Tara House Today
Posted on 06/23/2015 11:56:19 AM PDT by EveningStar
Edited on 06/24/2015 8:32:44 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
... I hate Gone With the Wind. I hate everything about it. I hate its portrayal of the Civil War. I hate its portrayal of Southern aristocrats. I hate its popularity. I hate that it's become an iconic movie. I hate that it was ever made in the first place.
Gone With the Wind is Birth of a Nation with less horses. The movie, and its position among the American cinematic pantheon, has done more to further the ahistoric Lost Cause bull**** than any other single production. Because that's the fundamental problem with the Lost Cause narrative: it's not true.
Let's go one-by-one through some typical Lost Cause-tinged revisionist talking points:
The Civil War was about economics, not slavery!
The Civil War was about states' rights, not slavery!
They continued to pay their taxes to the federal government.
The Civil War started with southerners firing on Fort Sumter. What was Fort Sumter? It was at the entrance to Charleston harbor to enforce collection of tariffs from ships entering the harbor.
Meanwhile, in March 1861, Congress passed the Corwin Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification. The amendment would have made slavery permanent in the US, and taken away the ability to ever abolish it.
>The savagery of slavery is offensive enough to justify any level of outrage.<
So, get back to us when you take on ISIS’ current enslavement of thousands of Christian women in the Middle East.
I won’t hold my breath.
How exactly would that work? Would there be a minimum amount of land required to vote? What about a mortgage? Would you have to own the land free and clear? And what about the business ownership requirement? Would there be a minimum size for the business? Would it have to be turning a profit? And why do you think that the military should have a major influence in civil government while anyone who lives in an apartment should be disenfranchised?
I think that, at that time, there were people who were just looking to undermine the social order. Just like now. If you look at the facts regarding what happened when Black people were freed &/or went north, it’s clear that the abolitionists weren’t their “benefactors” at all.
And yet slaves continued to attempt to escape to the north, and I've never heard of one deciding that things were better in the south where they had "their needs provided for" and voluntarily returning to slavery. Instead I read numerous accounts of runaway slaves being aided by anti-slavery northerners to evade the slave catchers attempting to hunt them down. Why is that?
That said, I don’t “support” slavery, but it had been in practice for hundreds- even more than a thousand years. It wasn’t confined to Blacks. My father’s American ancestors were indentured Irish.
Maybe you don't see the difference between a system where an indentured servant served a limited time, protected by law, and was granted land and money at the end of that time, and a system that kept one in servitude for life, along with one's children, grandchildren and so on.
With mechanization, it was coming to an end anyway.
Cotton farming wasn't mechanized until the 1940s. Is that when slavery would have ended?
Slavery continues to this day- in Africa & elsewhere. Where is the outrage for that, I wonder? And why is it only such an issue for America, when it was widespread?
Plenty of people are outraged about slavery around the world and are working to end it. But maybe they're only trying to "undermine the social order" as you put it. As for why it's an issue in America, I'm guessing it's because it's our country, built on the principles laid out in the Declaration and the Constitution, but maybe I'm wrong there. Maybe there's no reason at all to try to hold the US to a higher standard than an African backwater.
No, tariff enforcement was done at the Customs House in Charleston, near the docks. Ft. Sumter was built, at South Carolina's request, to protect the harbor from invasion after the War of 1812 showed the inadequacy of America's coastal defenses. Claiming that it had anything to do with tariff collection is simply false.
Meanwhile, in March 1861, Congress passed the Corwin Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification. The amendment would have made slavery permanent in the US, and taken away the ability to ever abolish it.
Except as it had already been done up to that time, by the states. But maybe you think it should have been a federal matter and not one left to the states.
Tara House Today
To your first paragraph, you’re picking nits. So you think that professional welfare recipients & illegals should be able to vote? Home owners & business owners have a stake in our country, whereas the others may have only a personal motivation. Our military takes an oath to serve & protect our country. Do you trust them to have our country’s best interests at heart?
No offense, but you’re sounding like a democrat.
More than a few slaves fought valiantly & died for the Confederacy. Do you think they did this under duress? How could any of the slaves share loyalty, affection, & trust with their “owners” if it was so bad? Why didn’t the ones who stayed behind & protected their “master’s” family while he & the older sons were away at war- just leave? They could have. They could have taken the gun left for that purpose & run off. Maybe some did, but some stayed- & they would have died protecting their charges, if that’s what it came to. All you’re seeing is “racism” & subjugation, but it isn’t that simple. Many of these slaves- maybe even a majority, were practically extended family; second mothers, “aunts & uncles”. How often do you think someone said (or even thought) I *own* you? I don’t think they did. I think it was assumed that the person would do what they were asked or told to do & the “owner” could be relied on to feed them & take care of them when they were sick & intervene for them if they had trouble. It was more patriarchal than “ownership” in most cases.
