|
08 Oct 14 - 12:39 PM (#3667169) Subject: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Ebbie Before secession from the Union, the American South had what Whites probably considered a great quality of life. Not only did they have a salubrious climate and beautiful landscapes, the southern culture valued family and friend connections and by tradition held onto their land and possessions. There were, obviously, poverty-stricken pockets, there were hot tempers and murders, not to mention feuds, there was the eldest son preference inherited from the 'owd country' but, by and large, life was good. For the American White. The American North was colder, both in climate and in connections. Largely industrial in employment and finance, and more transient in nature, there was not the same culture of ease found a thousand miles farther south. Pocketed with slums and hardscrabble immigrants, the rich lived comfortably but downscale life dropped off precipitately. People worked hard for what they attained. War on the South's homeground with its loss of so many young healthy men and the loss of its accustomed essentially unpaid labor knocked the South to its knees. The climate and the geography stayed the same but basically everything else changed. Nowadays, wouldn't the Federal Government come in with the equivalent of the Marshall Plan? ****** How is that for a stereotypical summary? Notice that I didn't mention slavery by name; the view I give here is the view that Southerners today frequently proffer. (Mind you, I love the South.) |
|
08 Oct 14 - 12:55 PM (#3667174) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: olddude Had Lincoln lived perhaps maybe. He wanted reconciliation. Most wanted the South to be punished. After Lincolns assassination, the thinking was make them pay for what they done. |
|
08 Oct 14 - 01:06 PM (#3667177) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: olddude In school we are taught that the war was about slavery. Maybe in part. Most historians say it was about a host of other issues including economy and states regarding the federal government as secondary. Slavery was one of the points used to recruit the war effort but in fact it was part of a host of issues. I think Lincoln would have been much more inclined to rebuild and forgive had lived |
|
08 Oct 14 - 01:55 PM (#3667196) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Greg F. the southern culture valued family and friend connections and by tradition held onto their land and possessions. And their 'possessions' included human beings. culture of ease found a thousand miles farther south. W@hich "culture of ease"" so-called, was based on chattel slavery and consisted in the southern gentry believing that they were characters in a Walter Scott novel. essentially unpaid Essentially? Please. Slaves and draft cattle were certainly ACTUALLY unpaid labor. Pocketed with slums and hardscrabble immigrants, The same was true of the south - ask any of the Irish emigrants who died there, because killing off laboring "bog-trotters" was a lot cheaper than killing off slaves. War on the South's homeground with its loss of so many young healthy men Tha south brought the war on itself. vide Lincoln's first inaugural address & the Fort Sumter run-up to hostilities. Nowadays, wouldn't the Federal Government come in with the equivalent of the Marshall Plan? No. The Marshall Plan was aid to America's ALLIES - the Confederacy took up arms against the government of the United States - many of the rebels deserting postsin the U.S. government and the U.S. armed forces where they had taken an oath to defend the U.S.- and thus were traitors, pure and simple. Anyone who doubts that the war was about slavery has only to read the several ordinances of secession from the rebel states and the editorials/articles in the southern papers at the time. One example here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp the view I give here is the view that Southerners today frequently proffer. Yes they do, and its NeoConfederate Bullshit, and they should be ashamed of themselves, as this "Lost Cause horseshit has been proven to be just that - horseshit, and they should know better. Its disgusting that they still cling to this racist fairytale. No wonder institutionalized racism in the U.S. refuses to die. Anyone who doubts that the |
|
08 Oct 14 - 02:55 PM (#3667212) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: olddude Because Greg they considered the states and not the federal government the ultimate authority. The history channel did a two part documtary on the causes. Slavery was the means to an end not the cause. Most people in the south did not own slaves only the large landowners. However if it took a war to get rid of that evil it was worth it in my opinion. The sholars on the history channel said no one except very few people would have fought to maintain it as the bulk did not nor could afford slaves. They were sold the goods that states have the ultimate authority and the North was told it was to remove slaves. Prior to that selling point most in the north felt it was an evil South problem. Think about it they nothing about it since the founding of the country. It was a talking point for preachers and the religious community. It wasn't till the federal government used it to as an issue did it become one. It did not start the war but was a part of it. Anyway it was just to remove that abject evil thankfully. Imo |
|
08 Oct 14 - 02:56 PM (#3667213) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: olddude If you read the writing of Lincoln he wanted reconciliation |
|
08 Oct 14 - 03:13 PM (#3667218) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: olddude That Wonderful black historian was reading through journals of soldiers . I wish I could remember his name, my wife has many of his books as she teaches about the civil war anyway One union captain wrote about talking to a confederate prisoner and asked 'why would you fight to keep something as evil as slavery' his reply was 'shoot ain't about no niggers, its about you yanks trying to tell us what we can and can't do' |
|
08 Oct 14 - 03:15 PM (#3667219) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Greg F. they considered the states and not the federal government the ultimate authority And, they were wrong. Most people in the south did not own slaves only the large landowners. True. But the SYSTEM of slavery supported the entire southern economy and thus impacted ALL of the southern people, and all had a stake in maintaining that system. The "goods" Southerners were sold was that the Nigras were sub-human and had to be kept in subjugation as slaves for the good of the southern society & economy, and people fromn all economic strata bought into this. The "History"[sic] Channel means well, but they're sort of the Readers Digest Condensed version of events, aimed at entertaining their audience rather than educating them. They routinely simplify the complex, overlook a lot, ans their "talking head" historians only get a limited chance at a few sound bites. Do read the contemporay 1855-1861 sources if you get a chance, Dan. The Charleston Mercury and the Richmond Enquirer are two newspapers (of many) that are instructive, as well as the productions of the various State secession conventions as well as the productions of the Confederate government during the war. They may give you a new perspective. Its akin to the "Tuth And Reconciliation Commission" in South Africa. Until the South accepts the truth about the war, there's no possibility of real reconciliation. |
|
08 Oct 14 - 03:26 PM (#3667227) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Greg F. 'shoot ain't about no niggers, its about you yanks trying to tell us what we can and can't do' Yeah, cute. That's paraphrazing one of Shelby Foote's regular Ha-Ha jokes. Foote, by the way, is, as he himself conefesses, NOT an historian. And what were we trying to tell, em, Dan? That they couldn't break up the Union by armed insurrection and attacks on thegovernment of the U.S. at their whim over what they themselves described as the primary cause of secession: Slavery. ( P.S.- as wars are made by politicians and fought by poor folks, wouldn't be the first time that Private Whats-His-Name had no idea WHAT the hell he was fighting for. Vietmnam comes immediately to mind.) |
|
08 Oct 14 - 03:33 PM (#3667229) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Ebbie 'States Rights' is still a huge issue in this country. To my mind, it has never been fully defined. Originally and on paper, the Federal government had a limited, although strong, role in the life of this nation. As time passed, its role was revisited and expanded. It is still happening today. Mind you, I am one of those who accept that the Feds need to maintain the stronger role, somewhat in the same way that the US Supreme Court has a stronger role than our local and States/Districts courts have. But there are many who want to roll back the powers that the Federal Government has. These are the people who despise our current government. |
|
08 Oct 14 - 03:35 PM (#3667230) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: olddude We are on the same Page The bulk of the Southern army would not fight to support slave owners so they were sold the goods about rights of the states cause most had trouble feeding their own families and would not fight to support southern wealth. The north was sold it was a holy war about slavery. In fact it was southern rich guys economy and a central government that controls all states as Lincoln wanted and rightfully so. Economy and political views with slavery as a tool. But back to the question had Lincoln lived he would have reconciled. And I hate even quoting the next word it is evil |
