American Civil War: Current Day Attitudes in the South

[raginl3ull]

Sup NT, I'm taking a History class right now and we are going over the Civil War. I went onto youtube and found some highlights of the war and readsome intriguing commnents. I noticed that some folks were talking about "The south will rise again," or others showing current resentment torwardsYankees. Does anyone know what the general mentatlity is in the South nowadays in regards to this? Just want to get an idea because I found it veryinteresting that people would still hold resentment after all this time.

 

[raburns04]

in general . . . nobody cares. some people talk that stuff for fun, the rest who say stuff like that are isolated weirdos. this is my experience after spendingquite a bit of time in the south.

 

[jaebeats]

Some older white folks have that mentality round my way....they won't speak on it in public though.

But I remember sometimes in school after thanksgiving, the teachers/professors would be talking amongst themselves and would mention a family member jokingabout yankees this and conferederates that...some would even tell the class how some of their family believed in that.

You see the flag sometimes, but it's more a of a cultural symbol now than political..."redneck"

 

[impresssion]

I'm learning it right now too. I've heard the older generationin the deep south still have that feeling of hatred. Don't know if its really true or not though.

 

[kinglouisxiv]

There's a reason why many still call it the "War on Northern Aggression." Check out William Tecumseh Sherman's famously brutal March to theSea campaign from the sack of Atlanta, Georgia to Savannah on the coast. His policy of all out destruction has left resentment in the Carolinas and Georgiathat persists to this day.

 

[raginl3ull]

KingLouisXIV wrote:

---

There's a reason why many still call it the "War on Northern Aggression." Check out William Tecumseh Sherman's famously brutal March to the Sea campaign from the sack of Atlanta, Georgia to Savannah on the coast. His policy of all out destruction has left resentment in the Carolinas and Georgia that persists to this day.
Yeah I read about Sherman's march to the sea and the victory of Atlanta I believe the march was the whole propaganda aspect of the war, whilethe south having taken part in destruction as well (not as brutal as Sherman though). Still very amazed to see the howthe resentment continues even after 150 years and over two/three generations later.

 

[liban906]

sherman's march was nowhere as brutal as the treatment of slaves by southern whites

 

[rexanglorum]

A the end of the day the American Civil War was a war for white supremacy. Remember that while southern elites championed "State's rights," thatwas a euphemism for slavery.

It is true that the 1820 nullification crisis, which was about tariffs, was started in the South, it was resolved peacefully as was every other issue thatinvolved State versus Federal power.

You also have to consider that the southern elites applauded the Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave Act, both of which expanded Federal power in a waythat expanded the scope of slavery.

The war was started by slave owning elites to preserve slavery. Talk about State's rights, Lincoln's personal prejudices and the fact that some commonsouthern soldiers felt that they were fighting to defend their homeland has more often than not been used to obscure the fact that the American South fought awar to preserve slavery and therefore White Supremacy.

 

[kobe fan]

smart guy up there

 

[wwsyndicate]

Originally Posted by Raginl3ull


Sup NT, I'm taking a History class right now and we are going over the Civil War. I went onto youtube and found some highlights of the war and read some intriguing commnents. I noticed that some folks were talking about "The south will rise again," or others showing current resentment torwards Yankees. Does anyone know what the general mentatlity is in the South nowadays in regards to this? Just want to get an idea because I found it very interesting that people would still hold resentment after all this time.

Translation....

I've got a paper due Mon. and I have not started it yet because I'm too busy browsing NT.

 

[raginl3ull]

LOL...naw but I do have a final on Tuesday

 

[raginl3ull]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

A the end of the day the American Civil War was a war for white supremacy. Remember that while southern elites championed "State's rights," that was a euphemism for slavery.

It is true that the 1820 nullification crisis, which was about tariffs, was started in the South, it was resolved peacefully as was every other issue that involved State versus Federal power.

You also have to consider that the southern elites applauded the Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave Act, both of which expanded Federal power in a way that expanded the scope of slavery.

The war was started by slave owning elites to preserve slavery. Talk about State's rights, Lincoln's personal prejudices and the fact that some common southern soldiers felt that they were fighting to defend their homeland has more often than not been used to obscure the fact that the American South fought a war to preserve slavery and therefore White Supremacy.

