Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Don't spin the Civil War
Washington Post ^ | 12.27.10 | E.J. DIONNE jR.

Posted on 12/27/2010 10:31:54 AM PST by trumandogz

The Civil War is about to loom very large in the popular memory. We would do well to be candid about its causes and not allow the distortions of contemporary politics or long-standing myths to cloud our understanding of why the nation fell apart.

The coming year will mark the 150th anniversary of the onset of the conflict, which is usually dated to April 12, 1861, when Confederate batteries opened fire at 4:30 a.m. on federal troops occupying Fort Sumter. Union forces surrendered the next day, after 34 hours of shelling.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: 150; anniversary; antiamerican; butthurtrebels; civil; civilwar; confederacy; dixie; imtougherthanyou; itsaboutslaverydummy; keyboardwarriors; kukluxklan; partyofsecession; partyofslavery; proslaveryfreepers; punkrrliberal; rebelfiction; secession; southcarolina; statesrights; treason; wannabethread; war; warnorthernaggressn; whitehoodscaucus; whitesupremacists; yankeerevisionism; yankspammingkeywords
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,351-1,389 next last

1 posted on 12/27/2010 10:31:55 AM PST by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Oh man, not thios shit again.


2 posted on 12/27/2010 10:33:19 AM PST by Americanexpat (Everytime I see that guy's face ot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Nothing to worry about here. s/ Our kids today don’t know anything about the Civil War, where it happened or why. That’s one reason the south should fly the Rebel Battle Flag..........if nothing else, the kids may ask what it’s for.


3 posted on 12/27/2010 10:36:30 AM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

IBTTGTTSBR. (In Before This Thread Goes To The Smokey Back Room)


4 posted on 12/27/2010 10:36:50 AM PST by PalmettoMason (It's easy being a menace to society when WAY OVER half the population is happy being sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

bump,,,later


5 posted on 12/27/2010 10:37:59 AM PST by piroque (it is better to perish than to live as slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

More yankee revisionist history. :)


6 posted on 12/27/2010 10:38:53 AM PST by Sporke (USS-Iowa BB-61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2010/12/confederate_president_jefferso.html


7 posted on 12/27/2010 10:40:03 AM PST by piroque (it is better to perish than to live as slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
They should teach it accurately. The anti-slave faction was the Republicans. The pro-slave faction -- whether it be northern copperheads or southern successionists -- were Democrats.

Regarding the role of religion in the conflict they should learn the words to both Dixie and the Battle Hymn of the Republic then compare them.

8 posted on 12/27/2010 10:40:45 AM PST by Tribune7 (The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Historian EJ Dionne Jr has spoken.

The "progressives" are mandating everything else, why not a state approved official version of history, too?

Fits right in with this crowd.

9 posted on 12/27/2010 10:40:47 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
You mean the war of northern aggression will be spun again.
10 posted on 12/27/2010 10:45:27 AM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
The memo is out. Chrissy Matthews was spewing this last week. I guess it's the talking points for the holidays. My guess is: next will be Gerson.
11 posted on 12/27/2010 10:45:48 AM PST by Forgotten Amendments (I'd rather be Plaxico Burress than Sean Taylor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

As soon as you call it the “Civil War”, you are already spinning.

I am a CT Yankee who simply calls it the War of 1861. That is the most neutral term I can come up with.


12 posted on 12/27/2010 10:47:41 AM PST by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz; All

I can see the Black Racists and Bigots coming out and whining and lying about all Civil War.

This would be a good time for all those on FR to study up on Civil War history. Get to know the facts before the fiction starts getting spewed out


13 posted on 12/27/2010 10:49:04 AM PST by UCFRoadWarrior (Whenever something is "Global"...it means its bad for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piroque

I wonder if they will have a reading of the CSA Constitution?

“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]”


14 posted on 12/27/2010 10:49:52 AM PST by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

This is a really opportunity to establish in everyone’s mind that the Republican Party was anti-slavery and that Abe Lincoln was a Republican. You would be shocked at how many people do not know that.


15 posted on 12/27/2010 10:49:58 AM PST by texmexis best (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

even us yankee folks from NJ can read this article and get a wiff of stink...


