Civil War "memory"
Hugh Lawson
"For a long time, the North built its statues and then left the strident
exercise of memory to the losing side. As a result, right up to the
nineteen-sixties the war was still being taught, even in Northern public
schools as a tragic battle between two noble sides, each with its
unfortunate extremists."
New Yorker, Talk of the Town piece, by Adam Gopnik. May 9, 2011.
I wonder about this.
My impression is that the North never gave an inch on the righteousness
of the Union cause (conceptualized as destroying the Confederacy to save
the Union), the perfidy of the rebellion, the insanity of the the whole
idea of secession, as they saw it.
What they did back away from was the centrality of blacks and slavery in
the Civil War--again in my impression. But there is an obvious reason
for this; they also backed away from a strong interpretation of the
reconstruction amendments. Consequently, by the 1920s you saw
Republicans setting up a ceremony for the new Lincoln Memorial in D.C.,
with Jim-Crow seating for blacks, and with assertions that saving the
Union was the main goal, and that slavery was less significant.
So I doubt the North were ever soft on secession; what they were
soft on was civil rights. But they turned soft on that long before the
government had finished preparing the Official Record of the War of the
Rebellion.
HL
Wiregrass Willie
wrote:
If we cut through all the cant on both sides, we will see that the
Northern financial power ordered the invasion of the south for the
same reason the Southern financial power instigated the secession ---
PROFIT !
The blacks were simply small cogs in the overall scheme of things.
Had the "Union" and it's welfare been the uppermost thought in the
minds of the Union conquerers, they would have done with the blacks
the same thing they had done with the Indian thirty years earlier.
Rather than leaving them in semi-slavery for the next 100 years, they
could have moved them all to the new territories where the freemen
could have set up their own government and became independent and
civilized in one generation.
The Northern Corporate Oligarchy did not want that any more than the
former Southern Slave Oligarchy wanted it. And being the upper 2%
of the population (on both sides) have more in common with each other
than with the common people (what BP exec calls "the small people")
they arrived at what we know as "reconstruction".
The former slave masters got to keep their slaves -- on the condition
they refer to them as tenants (and not openly buy and sell them).
The corporate masters got 90% of the profits and all the Western land
-- to do with as they pleased.
Just one Southern man's thought :-)
Ray O'Hara
"Wiregrass Willie" <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hhv1u6ph6l5c40bvg...@4ax.com...
or lack thereof.
do you actually believe the bullshit you post?
Hugh Lawson
> If we cut through all the cant on both sides, we will see that the
> Northern financial power ordered the invasion of the south for the
> same reason the Southern financial power instigated the secession ---
> PROFIT !
Think about it a little, WW.
What did northerners have to gain from secession and the creation of the
CSA?
I can't see anything.
What did he have to lose?
1. The remant US would have to have a big army to keep the CSA
intimidated. Higher taxes.
2. The CSA might try to use the lower Mississippi as a choke point in
negotiations with the US over sharing the western territories. Greater
insecurity.
3. The CSA could forge closer trade links with Britain, cutting out ties
with northerners. Bad for business.
4. Many believed the slave-power was inherently expansionist; in fact
you used to say this yourself, WW. If the slave power had its own army
and foreign policy, then this might complicate relations in the western
hemisphere.
5. An independent CSA could be expected to be used as a makeweight
against the US in the international power struggle over supremacy in the
western hemisphere.
6. With a little effort you can easily think of other problems.
The average man didn't necessarily understand this. But the educated
men, the opinion leaders, could see it with very little explanation.
That's why the only question among the northerners was over whether the
confederates might give up independence if the US gave them good
re-enter-the-union terms. Lincoln was completely against this, as far
as I know from the get-go.
Since the secessionists had pulled out, that left the govt in the hans
of people who seriously wanted the CSA to disappear. All these concerns
were wrapped up in the slogan "save the Union".
Practically all the northerners agreed that the US should have supremacy
over the territory claimed by the CS.
HL
slotrot
The end to the dream of Manifest Destiny.
Hugh Lawson
Ray O'Hara
"Hugh Lawson" <hu.l...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87fwnvh...@gmail.com...
not to mention other than the first 14 states none of the rest had any claim
to independence and it is violation of the law.
it's the same reason we arrest bank robbers and murders, a government that
can't defend/maintain it itself is no government at all.
One might have the "right to revolution" but the other side has the equal
right to suppress the same revolution.
secession is unconstitutional and upholding the constitution was Lincoln's
sworn dute.
you, WW and all the rest of the South can never bring yourselves to admit
that.
Wiregrass Willie
wrote:
>Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>> If we cut through all the cant on both sides, we will see that the
>> Northern financial power ordered the invasion of the south for the
>> same reason the Southern financial power instigated the secession ---
>> PROFIT !
>
>Think about it a little, WW.
>
>What did northerners have to gain from secession and the creation of the
>CSA?
>
>I can't see anything.
>
>What did he have to lose?
>
>1. The remant US would have to have a big army to keep the CSA
>intimidated. Higher taxes.
>
>2. The CSA might try to use the lower Mississippi as a choke point in
>negotiations with the US over sharing the western territories. Greater
>insecurity.
>
>3. The CSA could forge closer trade links with Britain, cutting out ties
>with northerners. Bad for business.
Two and three were the BIGGIEs that motivated the Corporate Oligarchy
>4. Many believed the slave-power was inherently expansionist; in fact
>you used to say this yourself, WW. If the slave power had its own army
>and foreign policy, then this might complicate relations in the western
>hemisphere.
And I still believe that the main motive behind the Secession was the
hope of the wealthiest 2% to expand their slave empire.
>5. An independent CSA could be expected to be used as a makeweight
>against the US in the international power struggle over supremacy in the
>western hemisphere.
>
>6. With a little effort you can easily think of other problems.
>
>The average man didn't necessarily understand this. But the educated
>men, the opinion leaders, could see it with very little explanation.
>That's why the only question among the northerners was over whether the
>confederates might give up independence if the US gave them good
>re-enter-the-union terms. Lincoln was completely against this, as far
>as I know from the get-go.
>
>Since the secessionists had pulled out, that left the govt in the hans
>of people who seriously wanted the CSA to disappear. All these concerns
>were wrapped up in the slogan "save the Union".
>
>Practically all the northerners agreed that the US should have supremacy
>over the territory claimed by the CS.
>
>HL
Hugh, I don't disagree with anything you say. It's all true. I
may phrase it a little differently. Where you say the North -- I'd
say the Corporate Oligarchy. Where you say the CSA -- I'd say the
Slave Oligarchy.
I agree with you that the "average man" did not likely understand what
was going on. Neither North, nor South.
Had the commoners understood, do you think they would have been so
anxious to risk their life and health, their home and hearth -- by
picking up a gun and fighting to protect the profits of their rich
neighbors ? Would they have been so anxious to put their wiives
into widowhood and their children into orphanages ?
You don't have to answer that :-) It's a new thought to me, too.
And I'm still working out the details.
Wiregrass Willie
Not only that, I also believe the many great truths I post.
hla...@triad.rr.com
[ snip ]
As you know, I don't agree with your arguments.
HL
hla...@triad.rr.com
[ snip ]
> you, WW and all the rest of the South can never bring yourselves to admit
> that.
Piffle.
HL
Ray O'Hara
I seem to have missed those. can you direct me to one?
Ray O'Hara
Hugh Lawson
> <hla...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message news:8762orr...@triad.rr.com...
>> "Ray O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>
>>> you, WW and all the rest of the South can never bring yourselves to admit
>>> that.
>>
>> Piffle.
>>
>>
>
> no Hugh it's not piffle.
Yawn.
MITO MINISTER
There was precious little public, or even private, discussion of the
Civil War after 1865 in the North because the United States won the
war. No mass memories after all the Veterans were gone. No great soul-
searching over what the war meant. No lingering feelings of victory or
loss or anything like that. Southerners were the ones who kept the
memory, or "the flame", alive because they needed to rationalize their
CATASTROPHIC MISCALCULATION that ended in their total destruction.
So let go already!
MITO MINISTER
> "Hugh Lawson" <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's because they are unrepentent White Supremacists!
Hugh Lawson
[ snip ]
> There was precious little public, or even private, discussion of the
> Civil War after 1865 in the North because the United States won the
> war.
That statement is wrong in two ways. The first way is that there was
plenty of northern public and private discussion of the ACW after 1865.
To begin with, the victorious North had to decide what to do about the
defeated ex-rebels. But discussion of the war fed into other issues,
like the money question. And eventually the aftermath of the war led to
pensions for Union vets. There were vets' encampments, war memoirs, the
publication of Grant's memoirs. All the Republican presidents from Grant
to McKinley were Union vets. And of course there was the so-called
"bloody shirt" oratory, which tried to link the northern Democrats with
wartime disloyalty.
The other way the statement is wrong is its assumption that victors
don't think or write about their victories. A simple look at books and
movies about WWII is enough to demolish this notion.
> No mass memories after all the Veterans were gone.
But the Union vets lasted until when? There were huge numbers of them in
1913 at the 50th anniversary of the Gettysburg battle.
> No great soul- searching over what the war meant. No lingering
> feelings of victory or loss or anything like that.
But there was and there still is in the North. My experience with this
newsgroup persuaded me that a strong awareness of the northern victory
is to this very day part of the northerners' concept of themselves as
the standard-model True Americans. The notion that only southerners
think about the acw is a myth.
> Southerners were the ones who kept the
> memory, or "the flame", alive because they needed to rationalize their
> CATASTROPHIC MISCALCULATION that ended in their total destruction.
It's really quite simple. The ex-rebs didn't like the war story
coming out of the vastly more powerful northern echo-chamber. So, the
pro-rebel historians put together a story more to their own liking.
> So let go already!
Now that is a good idea. I urge everybody to pay less attention to the acw.
HL
John
I think what the original NYT quotation may be alluding to is then
notion that after a period of time the North and South seemed to reach
a consensus in how to jointly view Civil War. I have heard it
explained simplisticly that Northerners agreed that the Confederates
were extremely capable soldiers with most of the best generals and
Southerners agreed that secession was probably not such a good idea
after all in the face of Union industrial might. Supposedly this
construct allowed both sides to discuss the war without opening old
wounds as it were. Of course the disenfranchisement of the liberated
African Americans was quietly allowed by the victors as part of the
rapprochement.
John Dupre'
Hugh Lawson
> I think what the original NYT quotation may be alluding to is then
> notion that after a period of time the North and South seemed to reach
> a consensus in how to jointly view Civil War. I have heard it
> explained simplisticly that Northerners agreed that the Confederates
> were extremely capable soldiers with most of the best generals and
> Southerners agreed that secession was probably not such a good idea
> after all in the face of Union industrial might. Supposedly this
> construct allowed both sides to discuss the war without opening old
> wounds as it were. Of course the disenfranchisement of the liberated
> African Americans was quietly allowed by the victors as part of the
> rapprochement.
Yes, this is the characterization that should be questioned.
HL