As the nation begins to commemorate the anniversaries of the war’s various battles — from Fort Sumter to Appomattox — let’s first dispense with some of the more prevalent myths about why it all began.
1. The South seceded over states’ rights.
Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.
On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina’s secession convention adopted a “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” It noted “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and protested that Northern states had failed to “fulfill their constitutional obligations” by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage. Slavery, not states’ rights, birthed the Civil War.
South Carolina was further upset that New York no longer allowed “slavery transit.” In the past, if Charleston gentry wanted to spend August in the Hamptons, they could bring their cook along. No longer — and South Carolina’s delegates were outraged. In addition, they objected that New England states let black men vote and tolerated abolitionist societies. According to South Carolina, states should not have the right to let their citizens assemble and speak freely when what they said threatened slavery.
The politics behind the Confederate flag controversy in South Carolina
Other seceding states echoed South Carolina. “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world,” proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. “Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”
The South’s opposition to states’ rights is not surprising. Until the Civil War, Southern presidents and lawmakers had dominated the federal government. The people in power in Washington always oppose states’ rights. Doing so preserves their own.
2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.
During the nadir of post-civil-war race relations — the terrible years after 1890 when town after town across the North became all-white “sundown towns” and state after state across the South prevented African Americans from voting — “anything but slavery” explanations of the Civil War gained traction. To this day Confederate sympathizers successfully float this false claim, along with their preferred name for the conflict: the War Between the States. At the infamous Secession Ball in South Carolina, hosted in December by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, “the main reasons for secession were portrayed as high tariffs and Northern states using Southern tax money to build their own infrastructure,” The Washington Post reported.
These explanations are flatly wrong. High tariffs had prompted the Nullification Controversy in 1831-33, when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede in protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force. No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down. Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816.
3. Most white Southerners didn’t own slaves, so they wouldn’t secede for slavery.
Indeed, most white Southern families had no slaves. Less than half of white Mississippi households owned one or more slaves, for example, and that proportion was smaller still in whiter states such as Virginia and Tennessee. It is also true that, in areas with few slaves, most white Southerners did not support secession. West Virginia seceded from Virginia to stay with the Union, and Confederate troops had to occupy parts of eastern Tennessee and northern Alabama to hold them in line.
However, two ideological factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. First, Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.
Second and more important, belief in white supremacy provided a rationale for slavery. As the French political theorist Montesquieu observed wryly in 1748: “It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures [enslaved Africans] to be men; because allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christians.” Given this belief, most white Southerners — and many Northerners, too — could not envision life in black-majority states such as South Carolina and Mississippi unless blacks were in chains. Georgia Supreme Court Justice Henry Benning, trying to persuade the Virginia Legislature to leave the Union, predicted race war if slavery was not protected. “The consequence will be that our men will be all exterminated or expelled to wander as vagabonds over a hostile earth, and as for our women, their fate will be too horrible to contemplate even in fancy.” Thus, secession would maintain not only slavery but the prevailing ideology of white supremacy as well.
4. Abraham Lincoln went to war to end slavery.
Since the Civil War did end slavery, many Americans think abolition was the Union’s goal. But the North initially went to war to hold the nation together. Abolition came later.
On Aug. 22, 1862, President Lincoln wrote a letter to the New York Tribune that included the following passage: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”
However, Lincoln’s own anti-slavery sentiment was widely known at the time. In the same letter, he went on: “I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.” A month later, Lincoln combined official duty and private wish in his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.
White Northerners’ fear of freed slaves moving north then caused Republicans to lose the Midwest in the congressional elections of November 1862.
Gradually, as Union soldiers found help from black civilians in the South and black recruits impressed white units with their bravery, many soldiers — and those they wrote home to — became abolitionists. By 1864, when Maryland voted to end slavery, soldiers’ and sailors’ votes made the difference.
5. The South couldn’t have made it long as a slave society.
Slavery was hardly on its last legs in 1860. That year, the South produced almost 75 percent of all U.S. exports. Slaves were worth more than all the manufacturing companies and railroads in the nation. No elite class in history has ever given up such an immense interest voluntarily. Moreover, Confederates eyed territorial expansion into Mexico and Cuba. Short of war, who would have stopped them — or forced them to abandon slavery?
To claim that slavery would have ended of its own accord by the mid-20th century is impossible to disprove but difficult to accept. In 1860, slavery was growing more entrenched in the South. Unpaid labor makes for big profits, and the Southern elite was growing ever richer. Freeing slaves was becoming more and more difficult for their owners, as was the position of free blacks in the United States, North as well as South. For the foreseeable future, slavery looked secure. Perhaps a civil war was required to end it.
As we commemorate the sesquicentennial of that war, let us take pride this time — as we did not during the centennial — that secession on slavery’s behalf failed.
The Lost Cause excuses persist today. It is well known that Lincoln gave freedom to enslaved people in Southern States, but did not offer freedom to enslaved people in the Union.
The words of the Vice President of the Confederacy
Unfortunately for the revisionists, the vice president of the nonexistent Confederate States of America said:
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions--African slavery as it exists among us--the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution [...] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away [...] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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.
You didn't read that wrong. That is the Vice President of the Confederacy stating point blank that the only cause for secession was the institution of slavery.
While I agree that the evidence is that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War I think you make too much of these political speeches. Politicians say what is necessary to secure votes and motivate people. Historians look beyond political speech for a deeper understanding of complex situations and issues.
To support your point, oddly enough, some people claim that the GOP is doing everything because of racism, but you seldom hear politicians give a speech expounding on the virtues of racism and the need to do X Y or Z to reach those racist goals. Could there have been less expressed motivators then and now?
Plus it seems tariffs are making a comeback - a new civil war, or just a global one?
I don't think the GOP is doing anything because of racism. Appeals to racism is just a tool they use to get the power to do what they want.
It seems likely that economics had a role in causing the war but ranting about the tariffs wasn't going to motivate southern whites to fight and die in a war. Blatant outspoken racism fired up the white troops.
But the economy has changed. Tariffs mostly hurt the south and helped the north but now they hurt and help some people in every state, more or less. It won't be a civil war. Hopefully we get a democrat in 2020 and we'll avoid a global economic war.
Good argument. Very convincing. Of course I knew agreeing with you 90% would never be enough. And that you would never discuss the 10% where we disagree.
Let's go to today: Do you think there are "good people" in the Taliban? Or are they all evil? How about everyone attending Fallwell's University? All evil? Not arguing, just curious, as this would follow the logic of everyone voting for Trump being a racist and the logic of what you are saying on this thread.
You have brilliantly summarized the main point of the article and the point PP and I were trying to make. That there were good people on both sides. That was our exact point and your post isn't a strawman at all.
Oh and by the way, by today's standards there were mostly bad people on both sides. One side was just slightly less bad. Virtually every Trump voter has more enlightened views on race than most of the northern soldiers.
86% of federal money (pre-income tax) came from tariffs paid by the South. If this was not part of their digruntlement, it should have been.
Anyway, the article explains it in much more interesting depth. Of course opinions will differ, and I'm non-commital, but we've heard one version over and over. History is seldom that clean-cut.
Again just curious: does reading the history of black African slave traders working with white buyers get you equally upset? Or is it just "Confederates" that you loathe? What about Native American tribes continuing to enslave other tribes after the Civil War ended? Does that bother you as much? (A reminder: they're all long dead people. It's history. Sort of like statues made long ago.)
I have no idea what the point was of the medium article. The guy who wrote it is described as " Designer, writer, contrarian, photographer, and connoisseur of bourbon."
You cannot get a feel for the history of this country and particularly slavery and racism without reading books by real historians.
Examples:
#1 "The Half has Never Been Told", is the title of a 2014 book by historian Edward Baptist. He recounts how cotton export was the prime support for the US dollar prior to the Civil War. The value of cotton exports exceeded all other American exports combined, It was primarily shipped to British textile mills. The bodies of slaves were used as collateral, as were pounds of cotton, to secure loans and credit in New York and in England for enslavers to buy slaves, land and seed. Baptist states that never in the history of capitalism has a human life been so closely valued and sold as a commodity. He describes how the drop in value of cotton in `1837-38 crash led to the economic troubles of that period.
Cotton production rested on the exploitation of slaves who were bought by slave merchants from the depleted farms of the eastern seaboard, like Virginia, and marched overland in chains to Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana where a cotton boom occurred after those lands were taken from the Spanish, the Native Americans and the French.
