Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 12/22/2002 10:52:46 PM EDT
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/22/battlefield.changes.reut/index.html[/url] GETTYSBURG, Pennsylvania (Reuters) -- The National Park Service has embarked on an effort to change its interpretive materials at major Civil War battlefields to get rid of a Southern bias and emphasize the horrors of slavery. ... Park rangers and licensed guides at Gettysburg and other sites have already changed their presentations in line with the new policy. Now, park authorities are looking at brochures, handouts and roadside signs. According to Dwight Pitcaithley, chief historian of the National Park Service, the South had tremendous success in promoting its "lost cause" theory. The theory rested on three propositions: that the war was fought over "states' rights" and not over slavery; that there was no dishonor in defeat since the Confederacy lost only because it was overwhelmed by the richer north; and that slavery was a benign institution and most slaves were content with their lot and faithful to their masters. "Much of the public conversation today about the Civil War and its meaning for contemporary society is shaped by structured forgetting and wishful thinking," he said.
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 10:59:19 PM EDT
that's a bunch of crap. yes, slavery had *something* to do with the civil war (mainly the economic side). but the actual reason fighting started was because the federal gov't did not beleive the states had the right to seceed from the union. I'm not civil war historian, but I know there are some here at ar15.com who are. they can much better explain why the south wanted to seceed, etc, etc. but the consensus is that it had very little, if anything, to do with slavery
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 11:05:26 PM EDT
And the re-write continues..... Scott
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 11:22:05 PM EDT
History is written by the victors.
Latschar said he was inspired by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., which sets out to tell a story rather than to display historical artifacts behind glass cases. "Our current museum is absolutely abysmal. It tells no story."
View Quote
Get ready guys. The next Gettysburg Museum will have entering patrons put on chains and shackles and get a "Slave Identification Card" with a Slave name and a Slave picture and will shuffle through the propaganda center seeing all the slaveships and lynching trees and be lectured about how the evil Southern Whiteman was committing genocide against Africans and was willing to kill a half million fellow American Northerners to keep their evil slavery heratige. At the end of the tour, each patron "Slave" will learn the fate of their namesake - most likely beaten to death at the hands of a fat evil white southern man.
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 11:34:28 PM EDT
IIRC from US history class, only about one in seven or eight white southern men owned slaves themselves at the time of the war. If the war was about slavery, then why would the people of the south fight so hard for something most gained nothing from ?
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 11:40:19 PM EDT
I went to Fort Sumter 2 years ago. It was very interesting to hear the, well manipulation. The Fort was built to defend Charleston Harbor, using NH granite to build the "island". It was still under construction, with all it's heavy weapons in crates. The mood in Charleston turned very bad. Maj. Anderson a southerner (GA?) moved the detachment, a fraction of what would be based at a completed Ft. Sumter, from Fort Moultrie to Ft, Sumter. He thought if his solidiers, their wives, and children were out of sight it would be less problematic. Only problem was they had no food, or water with them, they had previously just bought food at the local markets. Revisionism. The tour guides went on about how the Rebels were facing a signifigant fortification. They mostly skipped the no usable heavy weapons, very undermanned, without food or water supplies, with dependents. But they snuck in info about the Union ships that kept trying to sneak into the fort, but didn't quite say why they were doing that. (Park Service brochures did explain that, bringing troops, food, and engineers to put the guns together). Then we get into Maj Anderson surrendering, without any casualties to his force. In a way that kinda painted him as a coward for abandoning this important installation, (that had no food, water, or usable guns, but they don't dwell on that). Then they go into all the Union attempts to retake the fort, and the Southern tenacity in holding the fort. They also say that Ft Sumter was guarding most of SC because of the access to the Santee River, which can be used to access a good deal of SC. At the end they take great pains to say the Union never actually took the fort by force. The CSA troops "tactically withdrew" when their position was in danger of getting cut off, by Gen Sherman's troops. They also say that the fort held out for over 2 years, while being bombarded by USN ships. --------------------------------------------------------- Sounds great, but the "tactical withdrawal", didn't that leave SC basically defenseless, by giving away access to the Santee River, and Charlseton? Gee you had to listen close to put that together. Why were the Confederates that ran from the fort described as heros, but Maj. Anderson, who had no way to effecetively ressist, basically called a coward? Maj. Anderson lost the fort, the Confederates lost the fort, and SC.