You “read accounts”. Maybe you should read some more.
I don’t know about anyone voluntarily returning to slavery. Do we know that none did? I do know that there were some slaves who remained in their former “owners” employment- right here in Texas. I also know of someone who refused to hire any of the former slaves who had once belonged to his new wife’s family. He was stabbed to death by one of his wetbacks & at least 2 of his daughters said it served him right because if he’d have hired them, that never would have happened.
This just isn’t as black & white (no pun meant) as some people try to portray it.
I see a difference between a rotten sob & a decent human being. Decent people did not mistreat their slaves. Rotten people exist- in every race & every social strata. I haven’t looked into my dad’s family that much yet, nor the circumstances of “indentured servitude”. Neither that nor slavery sounds good to me. You are correct that the children & grandchildren became “property” of the “owners”. Was that a bad thing or was it a guarantee that they would have housing, food, & medical care? Should they have been turned out- ripped from their mothers & fathers who loved them?
I don’t think it was common practice to “sell” them. A decent person certainly wouldn’t.
I am speaking from not-recent memory (re slavery ending) There is a fairly good discussion here
My point is that slavery still exists & existed in quite a few civilized countries & their holdings (England, for example)- yet America is the only country hounded a full 150 years *after* it ended. You don’t find that curious?
Many of our country’s founders held (or “owned”) slaves. It was accepted practice at that time. That doesn’t make it right. That’s just the way things were back then. It’s a good thing that it ended, certainly. But it wasn’t necessary to have that kind of death & destruction to do it.
How “moral” is it to embellish & sensationalize this to achieve a goal, at any cost?
The South will never “pay” enough to satisfy people like you, will we? Only when we are erased from the face of the earth. (Where have we heard that before?)
That won’t end it, either. Revenge endures forever & harms the vengeful far more than the object.
jmho
“Democrats were slavers. And racists. And traitors.”
They still are nothing has really changed.
Not just pay taxes, but they did their bowing and scraping as well. They acknowledged the rule of those People in Washington.
Again I say, the bone of contention of the civil war was who would rule the south, not whether or not slavery continued to exist. The more numerous population of the Union states simply want their role in the invasion of the South to be noble, and not vile, and so they want to believe they were fighting for a higher cause, even though they weren't.
Meanwhile, in March 1861, Congress passed the Corwin Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification. The amendment would have made slavery permanent in the US, and taken away the ability to ever abolish it.
I was not aware of that. Thanks for informing me. I have little doubt this was done as an effort to bring the Southern states back into the Union. Again, it demonstrates that the war wasn't fought over slavery, it was fought over Independence. The Pro-Independence side was defeated.
And this is a very good point. If all the moralizers think it was worth killing 600,000 men over slavery, then why do they not make a concerted effort to wipe it out elsewhere?
Why it's almost as if they were more concerned about who was running things than whether or not slavery existed, especially when you notice they had no problem tolerating five slave states which remained in the Union.
I wasn't going to get involved in this side issue, but for a seemingly intelligent man, you really don't seem to want to think too hard on the questions you ask.
Well apart from the fact that no man wants someone else telling him what to do, the Social Justice Warriors of the North were making a big deal over them. When they were coming in the 10s or 100s, they were providing help, and would integrate them into the societies where they settled.
When the numbers are millions, (after the Social Justice Warriors won) they no longer felt a compelling interest to see to their needs or provide the same degree of assistance. After all, they already established themselves as Morally superior to those evil philistines over there, so they no longer needed these people to fuel their righteous indignation.
Besides, the practicality of it was simply impossible. There were just too many people to give large quantities of help to all of them.
Once more, Liberals wanting "Change" found themselves being hammered by the law of unintended consequences.
So the person who rents a $10,000 a month apartment in Manhattan is only out for themselves and should be stripped of their right to vote, while the person who inherited a shack somewhere will only have everyone's best interest at heart and should be part of the ruling class?
Our military takes an oath to serve & protect our country. Do you trust them to have our country’s best interests at heart?
Then why not just go to a military government, ruled by a junta of generals? The founders thought standing armies "dangerous to liberty" and took great pains to control them. You, on the other hand, think that their taking a vow make them worthy to rule.