Baptist relates the methods white enslavers used to drastically increase the speed of cotton harvesting (done by human hands), the slowest step in cotton production after the advent of the cotton gin in the 1790s. The efficiency of cotton production expanded ten fold, along with the profits, from 1800 to 1850. He notes slavery was anything but inefficient the way it was practiced in the pre-war cotton fields of America. He also noted the log books from slave colonies recorded the highest production of cotton picking by human hands ever achieved post-war, in fact post-war, it was rare for a cotton field worker to pick half the 200 plus pounds/day recorded under what Baptist calls the "whipping machine."
"For many southwestern whites, whipping was a gateway form of violence that led to bizarrely creative levels of sadism. In the sources that document the expansion of cotton production, you can find at one point or another almost every product sold in New Orleans stores converted into an instrument of torture: carpenters’ tools, chains, cotton presses, hackles, handsaws, hoe handles, irons for branding livestock, nails, pokers, smoothing irons, singletrees, steelyards, tongs. Every modern method of torture was used at one time or another: sexual humiliation, mutilation, electric shocks, solitary confinement in “stress positions,” burning, even waterboarding. "
Book #2 "Fear Itself", Ira Katznelson He points out how powerful Southern Congressmen and Senators were still resentful of the loss of slavery, and were still thinking in terms of slave labor, this from 1933, on the New Deal program, the TVA, Tennessee Valley Authority:
"Not surprisingly, the South's representatives keenly backed the law, and welcomed Roosevelt's reversal of the rejection by President Coolidge and Hoover of the proposals to develop the Tennessee Valley extensively. Making good on a pledge he had made at a campaign appearance at Muscle Shoals. Roosevelt's proposal animated southern supporters for the arc of development it promised for a great swath of the South.....It would produce, Mississippi's John Rankin informed the House (73rd Congress, 1933),
"the hydroelectric power that will exceed in amount the physical strength of all the slaves freed by the Civil War."....
These (southern) supporters assumed that the law's administration would do nothing to disturb the racial order. They were correct. ..."
Well we post bits here by non-historians all the time. Are we wasting our time? Are historical notes about a separate aspect of the period (whipping) overriding of a topic they don't mention (tariffs, income distribution) or even an era 70 years later?
You're wasting your time reading the boubon guy if you are truly interested in anything but bourbon.
Whitman's 14 years of research on this book led him to the conclusion that cotton slave camps were the starting point and foundation of American capitalism. In the paperback reprint of the book he provides a debunking of some historians claims he over emphasized the contributions of slavery to American capitalism..
Whitman makes the point the two main misconceptions of slavery are:
1. Southerners - slavery was a disciplined yet humane enterprise done throughout history. It gave the savage races stability and productive lives they might not have otherwise.
2. Northerners - slavery was an archaic unproductive system involving forced labor. Slaves could never produce the output like free labor could, with the incentives there of self initiative and financial gain.
Whitman says both views are false, and presents the historical evidence in his 522 page book.
Yes your posts raise some interesting points but they don't really address the questions raised by posting this article. To what degree if any was economics part of the cause of the Civil War.
Except I never believed these 2 "misconceptions", I don't drink much bourbon, and I posted an article largely on the role of tariffs (plus other interesting anecdotes) in secession, so why don't you go find a historian acceptable to you who spends 14 years and 522 pages on addressing tariffs claims or go enter your own fucking diary and get out of my face?
My kneejerk reaction was to comment quickly that "but Bourbon is not French." Because this particular spirit is so 'mercan to its core. But then I looked at what I was actually writing and thought: HAH IT'S ABSURD on its face to say that.So I went to wikipedia to find out the whyfore of the French name and all I found is this:
I read Gunnar Myrdal's "An American Dilemma" as part of forlorn exercise, a group one, to try to conclude-or not-that Graduate Business students could get sufficient benefit from abstract academic investigations of non business subjects to offset the cost -academically- of diverting time and effort down this probable rat hole.
Answer Yes. It sufficiently astonished some of the heavy weights among the faculty that we all got a Distinction. Certainly the only one I ever received.Well probably. And fittingly so since it was my idea and therefore my job to get the damn thing done.
But the more direct pay back occured later when Ralph Bunche showed up at the Yacht Club. By then it was long since he had been part of Myrdal's team on the AD. And to the extent he was known to the Yachties it was as State's hoped for back stage influence at the UN.