Hence the famous "CornerStone" speech delivered by Alexander Stephens in March 1861


On the brink of the Civil War, on March21, 1861, Stephens gave hisfamous Cornerstone Speechin Savannah, Georgia. In it he reaffirmed that "African Slavery … was the immediate cause of the late rupture and presentrevolution." He went on to assert that the then-prevailing "assumption of the equality of races" was "fundamentally wrong." "Ournew [Confederate] government is founded … upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery-subordination to the superior race-ishis natural and normal condition," and, furthermore, "With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of thelaw. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which heoccupies in our system."


But what really confuses me is, did Lincoln really want to abolish slavery out of the goodness of his heart? Or did he do it as a war strategy to weaken theSouth and/or to deter England from allying with them by proposing the Emancipation Proclamation?

 

[socaking]

But what really confuses me is, did Lincoln really want to abolish slavery out of the goodness of his heart? Or did he do it as a war strategy to weaken the South and/or to deter England from allying with them by proposing the Emancipation Proclamation?
He is qouted as saying that if he could preserve the union without freeing slaves, he would do it. He felt that blacks were inferior. theproclamtion didnt immideiatley free all slaves.

 

[rexanglorum]

In Lincoln's defense, it is possible that he became less of a white supremist, or at least his indifference towards slavery shifted to a genuine oppositionto slavery. At that time in history, the attitudes of many white did change, especially whites from the North. Before the civil war, almost all white peoplebelieved that blacks were inferior, even pro emancipation whites. However, during the war many whites changed their minds and developed more respects forblacks and a stronger revulsion for slavery. Perhaps Lincoln's mind did indeed change, maybe it didn't. A lot white people's minds were changed,especially in light of the heroism of black Union soldiers.

When it comes to the Emancipation proclaimation only freeing slaves in territory not occupied by the North, you have to consider the constraints he facedduring a war. If he had declared emancipation in all Union States and occupied territory, it would have likely been challenged before the Supreme Court, acourt which was made up of the same pro slavery judges who handed down the Dred Scott decision nine years earlier. Declaring slavery abolished in enemyterritory put it out of the reach of justice Tawney and his fellow bigots at the US Supreme Court. Excluding Union Border States was a pragmatic legal trickthat Lincoln, a lawyer by trade, had though out before hand.

Also you have to consider the importance of not unilaterally declaring emancipation in Border States. Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia and Delaware were allof strategic value and if those states had been pushed to the Confederate side, it would have been disastrous. Lincoln understood that slavery was dying outin the Border States and he also worked with local leaders in those States to get them to abolish slavery on their own.

 

[raginl3ull]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

In Lincoln's defense, it is possible that he became less of a white supremist, or at least his indifference towards slavery shifted to a genuine opposition to slavery. At that time in history, the attitudes of many white did change, especially whites from the North. Before the civil war, almost all white people believed that blacks were inferior, even pro emancipation whites. However, during the war many whites changed their minds and developed more respects for blacks and a stronger revulsion for slavery. Perhaps Lincoln's mind did indeed change, maybe it didn't. A lot white people's minds were changed, especially in light of the heroism of black Union soldiers.

When it comes to the Emancipation proclaimation only freeing slaves in territory not occupied by the North, you have to consider the constraints he faced during a war. If he had declared emancipation in all Union States and occupied territory, it would have likely been challenged before the Supreme Court, a court which was made up of the same pro slavery judges who handed down the Dred Scott decision nine years earlier. Declaring slavery abolished in enemy territory put it out of the reach of justice Tawney and his fellow bigots at the US Supreme Court. Excluding Union Border States was a pragmatic legal trick that Lincoln, a lawyer by trade, had though out before hand.

Also you have to consider the importance of not unilaterally declaring emancipation in Border States. Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia and Delaware were all of strategic value and if those states had been pushed to the Confederate side, it would have been disastrous. Lincoln understood that slavery was dying out in the Border States and he also worked with local leaders in those States to get them to abolish slavery on their own.

