- Messages
- 328
- Reactions
- 593
I don't have a personal stake in whether Confederate memorials stay or go. My southern ancestors lived in a pro-abolitionist, pro-union part of eastern Tennessee and, according to census records, never owned slaves. Except for my great-grandmother's great-uncle-—who was conscripted into the Confederate Army, never owned slaves, and died in a Union Army P.O.W. camp—none of them fought for either side. My weak preference, under the right circumstances, is that all or most of them should disappear from public property, except possibly in museum settings. What I do strongly care about is lawless mob action to settle the matter.
I also care about the Orwellian crimethink that often imposes upon those who publicly articulate a contrary opinion on what Confederate memorials symbolize a serious social or economic price and even violence. There's a lot of yammering about "diversity" and "tolerance" but when it comes to diversity of thought many of its advocates are hypocritical.
It would be false to claim that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. I would argue that it wasn't only about slavery and that not everyone on either side was necessarily fighting for or against slavery. For example, Ulysses S. Grant was the last US president to purchase a slave. Lincoln said repeatedly and publicly that the Civil War wasn't waged by him to end slavery. That's why the Emancipation Proclamation didn't take effect until 1863 and why only slaves in rebel territory were freed. Slaves in Union territory were left in bondage under the Emancipation Proclamation.
As an aside, why was it that, with the exception of Haiti, every other country in the Western Hemisphere (and the majority of northern states in the antebellum period) was able to abolish slavery without tearing itself apart in a cataclysmic civil war?
The majority of the Confederate soldiers who fought in the Civil War--like the rest of the population of the CSA--never owned slaves and they were hurt economically by the slave economy. The people who primarily benefited from slavery (and a war ostensibly to save it) were the small group of White, and a much smaller but still significant number of Black, slaveowners. The first person in the English colonies of North America to own another person as a chattel slave for life was a Black man. In 1655, a Virginia court ruled that John Casor was the permanent property of Anthony Johnson. Many of the Black slave owners (like many Europeans), such as Anna Madgigine Jai Kingsley, came from slave-owning societies in Africa, where slavery is still all too common but largely ignored in the US media.
Chandra Manning in What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War (Knopf, 2007) details the machinations the slave-owning elite employed to bring the average Southerner to support secession. Here are some thoughts on the subject from LTC Robert Mackey, U.S. Army (Retired):
So, could we as a society agree that, in actuality, the history of slavery and the Civil War is far more complicated than the simplistic mainstream media narrative? Could we possibly allow that a significant number of Confederate soldiers may have fought mainly because they sincerely, and not without cause, believed their homeland and freedom was threatened by a hostile power? Could we also allow that it is possible to fight bravely and honorably in a war for a dubious or ignoble cause? Could we concede that some of those who want to preserve Confederate memorials may have those virtues in mind?
Probably not.
I also care about the Orwellian crimethink that often imposes upon those who publicly articulate a contrary opinion on what Confederate memorials symbolize a serious social or economic price and even violence. There's a lot of yammering about "diversity" and "tolerance" but when it comes to diversity of thought many of its advocates are hypocritical.
It would be false to claim that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. I would argue that it wasn't only about slavery and that not everyone on either side was necessarily fighting for or against slavery. For example, Ulysses S. Grant was the last US president to purchase a slave. Lincoln said repeatedly and publicly that the Civil War wasn't waged by him to end slavery. That's why the Emancipation Proclamation didn't take effect until 1863 and why only slaves in rebel territory were freed. Slaves in Union territory were left in bondage under the Emancipation Proclamation.
As an aside, why was it that, with the exception of Haiti, every other country in the Western Hemisphere (and the majority of northern states in the antebellum period) was able to abolish slavery without tearing itself apart in a cataclysmic civil war?
The majority of the Confederate soldiers who fought in the Civil War--like the rest of the population of the CSA--never owned slaves and they were hurt economically by the slave economy. The people who primarily benefited from slavery (and a war ostensibly to save it) were the small group of White, and a much smaller but still significant number of Black, slaveowners. The first person in the English colonies of North America to own another person as a chattel slave for life was a Black man. In 1655, a Virginia court ruled that John Casor was the permanent property of Anthony Johnson. Many of the Black slave owners (like many Europeans), such as Anna Madgigine Jai Kingsley, came from slave-owning societies in Africa, where slavery is still all too common but largely ignored in the US media.
Chandra Manning in What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War (Knopf, 2007) details the machinations the slave-owning elite employed to bring the average Southerner to support secession. Here are some thoughts on the subject from LTC Robert Mackey, U.S. Army (Retired):
As James M. McPherson has documented, large numbers of Union soldiers fought to end slavery despite the contrary pronouncements of their commander-in-chief. How likely is it that the average rank-and-file Confederate soldier was fully onboard with and willing to fight for slavery to the exclusion of all other reasons? Likewise, who thinks most or every American troop who went to Vietnam was fully versed in and onboard with the Domino Theory?The simple fact is that the individual Confederate soldier -- from the lowest economic rung and in many cases disenfranchised as the slaves were -- fought for a variety of reasons. Localism and tribalism, which we in happily accept being a part of the modern Middle East, but for some reason can't understand as a normal part of antebellum American culture, played an important role. The nationalistic spirit of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which we are still seeing today, was invented to heal the breach of the Civil War ... because it really didn't exist before 1861 ... To the men of that era, New York or Virginia was their country. Tied closely to this is the nature of how men went to war in 1861 -- you fought with your neighbors, relatives and friends in your local regiment. Peer pressure was a major part of why the individual fought. There was, of course, a not-so-honorable side as well, as the vilest of racial fears were encouraged, out of fear that the Yankee Abolitionists would not only overturn slavery, but put white Southern womanhood at risk as well. Others, while not the majority as reflected by the States Righters, believed that the issue was individual freedom and State's Rights == a flexible and nearly mystical idea as diaphanous as that of "Union." The reasons for each man who joined the armies of either side are as complex as each individual.
So, could we as a society agree that, in actuality, the history of slavery and the Civil War is far more complicated than the simplistic mainstream media narrative? Could we possibly allow that a significant number of Confederate soldiers may have fought mainly because they sincerely, and not without cause, believed their homeland and freedom was threatened by a hostile power? Could we also allow that it is possible to fight bravely and honorably in a war for a dubious or ignoble cause? Could we concede that some of those who want to preserve Confederate memorials may have those virtues in mind?
Probably not.
Last Edited: