Gettysburg and Independence Day

[William the Drake]

4 hours ago, i64man said:

And to add to your point CSX, today education pretty much point out that the single most important reason for the civil war was the end of slavery. The other issues have become more of a footnote.

False. I teach history. In the south. We teach that the road to Civil War was in fact paved with numerous causes. However, what we must combat is the very nonsense that slavery was a non-issue in the culmination of war. Six confederate states mention slavery as a reason to secede in their articles of secession. Four say it is the MOST important reason. Three mention white supremacy:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." -2nd line of the Mississippi Deceleration of Secession. 

[i64man]

2 minutes ago, William the Drake said:

False. I teach history. In the south. We teach that the road to Civil War was in fact paved with numerous causes. However, what we must combat is the very nonsense that slavery was a non-issue in the culmination of war. Six confederate states mention slavery as a reason to secede in their articles of secession. Four say it is the MOST important reason. Three mention white supremacy:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." -2nd line of the Mississippi Deceleration of Secession. 

William thanks for the correction. I am corrected. 

[CSX4451]

1 hour ago, William the Drake said:

False. I teach history. In the south. We teach that the road to Civil War was in fact paved with numerous causes. However, what we must combat is the very nonsense that slavery was a non-issue in the culmination of war. Six confederate states mention slavery as a reason to secede in their articles of secession. Four say it is the MOST important reason. Three mention white supremacy:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." -2nd line of the Mississippi Deceleration of Secession. 

No... what we must combat is the falsehood that slavery was "The" and "only" issue that caused succession and the war which followed. Ask any kid/young adult born after 1980 why the Civil War was fought and I'm betting 95% will tell you it was over slavery and slavery alone. The other reasons are lost to history in most teachings. No doubt it was a reason and an important reason but not 'The" reason that is pushed in the educational system today.  If you teach differently and address all the issues that lead up to succession than I congratulate you on truly educating our youth but I feel you are in the minority.  Tip of my hat to you sir.

 

[William the Drake]

25 minutes ago, CSX4451 said:

The other reasons are lost to history in most teachings. No doubt it was a reason and an important reason but not 'The" reason that is pushed in the educational system today.  If you teach differently and address all the issues that lead up to succession than I congratulate you on truly educating our youth but I feel you are in the minority.  Tip of my hat to you sir.

It's not just me; its the curriculum. This "liberal education" conspiracy theory is nonsense. I once asked a senior teacher what she thought of some local legislation that would enforce the teaching of "only things that highlight American exceptionalism" her response: "We teach history, and we will continue teaching history" This was in central louisiana where a population of the schools had the more "country" students refereed to themselves as the "camo clan"

In these places, and mostly in southern states, the view that is pushed is that slaver was a non-issue. That is just as farcical as stating it was the only issue. As teachers, we have to combat both, but not only teaching but also being brought up in the south, I has see far more of the former than the prior. And it doesn't help when there are local monuments openly celebrating the opposition to further that narrative. 

Again, there is a difference between having something to remember past events vs something that is specifically design to celebrate it, where the local lore is that the monument is "defiantly looking his immortal enemy, the North." Does it deserve to come down. Yes. Does it deserve to be destroyed. No. It belongs in a museum. Otherwise people will make up their own history that teachers have to deal with. On both sides.

[CSX4451]

40 minutes ago, William the Drake said:

It's not just me; its the curriculum. This "liberal education" conspiracy theory is nonsense. I once asked a senior teacher what she thought of some local legislation that would enforce the teaching of "only things that highlight American exceptionalism" her response: "We teach history, and we will continue teaching history" This was in central louisiana where a population of the schools had the more "country" students refereed to themselves as the "camo clan"

In these places, and mostly in southern states, the view that is pushed is that slaver was a non-issue. That is just as farcical as stating it was the only issue. As teachers, we have to combat both, but not only teaching but also being brought up in the south, I has see far more of the former than the prior. And it doesn't help when there are local monuments openly celebrating the opposition to further that narrative. 