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 12:18:05 AM EDT
Talk about rewriting history. Did you guys ever read the "Causes for Secession" published by South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas? In the cases of Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas slavery was the first item mentioned, and in the case of Mississippi, the issue of slavery is the primary issue. The Southern states asserted the feds were in violation of the Constitution because they did not return runaways. That was one of their major gripes. The issue of states rights is as they related to slavery. South Carolina: [b]The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.[/b] Mississippi, 2nd paragraph: [b]Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.[/b] Georgia, 2nd sentence: [b]For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.[/b] Texas, 3rd paragraph: [b]Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.[/b] How can some of you say slavery was not an issue? It sure as hell was an issue. Don't look to your junior high school history books for the answers, get it from the source.
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 12:31:46 AM EDT
Slavery was the issue, it even spawned other issues. The war was not fought for abolitionist reasons, not initially anyway. There are taxation and representation issues locked into slavery. There were slavery expansion issues, for a while it was 1 slave state, 1 free state to be admitted. Then the policy of containment wnet into effect. There was also the issue that the United States was getting bigger. But the number of "Southern" States stayed the same. They were unhappy because they felt the newer States favored the North. The South was afraid that slavery would be outlawed. Abolitionists in the North did what they could to antagonize the South. The South antogonized a lot of "regular people" with th Dred Scott SCOTUS ruling that said runaway slave that made to to "free states" had to be returned.
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 12:41:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2002 12:44:06 AM EDT by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 1:45:55 AM EDT
This sheeee-it just pisses me off. FOTBR
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 4:30:36 AM EDT
Post from voilsb -
they can much better explain why the south wanted to seceed, etc, etc. but the consensus is that it had very little, if anything, to do with slavery...
View Quote
That's the Gospel truth! [b]Hell, I still want to secede and it has [u]nothing[/u] to do with slavery![/b] [:D] But back to the matter at hand. Sucinctly put: The War Between the States was fought over the issue of States Rights. The most contentious point at the time involved in the issue of States Rights was [u]slavery[/u]. Period. Easy enough to figure. That is why 90% of those who fought for the South never owned a slave and never would have thought about owning a slave. In 1860, 90% of all federal tariffs collected on goods arriving in the United States, were collected on goods either arriving in Southern ports or destined for the South. In other words, the North was content to have most of the federal freight paid for by the South. Meaning that they were content to be paid for the fruits of a slave economy, while decrying the inhumanity of the system. Sorta like the inhumanity the North displayed on the hapless African slaves when they were marching through Georgia, eh? I think this is the way it [u]still[/u] goes. Oil and gas can be drilled for in Louisiana wetlands and salt marshes, in Texas cotton fields, and elsewhere, with all the attendant evironmental costs, but, God forbid the pristine coasts of California be touched by the plague of energy production! Fill 'er up? Eric The(NeverForget!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 5:01:47 AM EDT
Seems funny to me that if it (the war of Northern Aggression) had only been about slavery, General Robert E. Lee, who never owned slaves, and did not belive in owning slaves, would have fought for the North. Maybe a few of his quotes will shed some light on the subject.
Quotes by General Robert E. Lee SLAVERY: "So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished." WHY THE SOUTH FOUGHT: "All that the South has ever desired was that the Union--as established by our forefathers--should be preserved, and that the government--as originally organized--should be administered in purity and truth." STATES' RIGHTS: "I consider it as the chief source of stability to our present system; whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."
View Quote
WOW, the foresight in the last quote really caught me.....
whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home,
View Quote
Sound like current events? Rancid Lance
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 5:09:54 AM EDT
My boss made a good point one day that in fact the "Civil War" was warring between two seperate countries due to succession and not the many states of the Republic.