Yeah we learned about the border states and how the EP only applied to southern states that were nonunion binding, and how of course it was done strategicallyso that they would not withdraw either. My instructor stated that Lincoln never announced publicly that he was an abolitionist because he knew it would beunfavorable for during the elections.

But then again, the confusion sets in because of what pocaking stated which I've heard before, and the cornerstone for going to war was clearly stated byLincoln as not to abolish slavery but rather to keep the union together. Didn't Lincoln try to say that seceding from the Union was unconstitutional, thusgiving even more reason to go to war with the south?

So I sorta feel like it was 50/50. I think 50 percent compassion and the other war strategy. Hows that?

 

[zwchris]

This article is kind of off subject but for the NT history buffs how much validity does this information have?

Here's the link: http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/slavetra.html



"In 1807 Britain outlawed slavery. In 1820 the king of the African kingdom of Ashanti inquired why the Christians did not want to trade slaves with himanymore, since they worshipped the same god as the Muslims and the Muslims were continuing the trade like before.
The civil rights movement of the 1960's have left many people with the belief that the slave trade was exclusively a European/USA phenomenon andonly evil white people were to blame for it. This is a simplicistic scenario that hardly reflects the facts.
Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been published recently onthe origins of modern slavery (namely, Hugh Thomas' The Slave Trade and Robin Blackburn's The Making Of New World Slavery) that shednew light on centuries of slave trading.
What these records show is that the modern slave trade flourished in the early middle ages, as early as 869, especially between Muslim traders and westernAfrican kingdoms. For moralists, the most important aspect of that trade should be that Muslims were selling goods to the African kingdoms and the Africankingdoms were paying with their own people. In most instances, no violence was necessary to obtain those slaves. Contrary to legends and novels and Hollywoodmovies, the white traders did not need to savagely kill entire tribes in order to exact their tribute in slaves. All they needed to do is bring goods thatappealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings would gladly sell their own kins.
This explains why slavery became "black". Ancient slavery, e.g. under the Roman empire, would not discriminate: slaves were both white and black (sowere Emperors and Popes). In the middle ages, all European countries outlawed slavery (of course, they retained countless "civilized" ways to enslavetheir citizens, but that's another story), whereas the African kingdoms happily continued in their trade. Therefore, only colored people could be slaves,and that is how the stereotype for African-American slavery was born. It was not based on an ancestral hatred of blacks by whites, but simply on the fact thatblacks were the only ones selling slaves, and they were selling their own kins. (To be precise, Christians were also selling Muslim slaves captured in war, andMuslims were selling Christian slaves captured in war, but neither the Christians of Europe nor the Muslims of Africa and the Middle East were selling theirown kins).
Then the Muslim trade of African slaves came to a stop when Arab domination was reduced by the Crusades. (Note: Arabs continued to capture and sell slaves, butonly in the Mediterranean. In fact, Robert Davis estimates that 1.25 million European Christians were enslaved by the "barbary states" of northernAfrica. The USA bombed Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli in 1801 precisely to stop that Arab slave trade of Christians. The rate of mortality of thoseChristian slaves in the Islamic world was roughly the same as the mortality rate in the Atlantic slave trade of the same period.)
Christians took over in black Africa, though. The first ones were the Portuguese, who, applying an idea that originally developed in Italian seatrading cities,and often using Italian venture capital, started exploiting sub-Saharan slaves in the 1440s to support the economy of the sugar plantations (mainly for theirown African colonies of Sao Tome and Madeira).
The Dutch were the first, apparently, to import black slaves into North America, but black slaves had already been employed all over the world, including Southand Central America. We tend to focus on what happened in North America because the United States would eventually fight a war over slavery (and it's inthe U.S. that large sectors of the population would start condemning slavery, contrary to the indifference that Muslims and most Europeans showed for it).
Even after Europeans began transporting black slaves to America, most trade was just that: "trade". In most instances, the Europeans did not need touse any force to get those slaves. The slaves were "sold" more or less legally by their (black) owners. Scholars estimate that about 12,000,000Africans were sold by Africans to Europeans (most of them before 1776, when the USA wasn't yet born) and 17,000,000 were sold to Arabs. The legends ofEuropean mercenaries capturing free people in the jungle are mostly just that: legends. A few mercenaries certainly stormed peaceful tribes and committedterrible crimes, but that was not the rule. There was no need to risk their lives, so most of them didn't: they simply purchased people.
As an African-American scholar (Nathan Huggins) has written, the "identity" of black Africans is largely a white invention: sub-Saharan Africansnever felt like they were one people, they felt (and still feel) that they belonged to different tribes. The distinctions of tribe were far stronger than thedistinctions of race.
Everything else is true: millions of slaves died on ships and of diseases, millions of blacks worked for free to allow the Western economies to prosper, andthe economic interests in slavery became so strong that the southern states of the United States opposed repealing it. But those millions of slaves were justone of the many instances of mass exploitation: the industrial revolution was exported to the USA by enterpreuners exploiting millions of poor immigrants fromEurope. The fate of those immigrants was not much better than the fate of the slaves in the South. As a matter of fact, many slaves enjoyed far better livingconditions in the southern plantations than European immigrants in the industrial cities (which were sometimes comparable to concentration camps). It is not acoincidence that slavery was abolished at a time when millions of European and Chinese immigrants provided the same kind of cheap labor.
It is also fair to say that, while everybody tolerated it, very few whites practiced slavery: in 1860 there were 385,000 USA citizens who owned slaves, orabout 1.4% of the white population (there were 27 million whites in the USA). That percentage was zero in the states that did not allow slavery (only 8 millionof the 27 million whites lived in states that allowed slavery). Incidentally, in 1830 about 25% of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 ormore slaves: that is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the number of white slave owners. Thus slave owners were a tiny minority (1.4%) and it wasnot only whites: it was just about anybody who could, including blacks themselves.
Moral opposition to slavery was widespread even before Lincoln, and throughout Europe. On the other hand, opposition to slavery was never particularly strongin Africa itself, where slavery is slowly being eradicated only in our time. One can suspect that slavery would have remained common in most African kingdomsuntil this day: what crushed slavery in Africa was that all those African kingdoms became colonies of western European countries that (for one reason oranother) eventually decided to outlaw slavery. When, in the 1960s, those African colonies regained their independence, numerous cases of slavery resurfaced.And countless African dictators behaved in a way that makes a slave owner look like a saint. Given the evidence that this kind of slavery was practiced by someAfricans before it was practiced by some Americans, that it was abolished by all whites and not by some Africans, and that some Africans resumed it the momentthey could, why would one keep blaming the USA but never blame, say, Ghana or the Congo?
The more we study it, the less blame we have to put on the USA for the slave trade with black Africa: it was pioneered by the Arabs, its economic mechanism wasinvented by the Italians and the Portuguese, it was mostly run by western Europeans, and it was conducted with the full cooperation of many African kings. TheUSA fostered free criticism of the phenomenon: no such criticism was allowed in the Muslim and Christian nations that started trading goods for slaves, and nosuch criticism was allowed in the African nations that started selling their own people (and, even today, no such criticism is allowed within the Arab world).
Today it is politically correct to blame some European empires and the USA for slavery (forgetting that it was practiced by everybody since prehistoric times).But I rarely read the other side of the story: that the nations who were the first to develop a repulsion for slavery and eventually abolish slavery wereprecisely those countries (especially Britain and the USA). As Dinesh D'Souza wrote, "What is uniquely Western is not slavery but the movement toabolish slavery".