Again, there is a difference between having something to remember past events vs something that is specifically design to celebrate it, where the local lore is that the monument is "defiantly looking his immortal enemy, the North." Does it deserve to come down. Yes. Does it deserve to be destroyed. No. It belongs in a museum. Otherwise people will make up their own history that teachers have to deal with. On both sides.

For your one,  I'll give you 3 that oppose even a moderate curriculum about America's past and teach the parts they prefer or believe.... much like a lot of our judges today that legislate from the bench. 

I got a much younger sister and a sister in-law ( children of the 80s) who are both teachers and sadly liberal as hell who will laugh at you if you try to tell them the reason behind succession and the CW was for any reason other than slavery.....I wonder what their students get..........

Once again no one here, or myself for sure,  is saying it wasn't an issue... it was one of many the built up to a point that the south decided to succeed a form their own nation but even some of the comments made here clearly push the issue it was to subjugate the blacks first and foremost. If the south had declared that they would drop their sabers and returned to the fold if slavery was allowed to continue, the north would have agreed. Even Lincoln made that clear.

Now to think personal bias doesn't bleed into some people's profession and how they perform their job is kinda naive.....it's human nature.  

Edited July 4, 2017 by CSX4451

[Andre Bolkonsky]

8 hours ago, CSX4451 said:

Tariffs are the key to this...... however today's education system attempts to hide it. The tariffs on woolen and iron (40%) from Europe gave the European traders less profit to buy southern cotton on there return trip to Europe. These Tarriffs benefited northern production while strangled southern sales financially.

As for slavery being the main issue for the civil war. Read what President Lincoln wrote. 

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.”

While freeing slaves was what Lincoln wanted personally ... it was far from his main reason for the Civil War if any at all to begin with. He wanted the union to remain whole. Slavery became an issue later in the war as a rally cry even when many northern states feared free black slaves moving north. This was a huge issue prior to and during the civil war as while some of the northerners wanted them freed, they didn't want them to leave the south. They did not want them to move to the northern states. Lincoln wanted them once the union was secured and the slaves freed to deport them back to Africa. 

Lets not forget the US Constitution  allowed slavery to exist and it wasn't till 1865 that the 13th admendment was introduced and ratified outlawing slavery in the US. 

This you will never read in today's text books. It was all about freeing your fellow man is what today's youth gets. 

The Greatest Lie Ever Told. 

The best version of this I've ever seen was on the Simpsons, and I can't find the clip. 

Lisa is standing in front of the class reading her report on the causes of the Civil War and is going through the details. Ms. Kerbapple cuts her off, blows out her cigarette smoke, and tells her "just say slavery, it's easier. Next!". 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

1 hour ago, William the Drake said:

It's not just me; its the curriculum. This "liberal education" conspiracy theory is nonsense. I once asked a senior teacher what she thought of some local legislation that would enforce the teaching of "only things that highlight American exceptionalism" her response: "We teach history, and we will continue teaching history" This was in central louisiana where a population of the schools had the more "country" students refereed to themselves as the "camo clan"

In these places, and mostly in southern states, the view that is pushed is that slaver was a non-issue. That is just as farcical as stating it was the only issue. As teachers, we have to combat both, but not only teaching but also being brought up in the south, I has see far more of the former than the prior. And it doesn't help when there are local monuments openly celebrating the opposition to further that narrative. 

Again, there is a difference between having something to remember past events vs something that is specifically design to celebrate it, where the local lore is that the monument is "defiantly looking his immortal enemy, the North." Does it deserve to come down. Yes. Does it deserve to be destroyed. No. It belongs in a museum. Otherwise people will make up their own history that teachers have to deal with. On both sides.

The old David Duke line of reasoning. "It's not hate, it's heritage" group? 

Unfortunately, there is a heritage of hate. And it isn't going away anytime soon. You are correct it cannot be discounted, and ignoring  so at our own peril gives way to men like William Pierce and the National Alliance. But that is not the whole story, it is only the one that gets the most press. 