16 posted on 12/27/2010 10:50:09 AM PST by OL Hickory (Jesus and the American soldier-1 died for your soul/1 died for your freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
I read two extremely illuminating books on the CW this year: April, 1865 and The PIG to the Civil War. Both were incredible, both gave the facts, and both had the take that the South was perfectly within its rights to split off from the Union. The latter gave an imaginary scenario whereby the South gave up on slavery (which, acc'd to the former, they were getting really close to doing anyway) and rejoined the Union in time to fight in WWI. No malice, no "reconstruction," none of that stuff. I think it should rightly be called "The War of Northern Aggression" as well as the "Civil War," and that as the assorted dates are marked, that the South as a whole, with the lifestyle, the economy, etc., needs to be seen for what it was: a bunch of guys who didn't like being pushed around by those they didn't feel had a right to do so.

Just my 2 cents. My GGGrandfather fought in the Iowa Regulars and was very active in Veterans' Affairs after the war, and I've only set foot in the south twice, so I guess I'm a Yankee.

17 posted on 12/27/2010 10:50:42 AM PST by Othniel (There is no god named Allah, and Mohammed is its false prophet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
I predict 500 replies. I'll be the first to get things going.

Abraham Lincoln was a Saint.

18 posted on 12/27/2010 10:50:56 AM PST by Graybeard58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Were this crowd in charge then, they’d have simply retreated from South Carolina and said ‘oh well’. When exactly did the slaves stop being slaves in Delaware again ?


19 posted on 12/27/2010 10:53:15 AM PST by major-pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
The victor gets naming rights. Our War of Independence would have been called the Colonial Rebellion if GB won and the Civil War would have been the war of independence, or the war of northern aggression if the Confederacy prevailed.
20 posted on 12/27/2010 10:53:59 AM PST by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

“You mean the war of northern aggression will be spun again”

Yep. :-(


21 posted on 12/27/2010 10:54:59 AM PST by rickb308 (Nothing good ever came from someone yelling Allah Snackbar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Yes, let’s just stop spinning it. Secession didn’t suddenly become verboten and “union” sacrosanct just because the southern states attempted it. The Constitutionality of secession had long been assumed, even by secessionist movements in prissy New England.

Yes, let’s just stop spinning it. The African slave trade was almost entirely a creature of New England shipping interests, with a majority of so-called “slave ports” being decidedly north of the Mason-Dixon.

Yes, let’s just stop spinning it, the 3/5ths Compromise, so ignorantly attributed to “racist” southerners and demagogued to infinity, was a compromise insisted upon by northern interests, who did not want slaves counted as fully human in order to prevent Congressional reapportionment from shifting political power to the south.

Yes, let’s just stop spinning it. I could go on for quite a while.


22 posted on 12/27/2010 10:56:07 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

I agree that it was not a civil war: The South was not trying to take over the government. I view it as a war for independence, but you will never read that in a history book.


23 posted on 12/27/2010 10:56:54 AM PST by CoastWatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior

“I can see the Black Racists and Bigots coming out and whining and lying about all Civil War.”

Lying about the Civil War?

Are you saying that South Carolina’s Declaration of Succession did not state that the reason for succession was not slavery?

Are you saying that the Confederates did not attack Fort Sumter?

Are you saying that Alexander Stephens did not say that “”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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical and moral truth.?”

Are you saying that the Confederate Constitution did not guarantee the right to own “negro slaves?”


24 posted on 12/27/2010 10:57:08 AM PST by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bamahead; manc; GOP_Raider; TenthAmendmentChampion; snuffy smiff; slow5poh; EdReform; TheZMan; ...

Dixie ping y’all


25 posted on 12/27/2010 10:57:53 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

I have always understood civil war to be defined as a war where two factions fight for control of a government. The “civil war” fought in the United States was not that, but rather a desire by one side to be completely separated from the other and autonomous, which would be aptly titled the “War of Southern Independence.”


