South (clever division!) for those crimes. We know which section maintained slavery; we know which section fought to keep slavery; we know which section started a war to keep slavery; we know which section attacked the United States.

But then perhaps I'm being unfair in speaking of 'section' - except that's how the leaders of that section defined themselves. And they defined themselves over and over and over again as breaking the Union in order to perpetuate chattel slavery.

I've never heard of this "Treasury of Virtue" - despite spending 50 years studying the War of the Rebellion. I never read that the north was virtuous and the south all mean and nasty. I never read that Lincoln loved blacks and went to war on their behalf. The only places I read that are in the posts of so-called "rebs" who set those things up as straw-man arguments.

They deserve nothing but contempt for perpetuating such lies.
 
Something contemporary. And if there is not a contemporary term, no term should be used, because any term used would be inaccurate and plainly wrong.
It is your duty to come up with terms or explain why we should be silent. for no good reason. Language is a tool, words are tools. Do we use 19th terms to describe diseases?
 
How about these 2 facts:

The word "racist" first appears in the English language in 1936.
The concept "****" first appears in the English language around 1945.

So, they were as much that, as they were Nazis, Communists, Zionists, or Moonies, or Red Sox' fans.

Using 20th Century concepts to describe actions in the 19th Century is anachronistic and bad historical scholarship. No matter that it happens all the time regarding the ACW and historical inaccuracies running amok, if their fairy tale is politically favorable.

If something is not a crime when committed, there are no criminals.

Racism and **** aren't crimes. (Deleted by kholland for modern politics)

Just because there wasn't a name for it yet doesn't mean it didn't exist. What we define as racism and **** was rampant throughout the US in the 19th Century. Just because those words hadn't yet entered the lexicon doesn't mean the behavior didn't exist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just because there wasn't a name for it yet doesn't mean it didn't exist. What we define as racism and **** was rampant throughout the US in the 19th Century. Just because those words hadn't yet entered the lexicon doesn't mean the behavior didn't exist.

According to whom? I'd love it, if you show me a 19th Century source that says that.

Back then, it was: Abolitionists, Slaveowners, Good Slaveowners, Bad Slaveowners. And a whole bunch of people who could not afford slaves and did not care.

And (what we call today cavities,) bad breath, lost teeth etc were rampant throughout the US in the 19th Century as well. That was the norm. And people did not wash their hands after they went to the bathroom... Sucks.
 
According to whom? I'd love it, if you show me a 19th Century source that says that.

I suppose you haven't been paying attention to what was written about African-Americans in the 19th Century.

For example, let's look at what Texas said in its Declaration of Causes:

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

"That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."

That is without a doubt what we would describe today as racism and ****. The behavior exists, even if the names didn't.

Let's look at Alexander Stephens:

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition."

He even says the white race is superior. That's what we would describe today as racism and ****. The behavior exists, even if the names didn't.


Back then, it was: Abolitionists, Slaveowners, Good Slaveowners, Bad Slaveowners. And a whole bunch of people who could not afford slaves and did not care.

And a whole bunch of people who couldn't afford slaves yet and cared a great deal. And a whole bunch of people who would never be able to afford slaves and didn't want blacks to be equal to whites and cared a great deal.
 
I suppose you haven't been paying attention to what was written about African-Americans in the 19th Century.

For example, let's look at what Texas said in its Declaration of Causes:

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

"That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."

That is without a doubt what we would describe today as racism and ****. The behavior exists, even if the names didn't.

Let's look at Alexander Stephens:

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition."

He even says the white race is superior. That's what we would describe today as racism and ****. The behavior exists, even if the names didn't.




And a whole bunch of people who couldn't afford slaves yet and cared a great deal. And a whole bunch of people who would never be able to afford slaves and didn't want blacks to be equal to whites and cared a great deal.


Blah, blah, blah, blah

What I was asking was for a passage written in the 19th Century that uses the words: "racist" and "****". Bonus points if you find one that used the words "African American", since you mentioned that one...

It is a semantics and historical context exercise...
 
According to whom? I'd love it, if you show me a 19th Century source that says that.

Back then, it was: Abolitionists, Slaveowners, Good Slaveowners, Bad Slaveowners. And a whole bunch of people who could not afford slaves and did not care.

And (what we call today cavities,) bad breath, lost teeth etc were rampant throughout the US in the 19th Century as well. That was the norm. And people did not wash their hands after they went to the bathroom... Sucks.
I'm not sure what you're wanting. There are many examples of people talking about the superiority of the white race, the inferiority of the black race, the desire to avoid equality of the races, that kind of phrasing, which we would classify as racist or ****.

I get the point that the words sound anachronistic and the meaning could be expressed in a more period way if writing about a period person. Joe Blow expressed his fear that blacks would become the political and social equals of whites is more precise and more in tune with how Joe Blow would express it, rather than simply saying Joe Blow was a racist or believed in ****. But I think most people would agree that all those in the 19th century who felt blacks were inferior to whites intellectually, socially, morally, etc. would fit the definition of what we'd call racist.

Edited to add: Just saw you clarified, as we were posting at the same time.
 
Blah, blah, blah, blah

What I was asking was for a passage written in the 19th Century that uses the words: "racist" and "****". Bonus points if you find one that used the words "African American", since you mentioned that one...

It is a semantics and historical context exercise...

You should go back and read my last two posts. I didn't say they used the terms.
 
I'm not sure what you're wanting. There are many examples of people talking about the superiority of the white race, the inferiority of the black race, the desire to avoid equality of the races, that kind of phrasing, which we would classify as racist or ****.

I get the point that the words sound anachronistic and the meaning could be expressed in a more period way if writing about a period person. Joe Blow expressed his fear that blacks would become the political and social equals of whites is more precise and more in tune with how Joe Blow would express it, rather than simply saying Joe Blow was a racist or believed in ****. But I think most people would agree that all those in the 19th century who felt blacks were inferior to whites intellectually, socially, morally, etc. would fit the definition of what we'd call racist.

Edited to add: Just saw you clarified, as we were posting at the same time.

I agree. Based on today's criteria, we can call pretty much everyone in the 19th century "racist". My point is that this is modern thought. Darwin wrote the Origin of Species in 1859. Chew on that for a sec. Lots of people thought that blacks, whites, indians, etc were different species back then. Like Dogs and Wolves. Now we know better and going back it is just ridiculous. But they did not know better. And we cannot pass moral judgement on them based on what they did not know and we do...

It is like the the "what happens to pagans who died BC?" discussion. Are they all burning in Hell?
 
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

  1. An anachronism (from the Greek ἀνά ana, "against" and χρόνος khronos, "time") is a chronological inconsistency in some arrangement, especially a juxtaposition of person(s), events, objects, or customs from different periods of time.
 
It is your duty to come up with terms or explain why we should be silent. for no good reason. Language is a tool, words are tools. Do we use 19th terms to describe diseases?

Diseases are conditions. Facts. Diagnoses

Epithets, like "racists" indicate judgement. And judgement assumes that they deviated the contextual norm...
 
  1. An anachronism (from the Greek ἀνά ana, "against" and χρόνος khronos, "time") is a chronological inconsistency in some arrangement, especially a juxtaposition of person(s), events, objects, or customs from different periods of time.

And yet, nothing in my post was an anachronism, since I didn't say they used the terms and I specifically identified the behavior as "what we would call today racism and ****."
 
And yet, nothing in my post was an anachronism, since I didn't say they used the terms and I specifically identified the behavior as "what we would call today racism and ****."

The point is that what we would call today, they did not call. And if they did not call, it was not unusual or abnormal or "horrible", then. And they should be judged with the norms of the era.

If you want to judge them with modern standards, both Grant and Lee should be courtmarshaled and found guilty for endangering and losing lives of their troops.

(and, btw, calling something what we would call today, and they did not call back then is the definition of anachronism, pretty much...)
 
Back
Top