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 5:11:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2002 5:16:07 AM EDT by SeaDweller]
So how long until they blow up Stone Mountain with the evil Confederate dude on it???? [img]http://www.computer-chair-traveler.org/Pictures/Stone_mountain_ga_01.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.civilwaralbum.com/misc/2002/stonemtn2a.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.civilwaralbum.com/panorama/stonemtn.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 5:19:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 5:34:07 AM EDT
It was my understanding that the South was upset with the North for being forced to purchase their finished goods when they could get the same goods, even of better quality, from England. That was the reason Congress put tariffs on imported goods -- to protect Northern business. Of course, this is a legitimate gripe, by all means. But it still doesn't account for slavery being mentioned so many times in the "Causes for Secession", unless, of course, the issue was solely the prosperity brought to rich slave owners as the result of it. And let's fact it, 90% of the people may not own slaves, but odds are the wealthy 10% that do run the show. So sure, the whole thing could be about money. Most wars are. But I'm sure many who volunteered thought there was a greater cause.
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 5:36:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Easy enough to figure. That is why 90% of those who fought for the South never owned a slave and never would have thought about owning a slave. Eric The(NeverForget!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Well hell Eric, everybody knows they fought 'cause they just plain hated ni***rs!! Just like the suicide muslims who attack us do so 'cause they hate our "freedom and liberty"!! Even though we are halfway around the planet!!
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 5:36:39 AM EDT
If you think it was common for a slave master to beat to death a $1500 tool, then you are out of your mind. Hell, even the $500 dollar model was too costly to be expendable.
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 5:40:43 AM EDT
As with any brainwashing campaign, the propagandists have to continue making noise lest others start to think and see through the snow-job. Keep hollering slavery, so no one will think about the simple facts (How come it wasn't just the slave owners who fought?), or look at the other actions of the Lincoln baboon. How about the blackmail in Baltimore, mass arrests and suspension of civil rights before the war, just to force MAryland to the North. ANd, there are many more. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 5:49:47 AM EDT
Post from TomJefferson -
Eric, I want to buy you a a beer someday!
View Quote
What could be finer than to drink a toast to the Republic with [b]TomJefferson[/b], I say?! I look forward to that day! Eric The(Gracious)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 5:50:31 AM EDT
Ya know, it sure is interesting to see otherwise reasonable, educated people let their emotions & phony loyalties override facts & common sense. You southern guys, how tough is it to read the above post by mattja? That canard about states rights is revisionist history written by people who are still fighting a war that was over almost 150 years ago. Don't you have anything better to do?
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 6:03:48 AM EDT
Post from hardcase -
Ya know, it sure is interesting to see otherwise reasonable, educated people let their emotions & phony loyalties override facts & common sense.
View Quote
'...emotions and phony loyalties..??? Sir, I have no idea what you are cackling about! My posts have been unemotional, and my loyalties to my native State are just as sober and as genuine as Robert E. Lee's were when he declined the offer to lead the Northern Army! [b]My family is Texas and Texas is my family![/b] I'm sorry that you, as a Minnesotan, don't think the same way as we do in Texas. On a whole number of subjects!
You southern guys, how tough is it to read the above post by mattja?
View Quote
Not tough at all. History doesn't scare me, it just confirms what I believe. Was reading my post tough for you? [:D]
That canard about states rights is revisionist history written by people who are still fighting a war that was over almost 150 years ago.
View Quote
No, what you just wrote is a part of revisionist history! The only difference here is that you are not in some liberal Minnesota college spouting these spurious beliefs, whacking off in sync with your fuzzy-headed professor, but are among others who [u]know[/u] better! I was taught American History in the class of T. Harry Williams at LSU Baton Rouge! He, unlike others, wrote the book on American History! Really! Check it out!
Don't you have anything better to do?