Why didn’t the ones who stayed behind & protected their “master’s” family while he & the older sons were away at war- just leave? They could have. They could have taken the gun left for that purpose & run off. Maybe some did, but some stayed…
In point of fact, they left in their hundreds of thousands, making their way to the nearest US Army forces. And tens of thousands of them then put on the uniform of the United States and fought against those same "masters" who were off with their older sons at war. Many more simply refused to work any more. Read about what happened at Jefferson Davis's plantation. They picked up guns, alright, and used them to drive off a confederate cavalry patrol sent to take back control of their president's property. That's why the confederates were forced to enact the very unpopular measure of exempting the owners of a certain number of slaves fro the draft--in order to keep them working.
You are correct that the children & grandchildren became “property” of the “owners”. Was that a bad thing or was it a guarantee that they would have housing, food, & medical care? Should they have been turned out- ripped from their mothers & fathers who loved them? I don’t think it was common practice to “sell” them. A decent person certainly wouldn’t.
And yet that's what happened all the time. Thomas Jefferson wanted to free his slaves when he died, but because of debts, most of them were sold off, families broken up. Breaking up families was seen as unfortunate, but what else could you do when they were a capital asset, part of an estate? Tell your creditors that they're family?
As much as you try to deny it, you're defending slavery and saying it really wasn't that bad, more like a benevolent welfare state than a heinous practice. You truly do long for an aristocracy--one of land, of title, of military rank--to rule over this country, don't you? Because that's what you're saying.
The South will never “pay” enough to satisfy people like you, will we? Only when we are erased from the face of the earth. (Where have we heard that before?) That won’t end it, either. Revenge endures forever & harms the vengeful far more than the object.
Oh, poor, pitiful victimized you.
You just keep insisting on setting up that straw man, don't you? By the way, how is slavery doing in those states today?
Thank you. I agree on your second point as well. This isn’t about slavery or states rights for them.
Our country needs a divorce. No matter the nature of the forum I look at, people are practically ready to come to blows over this- people who supposedly “think alike”. I dunno why we’re not better- more competent to resolve differences, than this by now, but apparently, we’re not. It’s not the South that’s trying to cram any demands down anybody else’s throat. We just want to be left alone to be ourselves & live our lives. smh How’s that for ironic?
Your position is clear: Slavery wasn’t really that bad and people who thought it was should have kept their mouths shut.
You don't want to talk about the five Union slave states that did not have the Union Army invade them to abolish slavery?
Why do you not want to talk about the five Union Slave states? Why it's as if it undermines your claim that the war was fought over slavery or something.
I just find it curious that if your theory is true, then why were the five Union slave states not also invaded? Didn't they have slavery too? Wouldn't they have been a lot easier to defeat with those much shorter supply lines?
If you don’t like the United States, there are planes leaving every hour. Let us know what utopia you settle on.
As I've said over and over, the United States fought to end a rebellion. The rebellion was over slavery, as the rebels made very clear in their public statements. Some slave states did not rebel, therefore, no action was taken against them. You seem to have a great deal of difficulty with this concept, despite having it explained to you over and over.
To allow such a thing is tantamount to admitting they were wrong in stopping it the first time. Ruat caelum! The heavens will fall first! Too much pride and moral superiority has flowed through their veins to ever allow them to concede they were wrong so long as they have the power to stop it.
To quote General Custer in the movie "Little Big Man":
"Your miserable life is not worth the reversal of a Custer decision."
Frankly John Price, we don’t give a damn what you think.
And *you* are making accusations about straw men? The pot calls the Kettle "black."
I am making no such claim. Slavery is contrary to Christian based "natural law", and as such I abhor it. I went back and looked at the message to which you are responding, and I don't even see how you twisted it into that interpretation.
You asked why slaves wanted to escape from the south, and I pointed out (apart from the obvious reason that no one wants to be told what to do) that the incentives were better before the Social Justice Warriors got what they wanted.
AFTER the Social Justice Warriors got what they wanted, they had no further use for free slaves, and were content to let them languish. When escaping slaves were small, they could lavish attention on them. When the numbers were huge, they simply could not do that anymore.
I also pointed out that once more, the Liberal, change seeking Social Justice Warriors created a huge mess with which they were not prepared to deal.
I simply pointed out some aspects of why things changed before and after the war, and you, of course, have to respond with your pot-shot accusations of claiming someone is supporting slavery.
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.