|
08 Oct 14 - 03:36 PM (#3667231) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: olddude N-word that is |
|
08 Oct 14 - 03:44 PM (#3667232) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: olddude At least the war was justified as I see it. It secured the union and ended an evil. But we have to always question our leaders about war. We went to Iraq based on some sales pitch that was not justified |
|
08 Oct 14 - 03:53 PM (#3667234) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Ebbie Post-war Reconstruction made a beginning at addressing the conditions but very quickly became a vicious system meant to subjugate the southern Black populations, even if it could not restore the plantation lifestyle. My original thought was if the South economy had been restored, say with an influx of Northern immigrants, workers and office seekers, would the South today be very different? As it stands, the South, by and large, is poor with a high rate of illiteracy, unemployment and crime. |
|
08 Oct 14 - 04:02 PM (#3667238) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: olddude And if we really think about it. It really didn't end until Dr King. It took on a different forms that's all. Ebbie you are right I think, however the only north people who came were carpet baggers and other thieves |
|
08 Oct 14 - 04:32 PM (#3667246) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Ebbie The South does have great food and wonderful music- and that makes up for a lot! lol |
|
08 Oct 14 - 05:18 PM (#3667252) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Greg F. Post-war Reconstruction made a beginning at addressing the conditions but very quickly became a vicious system meant to subjugate the southern Black populations, No. The word you are looking for is not "Reconstruction" that "became a vicious system". Reconstruction, and the occupation by Union troops of areas in the south after the Civil War was down to the fact that blacks were being terrorized and murdered for attempting to exercise the rights granted in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. I think you meant to say "Redemption" - the "Redeemers" being those reactionary and racist southerners that successfully managed to kill off enough blacks and terrorize the rest back into a state of semi-slavery, thereby "redeeming" the south back to virtually the same situation that exixted ante-bellum. The north was sold it as a holy war about slavery. Sorry Dan, but no- the war in the North was "sold" about preserving the Union - it wasn't until the Emancipation Proclaimation (1863) that the slavery question entered into it at all as far as the North was concerned, and even then the slaves in slave states that remailed loyal to the Union were NOT freed, and a goodly number of northerners were not at all happy about the Proclaimation at all. however the only north people who came were carpet baggers and other thieves Ah, the old "carpetbagger" myth - I thought that one WAS dead- killed off long ago by fact. Dan, pick up a copy of Eric Foner's "Reconstruction" or his shorter version therof, "Forever Free". Or "Freedom's Lawmakers: A Directory of Black Officeholders During Reconstruction". Or perhaps W.E.B. Du Bois' "Black Reconstruction in America". Think you'd enjoy reading what actually went on, and about the Neo-Confederate campaign down to the present day to distort the story. The South does have great food and wonderful music- and that makes up for a lot! lol Yes it does - but it doesn't make up for damn near enough. |
|
08 Oct 14 - 06:12 PM (#3667268) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: olddude Sounds like some good reads i will check em out |
|
09 Oct 14 - 09:15 AM (#3667470) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Rapparee And, one can argue from fact, slavery in the US wouldn't have lasted as long as it did if owners of fabric mills in England hadn't profited from it. Because of recent historical studies in England and the US it's been found that Mancusian and other mill owners in England had stockpiled enough US cotton to last four or five years. Cut off the supply lines, as the US blockade did, but send the CSA (and yes, the North as well) guns enough to keep the Late Unpleasantness going as long as possible -- then artificially increase the cost of cotton cloth and attribute it to the "shortage caused by the war." Don't doubt me on this -- my wife (who has a BA in math, an MA in Library Science, and a JD) and her friend Mary (BA, American History, ABD in American History, JD) have been researching this matter for literally years. And yes, throughout the War Between The States the North as received cotton from the South either as prizes auctioned off or through smuggling (get it over the Ohio River, put it on a train to the East, nobody asks questions). As for "a rich man's war and a poor man's fight" I refer you to the desertion statistics of the South, especially toward the end of the War, in "The Life of Johnny Reb." (NB: the author was a very much acclaimed historian). Greed was big factor (although not the only one) in the CW. |