A faint hope since the Yachties were not apt to cooperate. Anyway, two members with ties to the department
invited Bunche to lunch (unintendd rhyme )And flocks of the other members stormed the office to surrender their membership cards.
I had to google and now I understand your comment (sort of):
What did Gunnar Myrdal mean by the term American dilemma?
An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy is a 1944 study of race relations authored by Swedish Nobel-laureate economist Gunnar Myrdal and funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York. The foundation chose Myrdal because it thought that as a non-American, he could offer a more unbiased opinion.
What is the American dilemma according to Myrdal?
Myrdal argued that there was a fundamental dilemma within individual Americans, who were torn between the ideals of what he called the American Creed—values of democracy and equal opportunity—and the realities of discrimination and segregation.
Question : What do you call the dead bodies of Confederates on the battleground at Gettysburgh?
Answer: A good start
There were no good Confederates just like there were no good Nazis at Charlottesville.
Edit to add:
That little difference
Thus, by the time he issued the Preliminary Proclamation, Lincoln had taken the one step that guaranteed the Confederate states would not return to the Union. Southern whites had created a nation based on “slavery subordination,” as Vice President Alexander Stephens declared. The leaders of this slaveholding nation would never voluntarily accept peace with an enemy that was arming former slaves and enlisting them alongside white men.
As he had promised, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863. In that document, he specifically and unequivocally endorsed the use of black soldiers, stating: “And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.”
On Sept. 22, 1862 the war to preserve the Union became a war to create freedom. Lincoln was committed to ending slavery in the Confederacy and using black troops – former slaves – to help accomplish this. He was not only committed to enlisting black soldiers, but was in the process of doing so. Once in uniform, once armed, once they had faced their former master in combat, these newly created American soldiers would become an irrefutable argument for ending all slavery in the nation.
Here is a quote @ harvardsquarelibrary. org by Ralph Waldo Emerson, which I just ran across by happenstance, that is suggestive of people in his locale of Concord, MA making the argument that the port of Boston should remain open to the slave trade for the good of the economy:
If it shall turn out, as desponding men say, that our people do not really care whether Boston is a slave port or not, provided our trade thrives, then we may at least cease to dread hard times and ruin. It is high time our bad wealth came to an end. I am sure I shall very cheerfully take my share of suffering in the ruin of such a prosperity, and shall very willingly turn to the mountains to chop wood and seek to find for myself and my children labors compatible with freedom and honor.
Unfortunately there is no context as the site does have a link or footnote (shame on them, being a library and all!) and googling it didn't get me results. But to me it is a good example of how debate in the north could get very complex. "Yankees" ranged allover the place in their opinions on slavery. This example is like debates about interventionism today: should you try to impose your morals on "the other" by force and even go to war over it if necessary or should you continue to trade with them until time changes their ways.
Bending off-topic, but reminds there are these microdilemmas, e.g. whether the judge recalled for his light sentence if the Stanford rapist should be allowed to coach girls volleyball, or if a MeToo accusee should appear on TV, but similar career shaming doesn't exist say for politicians who led us into sexed up war or who abused immigrants or stole money from millions - we look for the keys under the streetlamp, not where we lost them. Easier for a flash of morality where the situation's not huge and messy and tied to political tribe. 8'm sure goings on at Walden Pond were more important than Antietam.
BTW, Chareles Dickens' observations on Civil War? Makes a great play-by-play commentator
Comments
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html
The Lost Cause excuses persist today. It is well known that Lincoln gave freedom to enslaved people in Southern States, but did not offer freedom to enslaved people in the Union.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 2:45pm
Slavery as the reason for secession in their own words
https://blog.independent.org/2017/08/18/southern-state-seceded-from-the-union-to-protect-slavery/
Slavery
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 2:50pm
The words of the Vice President of the Confederacy
Unfortunately for the revisionists, the vice president of the nonexistent Confederate States of America said:
You didn't read that wrong. That is the Vice President of the Confederacy stating point blank that the only cause for secession was the institution of slavery.
https://portside.org/2013-11-04/absolute-proof-civil-war-was-about-slavery
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 3:14pm
While I agree that the evidence is that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War I think you make too much of these political speeches. Politicians say what is necessary to secure votes and motivate people. Historians look beyond political speech for a deeper understanding of complex situations and issues.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 3:33pm
To support your point, oddly enough, some people claim that the GOP is doing everything because of racism, but you seldom hear politicians give a speech expounding on the virtues of racism and the need to do X Y or Z to reach those racist goals. Could there have been less expressed motivators then and now?
Plus it seems tariffs are making a comeback - a new civil war, or just a global one?
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 3:37pm
I don't think the GOP is doing anything because of racism. Appeals to racism is just a tool they use to get the power to do what they want.
It seems likely that economics had a role in causing the war but ranting about the tariffs wasn't going to motivate southern whites to fight and die in a war. Blatant outspoken racism fired up the white troops.
But the economy has changed. Tariffs mostly hurt the south and helped the north but now they hurt and help some people in every state, more or less. It won't be a civil war. Hopefully we get a democrat in 2020 and we'll avoid a global economic war.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 3:53pm
Fuck every Confederate.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 3:40pm
Good argument. Very convincing. Of course I knew agreeing with you 90% would never be enough. And that you would never discuss the 10% where we disagree.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 3:56pm
So we should fuck 90% of Confederates? Prolly a safe margin. But which 90%?
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 5:26pm
There were not good people on both sides. Confederates fought to keep people enslaved.
Confederates were too racist to consider blacks intelligent enough to fight.
The Union realized that blacks could fight.
Revisionists still try to defend the enslavers.
So yeah, fuck all Confederates.
Edit to add:
The Confederate crackers were so honorable at Fort Pillow.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 5:51pm
Let's go to today: Do you think there are "good people" in the Taliban? Or are they all evil? How about everyone attending Fallwell's University? All evil? Not arguing, just curious, as this would follow the logic of everyone voting for Trump being a racist and the logic of what you are saying on this thread.
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 6:18pm
You have brilliantly summarized the main point of the article and the point PP and I were trying to make. That there were good people on both sides. That was our exact point and your post isn't a strawman at all.
Oh and by the way, by today's standards there were mostly bad people on both sides. One side was just slightly less bad. Virtually every Trump voter has more enlightened views on race than most of the northern soldiers.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 7:07pm
Oh and by the way, by today's standards there were mostly bad people on both sides. One side was just slightly less bad
DING DING DING! BINGO! You get this cultural historian's award!
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 9:21pm
It becomes clear that war, sir, is the answer you are looking for. Sounds a little like the cry that was common after 9/11/01: kill them all!
Still, you do realize that some were just dumb honkies that didn't know how to evade the draft? Just saying. Kind of like calling drafted Viet vets "baby killers", that was really effective.
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 6:03pm
86% of federal money (pre-income tax) came from tariffs paid by the South. If this was not part of their digruntlement, it should have been.
Anyway, the article explains it in much more interesting depth. Of course opinions will differ, and I'm non-commital, but we've heard one version over and over. History is seldom that clean-cut.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 3:34pm
Fuck every Confederate.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 3:39pm
Again just curious: does reading the history of black African slave traders working with white buyers get you equally upset? Or is it just "Confederates" that you loathe? What about Native American tribes continuing to enslave other tribes after the Civil War ended? Does that bother you as much? (A reminder: they're all long dead people. It's history. Sort of like statues made long ago.)
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 10:27pm
I have no idea what the point was of the medium article. The guy who wrote it is described as " Designer, writer, contrarian, photographer, and connoisseur of bourbon."
You cannot get a feel for the history of this country and particularly slavery and racism without reading books by real historians.
Examples:
by NCD on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 8:03pm
Well we post bits here by non-historians all the time. Are we wasting our time? Are historical notes about a separate aspect of the period (whipping) overriding of a topic they don't mention (tariffs, income distribution) or even an era 70 years later?
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/13/2019 - 12:29am
You're wasting your time reading the boubon guy if you are truly interested in anything but bourbon.
Whitman's 14 years of research on this book led him to the conclusion that cotton slave camps were the starting point and foundation of American capitalism. In the paperback reprint of the book he provides a debunking of some historians claims he over emphasized the contributions of slavery to American capitalism..
Whitman makes the point the two main misconceptions of slavery are:
1. Southerners - slavery was a disciplined yet humane enterprise done throughout history. It gave the savage races stability and productive lives they might not have otherwise.
2. Northerners - slavery was an archaic unproductive system involving forced labor. Slaves could never produce the output like free labor could, with the incentives there of self initiative and financial gain.
Whitman says both views are false, and presents the historical evidence in his 522 page book.
by NCD on Fri, 09/13/2019 - 1:01am
Yes your posts raise some interesting points but they don't really address the questions raised by posting this article. To what degree if any was economics part of the cause of the Civil War.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 09/13/2019 - 1:27am
Except I never believed these 2 "misconceptions", I don't drink much bourbon, and I posted an article largely on the role of tariffs (plus other interesting anecdotes) in secession, so why don't you go find a historian acceptable to you who spends 14 years and 522 pages on addressing tariffs claims or go enter your own fucking diary and get out of my face?
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/13/2019 - 1:30am
WTF is wrong with you PP? Bourbon is a wonderful drink. I think it's just the color of the drink. You're prejudiced against colors.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 09/13/2019 - 3:44pm
Too French. Vivre Britannia!
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/13/2019 - 10:14pm
My kneejerk reaction was to comment quickly that "but Bourbon is not French." Because this particular spirit is so 'mercan to its core. But then I looked at what I was actually writing and thought: HAH IT'S ABSURD on its face to say that.So I went to wikipedia to find out the whyfore of the French name and all I found is this:
It's that good ole multi-culti mixing melting pot thing, that's 'mercan!
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/13/2019 - 10:50pm
I read Gunnar Myrdal's "An American Dilemma" as part of forlorn exercise, a group one, to try to conclude-or not-that Graduate Business students could get sufficient benefit from abstract academic investigations of non business subjects to offset the cost -academically- of diverting time and effort down this probable rat hole.
Answer Yes. It sufficiently astonished some of the heavy weights among the faculty that we all got a Distinction. Certainly the only one I ever received.Well probably. And fittingly so since it was my idea and therefore my job to get the damn thing done.
But the more direct pay back occured later when Ralph Bunche showed up at the Yacht Club. By then it was long since he had been part of Myrdal's team on the AD. And to the extent he was known to the Yachties it was as State's hoped for back stage influence at the UN.
A faint hope since the Yachties were not apt to cooperate. Anyway, two members with ties to the department
invited Bunche to lunch (unintendd rhyme )And flocks of the other members stormed the office to surrender their membership cards.
by Flavius on Fri, 09/13/2019 - 10:56am
I had to google and now I understand your comment (sort of):
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/13/2019 - 4:52am
Question : What do you call the dead bodies of Confederates on the battleground at Gettysburgh?
Answer: A good start
There were no good Confederates just like there were no good Nazis at Charlottesville.
Edit to add:
That little difference
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/not-yet-freedom/
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 09/13/2019 - 3:06pm
Your posts are so off topic it's a waste of time to engage. Even more off topic than usual for you.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 09/13/2019 - 3:40pm
Here is a quote @ harvardsquarelibrary. org by Ralph Waldo Emerson, which I just ran across by happenstance, that is suggestive of people in his locale of Concord, MA making the argument that the port of Boston should remain open to the slave trade for the good of the economy:
If it shall turn out, as desponding men say, that our people do not really care whether Boston is a slave port or not, provided our trade thrives, then we may at least cease to dread hard times and ruin. It is high time our bad wealth came to an end. I am sure I shall very cheerfully take my share of suffering in the ruin of such a prosperity, and shall very willingly turn to the mountains to chop wood and seek to find for myself and my children labors compatible with freedom and honor.
Unfortunately there is no context as the site does have a link or footnote (shame on them, being a library and all!) and googling it didn't get me results. But to me it is a good example of how debate in the north could get very complex. "Yankees" ranged allover the place in their opinions on slavery. This example is like debates about interventionism today: should you try to impose your morals on "the other" by force and even go to war over it if necessary or should you continue to trade with them until time changes their ways.
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/14/2019 - 12:39am
Bending off-topic, but reminds there are these microdilemmas, e.g. whether the judge recalled for his light sentence if the Stanford rapist should be allowed to coach girls volleyball, or if a MeToo accusee should appear on TV, but similar career shaming doesn't exist say for politicians who led us into sexed up war or who abused immigrants or stole money from millions - we look for the keys under the streetlamp, not where we lost them. Easier for a flash of morality where the situation's not huge and messy and tied to political tribe. 8'm sure goings on at Walden Pond were more important than Antietam.
BTW, Chareles Dickens' observations on Civil War? Makes a great play-by-play commentator
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 09/14/2019 - 1:08am