Looking back on the whole bloody mess, I truly believe that it was completely pointless EXCEPT as a maneuver to obliterate southern independence.

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
The North figured that Southern Independence would cost them more than war - so they opted for war.

"In the North the effects of the war, we are told, were everywhere visible. In the great commercial metropolis of New York, business was almost entirely suspended, and many of the largest mercantile houses had been forced to close. Every department of trade was paralyzed, and the streets even told of the depression of business. 'For sale' and 'To let' met the eye at every step, or some other evidence of the fast failing fortune of the North..." -Daily True Delta (New Orleans, LA), April 11, 1862
The "north" wasn't the ones who started shooting. It was the secessionists that chose war.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Yes, that's true. I don't know the words of the period to describe his attitude towards blacks. He was certainly opposed to any civil rights being extended to black Americans, and didn't have a problem with violence as a political tool.
I don't either but, he did have the mainstream, or prevailing attitude (as most of the US white population) in 1860.

Abolitionists were the radicals of the day. Even they weren't as radical as the subset of them, who lobbied for overall equality, & civil rights. There were multiple states never in the CSA, who forbid black folks from even living in their state, & others that strongly discouraged it. This was not a Confederate issue.

To call Wade Hampton III, a "flaming white supremacist", is kind of silly (at least in my opinion). Especially when taking in to account, the views held by the majority of the white population at the time. To judge him by today's standards, is by definition, presentism. He most likely didn't consider himself unique, or exceptional for his racial attitude.
 

jvarnell

Private
Joined
Mar 24, 2020
Location
NC
You're on it....yes there are many of us who agree though keep it a secret as we're not allowed to think for ourselves.....:smile:
 

Irishtom29

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Location
Kent, Washington
You're on it....yes there are many of us who agree though keep it a secret as we're not allowed to think for ourselves.....:smile:

You're allowed to think whatever you want. But people aren't obliged to agree with or approve of your thinking. And expressing an opinion that no longer meets with common approval can have consequences, consequences one must be willing to accept. That's called taking responsibility for your actions.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
You're allowed to think whatever you want. But people aren't obliged to agree with or approve of your thinking. And expressing an opinion that no longer meets with common approval can have consequences, consequences one must be willing to accept. That's called taking responsibility for your actions.
Something not very common anymore.

"no longer meets with common approval" doesn't mean wrong, or untruthful. Many folks want to penalize speech they don't like, regardless of whether or not it is the truth. I think the founders got it right, when they protected speech by making it the 1st Amendment in the Constitution. I realize everybody doesn't feel that way...
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
I don't either but, he did have the mainstream, or prevailing attitude (as most of the US white population) in 1860.

Abolitionists were the radicals of the day. Even they weren't as radical as the subset of them, who lobbied for overall equality, & civil rights. There were multiple states never in the CSA, who forbid black folks from even living in their state, & others that strongly discouraged it. This was not a Confederate issue.

To call Wade Hampton III, a "flaming white supremacist", is kind of silly (at least in my opinion). Especially when taking in to account, the views held by the majority of the white population at the time. To judge him by today's standards, is by definition, presentism. He most likely didn't consider himself unique, or exceptional for his racial attitude.
I disagree. Even by the racism of the period, murdering black Americans to keep them from voting was not a "mainstream" attitude.

Rather than flaming white supremacist, maybe racist terrorist would work better.
 

Philip Leigh

formerly Harvey Johnson
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Something not very common anymore.

"no longer meets with common approval" doesn't mean wrong, or untruthful. Many folks want to penalize speech they don't like, regardless of whether or not it is the truth. I think the founders got it right, when they protected speech by making it the 1st Amendment in the Constitution. I realize everybody doesn't feel that way...
Agreed. The new mantra of so-called accountability is merely a rationalization to "justify" canceling or mob harassment of those with minority opinions.

The presently dominant interpretations fo the Civil War and Reconstruction were once in a minority. But few used "accountability" as a justification for censoring them.
 

Irishtom29

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Location
Kent, Washington
Agreed. The new mantra of so-called accountability is merely a rationalization to "justify" canceling or mob harassment of those with minority opinions.

Cancelling people is the free market and free people at work. If I don't approve of a person's actions I'm within my rights in refusing to have anything to do with them. And I'm within my rights in encouraging others to have nothing to do with them.

Meanwhile those who approve of the people that I'm cancelling are free to associate with them: no one is stopping you.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Agreed. The new mantra of so-called accountability is merely a rationalization to "justify" canceling or mob harassment of those with minority opinions.

The presently dominant interpretations fo the Civil War and Reconstruction were once in a minority. But few used "accountability" as a justification for censoring them.
That's because the formerly dominant interpretation was a romanticized myth.
 

Irishtom29

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Location
Kent, Washington
Many folks want to penalize speech they don't like, regardless of whether or not it is the truth. I think the founders got it right, when they protected speech by making it the 1st Amendment in the Constitution. I realize everybody doesn't feel that way...

Being an old school New Deal "put it on the check" trade unionist liberal I agree that people should be free to say what they like without government interference. As far as I know the Federal government isn't stopping people from speaking their minds. Local governments are often tyrannical though, which is why the Feds are sometimes forced to get involved in local affairs.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Being an old school New Deal "put it on the check" trade unionist liberal I agree that people should be free to say what they like without government interference. As far as I know the Federal government isn't stopping people from speaking their minds. Local governments are often tyrannical though, which is why the Feds are sometimes forced to get involved in local affairs.
I disagree, but can't really get in to that in this thread.
 

Similar threads

Top