View Quote
Than to defend truth and honor? Actually, no I don't. I will forever defend the truth and the honor of those who have gone before us! As I hope one day, others will defend ours! Eric The(HonestToGod)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 7:03:07 AM EDT
Bump To Top for Scipio... ;)
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 7:44:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2002 7:46:32 AM EDT by Wobblin-Goblin]
Originally Posted By hardcase: Ya know, it sure is interesting to see otherwise reasonable, educated people let their emotions & phony loyalties override facts & common sense. You southern guys, how tough is it to read the above post by mattja? That canard about states rights is revisionist history written by people who are still fighting a war that was over almost 150 years ago. Don't you have anything better to do?
View Quote
If the North fought the Civil War to free the slaves, [b]WHY DIDN'T IT FREE THE FRIGGEN SLAVES?[/b] Oh, they did, my bad. The North freed all the slaves in the rebellious states. [b]SO WHO FREED ALL THE SLAVES IN THE NORTHERN STATES?[/b] [size=6][b]NOBODY[/size=6][/b] So when exactly did the North invade the South? 1861. So when exactly did the North supposedly "free" the slaves? 1863. So when exactly did the non-rebellious states have their slaves freed? So if the Civil War was fought over slavery (ie, "To free blacks from the evils of slavery"), why did the Union invade southern states in 1861 and "free" the slaves in only a few states in 1863? Because the Union was getting its ass kicked in a war to force states to stay under federal control. It needed another issue to bolster its standing in the international community and keep the South from getting much-needed aid that would have allowed it to win the war. The Civil War was a war to free the slaves? Whatever.
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 9:27:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 10:12:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 1:36:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raf: See you after the Holy Days, boys.
View Quote
Oops. I think I violated the "Truce" we supposedly have going on here. Sorry, Raf.
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 1:50:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 1:53:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2002 8:26:04 PM EDT by DScottHewitt]
Sorry
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 2:01:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/24/2002 3:30:52 AM EDT
From a post by Eric the Hun:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post from TomJefferson - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric, I want to buy you a a beer someday! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What could be finer than to drink a toast to the Republic with TomJefferson, I say?! I look forward to that day!
View Quote
I could reccommend no better ale for that occasion than some Samuel Adams Lager, all the better if it's on draft[:D] Rancid Lance
Link Posted: 12/24/2002 4:09:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/24/2002 4:11:35 AM EDT by mattja]
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: If the North fought the Civil War to free the slaves, [b]WHY DIDN'T IT FREE THE FRIGGEN SLAVES?[/b]
View Quote
I'm not saying the North fought the war to free the slaves. All I'm saying is the issue of slavery, or the prosperity that resulted from it, was of primary concern to the Southern states, as is evident in their own reasons for succession. That is historical fact. I will add this. For the South to form an alliance with England, with the war of 1812 still fresh in the minds of old timers, was totally stupid. If they wanted an alliance, France would be a better pick. But to pick England as their buddy guaranteed widespread support for war in the North. The South was its own worse enemy. The North was not going to let England use the South to pull another divide and conquer scheme, like they always did. No way in hell.
Link Posted: 12/24/2002 4:22:24 AM EDT
revisonist history? hell, there's a guy on this thread that could go write better material. i'ld pay $50 for the "history" book he would write. hell, i think it would be funnier than the national lampoon's history of the civil war!!
Link Posted: 12/24/2002 4:32:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mattja:
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: If the North fought the Civil War to free the slaves, [b]WHY DIDN'T IT FREE THE FRIGGEN SLAVES?[/b]
View Quote
I'm not saying the North fought the war to free the slaves. All I'm saying is the issue of slavery, or the prosperity that resulted from it, was of primary concern to the Southern states, as is evident in their own reasons for succession. That is historical fact. I will add this. For the South to form an alliance with England, with the war of 1812 still fresh in the minds of old timers, was totally stupid. If they wanted an alliance, France would be a better pick. But to pick England as their buddy guaranteed widespread support for war in the North. The South was its own worse enemy. The North was not going to let England use the South to pull another divide and conquer scheme, like they always did. No way in hell.
View Quote
Merry Christmas, buddy. Truce. For now.
Top Top