(To be completely fair, what was also unique about the western slave trade is the scale (the millions shipped to another continent in a relativelyshort period of time), and, of course, that it eventually became a racist affair, discriminating blacks, whereas previous slave trades had not discriminatedbased on the color of the skin. What is unique about the USA, in particular, is the treatment that blacks received AFTER emancipation, which is, after all, thereal source of the whole controversy, because, otherwise, just about everybody on this planet could claim to be the descendant of an ancient slave).
(That does not mean that western slave traders were justified in what they did, but placing all the blame on them is a way to absolve all the others).
To this day, too many Africans, Arabs and Europeans believe that the African slave trade was an USA aberration, not their own invention.

By the time the slave trade was abolished in the West, there were many more slaves in Africa (black slaves of black owners) than in theAmericas."

 

[raginl3ull]

Originally Posted by zwchris


Today it is politically correct to blame some European empires and the USA for slavery (forgetting that it was practiced by everybody since prehistoric times). But I rarely read the other side of the story: that the nations who were the first to develop a repulsion for slavery and eventually abolish slavery were precisely those countries (especially Britain and the USA). As Dinesh D'Souza wrote, "What is uniquely Western is not slavery but the movement to abolish slavery".
(To be completely fair, what was also unique about the western slave trade is the scale (the millions shipped to another continent in a relatively short period of time), and, of course, that it eventually became a racist affair, discriminating blacks, whereas previous slave trades had not discriminated based on the color of the skin. What is unique about the USA, in particular, is the treatment that blacks received AFTER emancipation, which is, after all, the real source of the whole controversy, because, otherwise, just about everybody on this planet could claim to be the descendant of an ancient slave).
(That does not mean that western slave traders were justified in what they did, but placing all the blame on them is a way to absolve all the others).
To this day, too many Africans, Arabs and Europeans believe that the African slave trade was an USA aberration, not their own invention.

By the time the slave trade was abolished in the West, there were many more slaves in Africa (black slaves of black owners) than in the Americas."

zwchris thanks for posting that. Iactually took the time to read the whole thing. We also learned about the origins of the slave trade, the cramming of black slaves into tiny disease infestedships and the nature of the trades (veggies from the new world, wine from europe and slaves from Africa). Yet, if this article stands valid...then it justcomes to show Western white mentality towards blacks and how it seperated our way of thinking from the east during that period.

 

[nyelectric]

Originally Posted by KingLouisXIV

"War on Northern Aggression."

That's all I came in here to say.

 

[frankie calentino]

Sherman went soft on the south.

 

[langfor5]

Anyone who is interested in this subject I strongly recommend the book, "Confederates in the Attic" by Tony Horwitz. It is a excellent book about thefeelings of Southern blacks and whites and their respective opinions about the South, the Confederacy, and the Civil War.

 

[raginl3ull]

Originally Posted by langfor5

Anyone who is interested in this subject I strongly recommend the book, "Confederates in the Attic" by Tony Horwitz. It is a excellent book about the feelings of Southern blacks and whites and their respective opinions about the South, the Confederacy, and the Civil War.

Thanks for the recommendation.

 

[city glamour]

I spent some time in the South a couple months ago (in Southwest Florida) & they were very prejudice towards me because of my New York accent. I met aredneck that blacked out on me saying that it's "yankees" like me that freed the slaves and now the black men are taking all their women. Down inSouth Florida I saw a restaurant with a sign that STILL says "No Colors Allowed." I was shocked but then again when you're deep in the south, yousee things like this regularly. I was tempted to walk into the restaurant anyway to see if they would really say something to me but I didn't feel likedying.

 

[raginl3ull]

Originally Posted by city gLamour

I spent some time in the South a couple months ago (in Southwest Florida) & they were very prejudice towards me because of my New York accent. I met a redneck that blacked out on me saying that it's "yankees" like me that freed the slaves and now the black men are taking all their women. Down in South Florida I saw a restaurant with a sign that STILL says "No Colors Allowed." I was shocked but then again when you're deep in the south, you see things like this regularly. I was tempted to walk into the restaurant anyway to see if they would really say something to me but I didn't feel like dying.

Dude are you fricken serious? Wow, I heard stories about the DEEP SOUTH but thought it was B.S.

 

[vrp32tl]

Originally Posted by WWSyndicate

Originally Posted by Raginl3ull


Sup NT, I'm taking a History class right now and we are going over the Civil War. I went onto youtube and found some highlights of the war and read some intriguing commnents. I noticed that some folks were talking about "The south will rise again," or others showing current resentment torwards Yankees. Does anyone know what the general mentatlity is in the South nowadays in regards to this? Just want to get an idea because I found it very interesting that people would still hold resentment after all this time.

Translation....

I've got a paper due Mon. and I have not started it yet because I'm too busy browsing NT.

Exactly what I was thinking! Quit frontin Blacky you know you asking folks to do your HW. LOLZ! Just F'n (no mo) wit you brah! How you been doggy?