There is also a great deal of affection between Black and White in the South. It is common to mock the film 'Driving Miss Daisy' and ridicule Hoke as the Uncle Tom figure cowtowing to Massah; but that caring, nurturing relationship is a hell of a lot more common than most people think. And this lifts up entire communities, and benefits the subsequent generations in ways pure hatred never can. No one ever mentions Hokes daughter becomes a college teacher, but that's how it works. 

[Col_Kelly]

I just couldn't resist... sorry

[CSX4451]

Lol !!!!! Good Stuff 

[A. P. Hill]

I've heard they don't have a 4th of July in England!  They call the 4th - 3 1/2.

[antsha62]

While I agree that most confederate soldiers didn't have slaves (in above post) they were fighting against their government, their constitution. The same constitution that men gave their lives for. The same one that exist today that we all know and love. I am not saying the confederate troops didn't sacrifice anything and I do think we should teach our youth about the conflict, but never praise them, praise their spirit but not their cause.

 

Yes, the same government that later went on to wipe out the American Indian. Ironic how many slaves joined the Union Army only to kill American Indians a few years later. Slavery was an issue long before the war. Funny, how many Founding Fathers and "Noble" patriots owned slaves while working on the constitution? Ironic that those noble leaders of the North let the ex slave vote to get the Republican vote. I guess women would have to wait till the 1900's, but Kunta Kenta fresh off the boat from Africa could make his mark for Massa Abe and them Republicans.

 

 

Edited July 5, 2017 by antsha62

[Andre Bolkonsky]

1 hour ago, antsha62 said:

While I agree that most confederate soldiers didn't have slaves (in above post) they were fighting against their government, their constitution. The same constitution that men gave their lives for. The same one that exist today that we all know and love. I am not saying the confederate troops didn't sacrifice anything and I do think we should teach our youth about the conflict, but never praise them, praise their spirit but not their cause.

 

Yes, the same government that later went on to wipe out the American Indian. Ironic how many slaves joined the Union Army only to kill American Indians a few years later. Slavery was an issue long before the war. Funny, how many Founding Fathers and "Noble" patriots owned slaves while working on the constitution? Ironic that those noble leaders of the North let the ex slave vote to get the Republican vote. I guess women would have to wait till the 1900's, but Kunta Kenta fresh off the boat from Africa could make his mark for Massa Abe and them Republicans.

 

 

It depends on which cause you think they were fighting for. 

Don't throw everyone into one cauldron and assume everyone is motivated by the same impulses. 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

[Andre Bolkonsky]

[TheHumanHydra]

This is fascinating. I am not an American and have never studied American history. (The only things I knew about the Battle of Gettysburg before playing that game were that the Union won and somebody named Pickett conducted a charge up a hill that didn't go well. I don't even know where Gettysburg is.) I am, in fact, your hated enemy, a Briton! (Of old; by birth, Canadian.)

The explanation for the Civil War that had coalesced in my mind over time was that the South seceded to preserve their states' rights -- proximately, their right to maintain the institution of slavery (similar to how the Colonies revolted to uphold their citizens' rights -- proximately, their right to vote on new taxes). I would be interested to read any correction of this summation/simplification (as with all historical events, it is a simplification). If you could give a bullet-point list of the two to three most important reasons each side went to war, according to your understanding, what would they be?

I also found the comments interesting addressing the motivations and resilience of the soldier-citizenry at large. It has always seemed to me (without reference to the American Civil War) that states have an almost irresistible method of persuading men to fight for them, independent of the morality of the cause. While men will desert, sometimes in large numbers, a state that summons an army has one, and a general who commands an advance has it, until his men feel defeated -- regardless of whether they wanted to be there in the first place. Some bemoan the susceptibility of the masses to a politician -- beware the general! The people's obedience to him is almost automatic, without him even uttering a threat. It doesn't surprise me at all that Americans followed their leaders and fought for their 'home team,' to the bitter end -- from the rest of history, that seems the natural thing to do. (Not that this discounts their courage -- all who see battle must have courage to withstand it.)

Those are the thoughts of an outsider. Happy (belated) Independence Day to my estranged brethren, now reunited in comradeship.