|
09 Oct 14 - 09:32 AM (#3667481) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Greg F. And, one can argue from fact, slavery in the US wouldn't have lasted as long as it did if owners of fabric mills in England hadn't profited from it. One can, but its a foolish argument if it assumes that the South would have voluntarily given up slavery - especially before 1861 - if not for British cotton manufacturers. It also ignores the fact that although "cotton was king", slave labor in the south produced a wide range of commodities, from sugar, rice & tobacco to lumber and pitch and turpentine. One could just as easily argue that the British manufacturers acted as capitalists everywhere ALWAYS do, war or no war: minimize costs and maximize profits. Greed is the motivating force of capitalism. So, no - the Civil War can't be blamed on Britain. |
|
09 Oct 14 - 10:04 AM (#3667490) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Greg F. by the way: it wasn't the War Between The States - it was the war of a confederacy (small "c") of break-away states against the Government of the United States. |
|
09 Oct 14 - 10:51 AM (#3667507) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: olddude I say blame the brits good idea heck we get blamed for everything so heck yah its the brits |
|
09 Oct 14 - 11:33 AM (#3667532) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Greg F. Jeez, Dan - its the Commies used to be blamed for everything - when did it become the Brits?? |
|
09 Oct 14 - 11:35 AM (#3667533) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Ebbie Ah. Communism, socialism, you know. What's the difference. :) |
|
09 Oct 14 - 07:39 PM (#3667667) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Rapparee Communism, Fascism...same thing. |
|
09 Oct 14 - 10:26 PM (#3667695) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: olddude Thought I would try something new that's all |
|
09 Oct 14 - 11:21 PM (#3667703) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Ebbie Don't you know we have a gay, Marxist, Communistic, Fascistic, foreign-born, America-hating BLACK President? |
|
09 Oct 14 - 11:37 PM (#3667704) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: olddude Eyup sister you be right |
|
10 Oct 14 - 09:19 AM (#3667804) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Rapparee Weeeell, the Brits have caused a lot of trouble for the world. Take, for example, the Opium Wars. Or Amritsar. Or blowing living people apart by tying them to the mouths of cannon. I mean, here are quotes from some Brits: I wish I were commander-in-chief in India ... I should proclaim to them that I considered my holding that appointment by the leave of God, to mean that I should do my utmost to exterminate the race. The question is not whether the English had a right to conquer India, but whether we are to prefer India conquered by the Turk, by the Persian, by the Russian, to India conquered by the Briton. The first is Chuck Dickens, the second Karl Marx (lived and died and is buried in Blighty). And that doesn't even begin to touch on such wonderful acts as the Boer Concentration Camps, St. Brice's Day, Dun an Or, Ulster in 1641, Uva, Gippsland, Croke Park, Peshawar, Batang Kali, Derry, Jhansi, Peshawar, and God alone knows what other atrocities. For a "democracy" Old England certainly has a lot to answer for, doesn't it? Just look at the "Post-Civil War Marsall Plan" for the Irish or the Boers! |
|
10 Oct 14 - 09:58 AM (#3667813) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Greg F. You Bet, Rap! And they taught the U.S. everything they knew. There's - as a few examples of many - the wonderful Mexican War (of conquest, the treatment of the Native Americans, 200 years of lynchings, The Spanish American War (of conquest) the brutal suppression of the "Philippine Insurrection"[sic], Military "interventions" in Nicaragua, Panama, Santo Domingo & half-a-dozen other South American countries, the Vietnam War & the My Lai Massacre, the Salvadore Allende assassination & Pinochet, Iran-Contra, Iraq...............etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. What's your point?? Or is this just a pot & kettle exercise?? |
|
10 Oct 14 - 04:03 PM (#3667905) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: robomatic Mr. Wilkins taught Social Studies in Eighth Grade and HE said it was about slavery. So that's what it was about! Oh, and Abraham Lincoln made the comment that the confederates wanted for themselves the liberty that they would not grant others, their slaves. Trust Abe to boil the argument down to its essentials. Oh, and Grant wrote about the surrender at Appomatox: "I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause though that was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse." And Lincoln again: "In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free--honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just--a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless." |
|
10 Oct 14 - 07:59 PM (#3667954) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Rapparee The US simply followed the example set by a monarchy. |
|
10 Oct 14 - 08:13 PM (#3667960) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Greg F. And, once again, what point are you trying to make, Rap? Especially in light of the title of this thread? |
|
10 Oct 14 - 09:06 PM (#3667967) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Rapparee Oh, no point. Nothing at all. |
|
11 Oct 14 - 10:19 AM (#3668097) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Greg F. ????? |
|
11 Oct 14 - 11:36 AM (#3668111) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: GUEST "HE said it was about slavery. So that's what it was about!" Why do so many Americans refuse to consider the possibility that poor Southern white men were willing to die because they thought that they were fighting for something other than the rich folks privilages regardles of the reason that the rich folks had for starting the war? |
|
11 Oct 14 - 12:07 PM (#3668117) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: GUEST,gillymor GUEST writes: "Why do so many Americans refuse to consider the possibility that poor Southern white men were willing to die because they thought that they were fighting for something other than the rich folks privilages regardles of the reason that the rich folks had for starting the war?" That is highly plausible, GUEST, as there are a lot of poor and working class whites in the South (and elsewhere) who think they're fighting for something other than rich folks privileges when they support the GOP (the Democrats during the Civil War era). Sadly, those people were and still are hoodwinked. As noted above the Civil War was about greed and slave labor was necessary for the attainment of massive fortunes. In the long runup to the Civil War after the invention of the cotton gin the main political aims of the southern states quite obviously were the preservation of slavery. Look it up. That period of American history is fascinating. |
|
11 Oct 14 - 12:37 PM (#3668124) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: GUEST Also, remember that the Confederate government enacted a draft law on April 16, 1862, more than a year before the federal government did the same. Under the Conscription Act, all healthy white men between the ages of 18 and 35 were liable for a three year term of service. The act also extended the terms of enlistment for all one-year soldiers to three years. A September 1862 amendment raised the age limit to 45, and February 1864, the limits were extended to range between 17 and 50. So consider the possibility that poor Southern white men were NOT willing to die, but had little choice. |
|
11 Oct 14 - 02:55 PM (#3668166) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Q (Frank Staplin) The attempts at Reconstruction failed because of fighting between Democrats and radical Republicans. The South became a backwater based on agriculture. Historian Eric Foner wrote, "for blacks its failure was a disaster whose magnitude cannot be obscured by the genuine accomplishments that did endure, No transfer of aid or governance was ever involved (except U. S. Army presence. Comparison with the Marshall Plan is impossible. |
|
11 Oct 14 - 03:29 PM (#3668173) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Greg F. Actually, Q, it ain't that simple & you've missed a few points. Here's a concise explanation. More in depth available at the click of a mouse - or, the reading of a book. |
|
11 Oct 14 - 05:18 PM (#3668188) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: olddude But like I said it ended slavery in name only how long did the oppression continue after |
|
11 Oct 14 - 05:29 PM (#3668191) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: olddude Think about it if it was just slavery why was It replaced with no rights and tenant farming sharcroppers with nothing and Jim crow.. Slavery continued |
|
11 Oct 14 - 07:32 PM (#3668216) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: olddude you see noone in north or south cared. it was about the union |
|
11 Oct 14 - 08:46 PM (#3668223) Subject: RE: BS: Post-Civil War Marshall Plan From: Q (Frank Staplin) Olddude, I agree. The poor whites and the poor blacks remained large segments of the southern population until WW2. Attempts at Reconstruction measures in Congress died in 1878. The South entered the "long sleep." |