26 posted on 12/27/2010 10:58:55 AM PST by FortWorthPatriot (Obama is no Hitler; Hitler got the Olympics!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AU72
Our War of Independence would have been called the Colonial Rebellion if GB won and the Civil War would have been the war of independence, or the war of northern aggression if the Confederacy prevailed.

And many still call it the "Revolutionary War," which is also a misnomer. It is in the victor's interest to maintain the meaning of words.
27 posted on 12/27/2010 10:59:15 AM PST by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

“Yes, let’s just stop spinning it, the 3/5ths Compromise, so ignorantly attributed to “racist” southerners and demagogued to infinity, was a compromise insisted upon by northern interests, who did not want slaves counted as fully human in order to prevent Congressional reapportionment from shifting political power to the south.”

Why is it that the Southern States who wanted slaves to be counted as a whole person did not want to extend voting rights to those persons?


28 posted on 12/27/2010 10:59:46 AM PST by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Othniel

“and I’ve only set foot in the south twice, so I guess I’m a Yankee”

Yankee & Rebel is where your heart is.

Since this war pitted “brother against brother” and the North didn’t fight it’s self, nor did the South, SOMEONE had to cross idealogical lines somewheres.


29 posted on 12/27/2010 11:00:35 AM PST by rickb308 (Nothing good ever came from someone yelling Allah Snackbar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

stainlessbanner


30 posted on 12/27/2010 11:02:00 AM PST by sionnsar (IranAzadi|5yst3m 0wn3d-it's N0t Y0ur5:SONY|Why are TSA exempt from their own searches?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Oh please..both sides made money from slavery...

“Anderson once quipped dryly that “the increase of her darkies” had made him rich”

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/a-quiet-mans-arrival/#more-70481


31 posted on 12/27/2010 11:02:04 AM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior
Get to know the facts before the fiction starts getting spewed out.

Feel free to start.

32 posted on 12/27/2010 11:02:17 AM PST by Drennan Whyte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz; Non-Sequitur

I sure will miss Non-Sequitur on this thread, NOT.


33 posted on 12/27/2010 11:03:04 AM PST by Repeal The 17th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Othniel
Both were incredible, both gave the facts, and both had the take that the South was perfectly within its rights to split off from the Union.

Both gave their opinion that the South was perfectly within its rights to split off from the South. That is not necessarily the same as fact.

34 posted on 12/27/2010 11:03:52 AM PST by Drennan Whyte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

He’s an idiot. The Civil War was about economics not race. The south seceded, the north invaded—but not to free slaves. The north invaded to retain the economic realtionship of the agrarian south to the increasingly industrialized north. The south wanted to sell their resources to other countries and the north wanted to prevent that and dictate prices . The north would then use the resources, manufacture goods and ship them back south. The north wanted to maintain a mercantilist relatinship with the south—the same conditions that led to the American Revolution in the first place. Reducing American History to Dionne’s myopic fantasy about racism is absurd.


35 posted on 12/27/2010 11:06:54 AM PST by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
I predict 500 replies. I'll be the first to get things going. Abraham Lincoln was a Saint.

LOL. Not only that, but it was rumored that even the Southern Generals looked up to him as some sort of hero.


36 posted on 12/27/2010 11:07:09 AM PST by reagan_fanatic (Tralala boom-dee-aye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Dionne would do well to read Lincoln's own speeches about the root causes of the conflict, starting with his Inaugural Address of March 4, 1861.

Lincoln goes out of his way to assure the slave holding states of the federal government's intention not to interfere with their peculiar institution.

He doesn't even outright reject the right of the states to secede, but insist that it be done in a constitutional framework as was done when the union was organized, not unilaterally.

Had Lincoln's prescription been followed, the entire sorry war may have been avoided. This is exactly the outcome that the John Brown type abolitionists in the North and the hardliners in the south feared the most. That is why Ft. Sumter was fired upon to prevent such an outcome.

37 posted on 12/27/2010 11:07:30 AM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
There remains enormous denial over the fact that the central cause of the war was our national disagreement about race and slavery, not states' rights or anything else.

The author may as well have written "The End" right there as that is all they really had to say.

Typically, many folks will actually agree with the above statement while cursing the feds for taking over, oh lets see, Federal EPA issuing air permits to industries in Texas thus exercising control over public and private businesses in that state.

They are like deer in the headlights and will suffer the same outcome.

.

38 posted on 12/27/2010 11:08:07 AM PST by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
But our conversations, like so many about the war, focused on people and battles, not on why the confrontation happened in the first place. There remains enormous denial over the fact that the central cause of the war was our national disagreement about race and slavery, not states' rights or anything else.

Opinions are like /deleted/ evryone has one.

39 posted on 12/27/2010 11:09:04 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Thanks for the Dixie Ping, Stainless - and Merry Christmas from 'Bama!
40 posted on 12/27/2010 11:09:25 AM PST by TomServo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Yes, let’s just stop spinning it. The African slave trade was almost entirely a creature of New England shipping interests, with a majority of so-called “slave ports” being decidedly north of the Mason-Dixon.

Aren't you overlooking one part of that equation? The buyers? Without demand for slaves those slave ships would never have left port.

Yes, let’s just stop spinning it, the 3/5ths Compromise, so ignorantly attributed to “racist” southerners and demagogued to infinity, was a compromise insisted upon by northern interests, who did not want slaves counted as fully human in order to prevent Congressional reapportionment from shifting political power to the south.

Why would they want slaves counted the same as a free person? They were property in the South, not people. They had no more rights than a horse or a cow did. For the Southerners to demand that their chattel was entitled to representation was the height of hypocrisy. The 3/5ths clause still gave the South a disproportionate level of representation in the House.

41 posted on 12/27/2010 11:09:27 AM PST by Drennan Whyte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
I sure will miss Non-Sequitur on this thread, NOT.
Bounced? Do tell! (give offending thread if known)
42 posted on 12/27/2010 11:11:14 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Why is it that the Southern States who wanted slaves to be counted as a whole person did not want to extend voting rights to those persons?

My goodness, we've got a live one here, zooming back in his wacky little wayback machine freighted with modern biases and assuming anachronistically that everybody had voting rights in the antebellum era.

Who had voting rights and who did not, trumandogz? And, why? Did noncitizens? Did women? Did the newly naturalized? Did even the unlanded, owning no property, in many instances? What were people living under bondage in your mind trumandogz, citizens? Was this a uniquely southern American concept, in all the world? Where did it come from and who practiced it? And, when and where has it fully and finally been put to an end?

Your strange skewing of history via the lense of current law and societal taboo is known as "historicism," and while you're not alone, you're one of the primary purveyors of such on FR. You'll continue to not have a clue so long as you continue on your Quixotic way in believing this garbage.

43 posted on 12/27/2010 11:12:01 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sporke

0”More yankee revisionist history’’. So what’s ‘’revisionist’’, the South didn’t lose?


44 posted on 12/27/2010 11:13:21 AM PST by jmacusa (Two wrongs don't make a right. But they can make it interesting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Othniel
Just my 2 cents. My GGGrandfather fought in the Iowa Regulars and was very active in Veterans' Affairs after the war, and I've only set foot in the south twice, so I guess I'm a Yankee

You may be a Yankee by birth but you got that good ole rebel spine in ya.

45 posted on 12/27/2010 11:14:15 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical and moral truth.?”

Funny, The Illinois Butcher™ pretty much held those very same sentiments.

46 posted on 12/27/2010 11:16:52 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, for your edification.


47 posted on 12/27/2010 11:17:26 AM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

No need to whitewash history. Simply, good guys won, bad guys lost.

The Union, the US, went on to secure liberty across the globe on many different occassions.


48 posted on 12/27/2010 11:17:42 AM PST by Little Pharma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Last week, it was an early Christmas present...
-
To: Non-Sequitur
zot
2,147 posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 4:29:15 PM by Jim Robinson
-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2644629/posts?page=2147#2147


49 posted on 12/27/2010 11:18:49 AM PST by Repeal The 17th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Yep, if this is the case then why weren’t the slaves emancipated in 1861?


50 posted on 12/27/2010 11:20:57 AM PST by MeganC (January 20, 2013 - President Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,351-1,389 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson