Skip to comments.U.S. Corrects 'Southern Bias' at Civil War Sites
Posted on 12/22/2002 7:56:45 AM PST by GeneD
click here to read article
Except in this case. Your claim is false.
Except in this case. Your claim is false.
Rewriting history alert!
However, the issue of states' rights predates that of slavery by several decades. As early as the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania, the Alien and Sedition Acts of the late 18th century, and Tariff of Abominations in the 1820's, the collision between Federalists and Anti-federalists pointed out an ideological schism that would finally sunder the nation. That it was made manifest in the issue of slavery doesn't mean that that issue DEFINED it. The immediate cause of the War was secession, prompted by abolition, rooted in the notion of Federalism. Attempts to wed the competing notions of federalism and state sovereignty had failed, and the course of war was cast.
Thank you for an enlightening discussion, and for giving me cause to dust off some forlorn but beloved reference materials.
Look, you don't have to be on either side of the FR north vs. south wars to know that battlefields should be about the battles, and not about anyone's interpretation of history.
The socialists have control of the schools, I don't know if it's possible to get it back and the damage has already been done to a generation of our youth.
SSSSHhhhhhh....they're busy changing history here - now be quiet.
Haven't they been doing this for many moons?
For any of a number of reasons, some of them ideological, but as many economic, historical, and religious. The South had been settled in colonial times by a different religious culture than the North. The latter's agrarian culture diverged increasingly from the North's industrialized urban ethic. And the feudal aristocracy that pervaded the antebellum South established a caste system that chafed on the egalitarian sensibilities of the North.
The Southern system was supported on slavery simply out of economic necessity. But it is a gross oversimplification to attribute all differences between the two regions to slavery alone.
It was a bitter winter battle, blood was mixed above ground and below; won't anyone let it rest?
At the beginning of Secession the contemporary slave-holdings were legal under law. As usual, the crux of contention was future holdings and changing attitudes made rancorous by economis and political maneuvering in D.C.
The war was fought over the "Territories", nothing more, nothing less; the North won, the Indians paid the price and the West was won.
You can put an end to all this merely by providing some evidence that slaves were used to staff the White House. What do you base your claim on?
Which is why I didn't.
A much larger issue is human greed as feed by cheap labor.
Perhaps in the Marxist world where everything is defined in terms of class struggle. But not as a particularly relevant factor in the American Civil War.
I'm pretty sure the move for all of this started under Clintoon. The people behing this are probably holdovers.
Around 1.8 million people visit Gettysburg every year. Latschar said a disproportionate number were men and the park attracts very few black visitors.
In 1998, he invited three prominent historians to examine the site. Their conclusion: that Gettysburg's interpretive programs had a "pervasive southern sympathy."
Do you see this claim as true? I've visited a half-dozen or so battlefields including Gettysburg and thought the presentations factual with no particular bias. I'm interested in your view.
LOL. Should read "
new rebirth of freedom = death of the Republic and birth of the Empire"
Give these d#mn leftist followers of Sandburg, Dubois, and McPherson another twenty years and the Confederacy will have never existed in the first place!! The Founders meant for the national government to take care of you from cradle to grave, no decisions to be made at the state level, and all your money that's printed unconstitutionally belongs to them. Yeah, that's it!! < /sarcasm>
A biblical scholar from Penn State believes there is a liberal/conservative schism in all religions worldwide that is breaking down along North/South lines with the conservatives in the south and the liberals in the north. He claims it's true of all major religions and affects all continents. One example is the Catholic and Christian churches in Africa and South America as opposed to Europe and northern North America.
Actually, they're taking a Marxist line now, led by James McPherson.
Democratic politics revolves around demonizing the South, in order to pick off Republican-leaning, conservative constituencies in the Upper Midwest and New England, thus recreating the divisions of the Civil War. These historians are undertaking this new round of revisionism as a service to the Democratic Party.
And Latschar was appointed in 1993 by Bill Clinton, and is a Clintonoid spawn that should have been broomed out in five minutes by Mr. Bush. -- "But that would be partisaaan", the journopolemicists of the Media Left would wail, overlooking the fact that Clinton fired every one of the United States Attorneys as one of his very first acts in office. (Of course, one of them was looking pretty hard at a little S&L scandal called Madison Guaranty......)
This new movement represents a politicization of the National Park Service. Of course, the Clintons worked on politicizing all the great agencies one way or another (affirmative action is the best example, and creating internal bureaucracies that basically functioned as political organs within bureaus whose employees were all Civil Service). But his political agenda with respect to the factionalization of the Park Service was the propagation of the Marxist, vanguardist model of society and government.
You're just waving the bloody shirt as usual, and you've got some Clinton appointees waving it for you at the Park Service.
A situation which needs remediation, even as it is my opportunity to perform a public service by remediating your posts here.
Folks, read his post very carefully. You'll see that his quotes support his contention only sporadically -- and these are Confederate orators he is quoting.
The most immediate cause of secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln on a platform that Southerners expected to be an engine for ruining the South economically, and permanently changing the relationship of the federal government to the States, in order to cement and entrench Lincoln's factional victory.
Southerners feared that Lincoln, in possession of the federal government, would use the Supremacy Clause to abrogate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and the rights of the States. Which is about what has happened.
If you look at Non-Sequitur's long post of quotations from Southern secession speeches to you, you will see those concerns reflected there, as much as, or even more than, any solicitude for slavery per se, or even its economic ramifications.
Remember that Marxists are determinists, and economic determinists in particular. That is one reason that pushing the line that "it was about slavery and nothing else" comes so easily to them. It is convenient to their political purpose of building a Marxist superstate, and consonant with their own indoctrination by senior Marxists.
I've visted several Civil War battlefields, from Pennsylvania to Arkansas. The Park Service generally has left the politics out of their materials and monuments, and concentrated on the military history of the place.
At Gettysburg, the political element enters because Lincoln chose that place and that moment to articulate his new theory of government and his new theme for why the war should be persevered in.
The idea that we are supposed to rejoice over the dead because they were wrong and bad, as determined by today's politicians ex post facto, is Orwellian in its creepiness and its repugnance.
In terror of being called a racist by people who they would disdain on all other issues and since they no longer hold office, you see many on this forum who now are anxious to toss Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms over the side - in the fantasy of picking up a handful of black votes. I see it as possibly succeeding unless the Democrats overplay their hand. Plenty of hints of that too. Looks like pretty soon anyone who voted against anything even vaguely connected with civil rights and for whatever reason will be pitched over the side too, principle be damned. It's now almost totally forgotten that one of the reasons for white Southerners abandoning the Democratic Party in the'60s was the national party's strong anti-military stance.
The smart thing to do - and I doubt his handlers will allow it - is for Bush, as a regional transplant himself, to talk about the courage it took for Southerners like Trent Lott to change parties early in the realignment. This would point out that America is forward looking, that we play the game hard, then shake hands and move on. The 'R' word was a dirty word for generations of white Southerners. As rational actors, this generation acted in their own self-interest and gravitated to and influenced the Republican Party. Bush should seize the opportunity to invite rational blacks to do the same.
On the National Park Service: this article conveniently forgot to mention the names of the three "historians" on its advisory panel:
Eric Foner, known as 'Eric the Red.' His father and uncle were Communists as is he. You might have seen his name as part of the conspiracy to withhold relevant facts from the Bancroft Prize investigation.
James McPherson, another socialist. Heres what McPherson said in an interview on the World Socialists Website (a venue he appeared on numerous times) about news coverage on the Bosnia situation: I get most of what I know out of the New York Times, and the Times is generally more balanced and recognizes more of the complexities of the situation probably more than some of the other popular media.
McPherson also stated the Clintomn impeachment was a personal vendetta.
Nina Silber received all three of her academic degrees from UC Berkeley. Virtually every one of her published works is along the lines of women's role in the Civil War.
And let's not forget that the Park Service was ordered to undertake this task - by a group with a Jessee Jackson, Jr. staffer riding herd. It was his office specifically insisting on this approach. Smells bad, huh, just by association. So, what do we have then, a committee composed of two socialists and a libber. Any surprise they would issue a report along the lines stated in the article? Not to me.
Wait until they "update" the Yorktown battlefield park. There they can demonstrate that since Britain abolished slavery early in the 19th Century, that we should have lost the Revolution since we were fighting for slavery.
On Gettysburg visitation - how many repeat visitors are interested in the military aspects rather than the social interpretation? How many blacks go to non-battle related national parks?
And you base this on?
Since to Marx all struggles were economic in nature, and all institutions of a culture reflected the imperfect class structure of that society, it is only natural that Marxists would define the Civil War's roots as class struggle writ large. And of course, the most graphic illustrations of class struggle are the antipodal institutions of aristocracy and slavery, those institutions that historically defined the antebellum South.
The Marxists are not WRONG in their view, simply tunnel-visioned. Their narrow definition fails to appreciate the enormity of the clash, and understates the ideological fault line that has run through our "union" ever since its conception.
As it should be.
"We want to get away from the traditional descriptions of who shot whom, where and into discussions of why they were shooting one another," Latschar said.
Fine. Then that interpretative center should be built in Washington, D.C. on the grounds of the U.S. Congress where those political battles were fought prior to the start of the war.
To imply that every Southern soldier was fighting to keep slavery and every Union soldier was fighting to free slaves is Politically Correct historical revisionism.
The Northern battle cry was "Save the Union".
Considering that Julia Dent Grant owned slaves throughout the entire war and brought them with her when she went to visit her husband U.S. Grant in his various camps, maybe Park Superintendent Latschar would care to explain why, exactly, Robert E. Lee and U.S. Grant faced in other in battle.
After all, Lee had freed the slaves he had inherited long before the Civil War began. U. S. Grant's wife had personal slaves all during the war, which were not freed until the 13th Amendment was enacted.
Nah I'd rather hang around here and point out the bullsh*t whenever you southron types post it.
President Lincoln floated various relocation schemes in 1862. After blacks were enlisted in the Union army he began to work for full rights for blacks.
You'll find nothing in the record to support that Lincoln mentions colonization after 1/1/63.
The Gettysburg Address was 11/19/63.
Congress had outlawed slavery in the District of Columbia the previous year.
If I remember correctly, that group included James McPherson. McPherson is a rabid south hating marxist who allows those sentiments to appear in his politics and writings. For him to accuse a site of bias is akin to Jesse Jackson giving a sermon on the sin of adultery.
Bullsh*t. The ordinances were the official acts of secession. Those declarations were legislative resolutions of zero statutory weight adopted after the fact as a statement of the legislative bodies adopting them. To suggest that those documents of no legal authority had the significance of the Declaration of Independence is to perpetrate a willfully dishonest fraud. Not that you are above such behavior...
All the fire-eaters, on both sides of the slavery debate, had a hand in starting this tragic conflict.
Whether or not Southern politicians decided on seccession because of slavery, tarriffs or what end of a soft boiled egg should be opened, the botttom line was that young men had to go out and settle the matter on the battlefield.
Most of those young men, whether from the North or South, did not leave their homes and families to defend or abolish a social institution that had existed throughout History since way before the birth of Christ right up to their present day.
Most of the young men left their home to fight for their country. The Southern young men viewed "their country" as the South. The Northern young men viewed "their country" as the Union.
Now, for the sake of Political Correctness or to change the demographics of Gettysburg Park visitors, the motives of most of the young men that fought and died on that battlefield is going through a process of historical revision and the motives of almost half of the young men that fought and died on that battlefield is going through a process of demonization.
Politicains drove those young men to kill each other and now politicians are playing politics on their graves.
That is wrong.
"In simple words rarely heard in the United States Senate, Wigfall of Texas had said: "I am a plain, blunt-spoken man. We say that man has a right to property in man. We say that slaves are our property. We say that it is the duty of every government to protect its property everywhere. If you wish to settle this matter, declare that slaves are property, and like all other property entitled to be protected in every quarter of the globe, on land and sea, Say that to us, and then the difficulty is settled." Jefferson Davis was saying, "Slave property is the only private property in the United States specifically recognized in the Constitution and pro- tected by it."
...Edwin A. Pollard of Virginia had just published "Black Diamonds," calling for the African slave trade to be made lawful again; then negroes fresh from the jungles could be sold in southern seaports at $ioo.oo to $150.00 at-head. "The poor man might then hope to own a negro; the prices of labor would then be in his reach; he would be a small farmer revolutionizing the character of agriculture in the South; he would at once step up to a respectable station in the social system of the South; and with this he would acquire a practical and dear interest in the general institution of slavery that would constitute its best protection both at home and abroad. He would no longer be a miserable, nondescript cumberer of the soil, scratching the land here and there for a subsistence, living from band to mouth) or trespassing along the borders of the possessions of the large proprietors. He would be a proprietor himself. He would no longer be the scorn and sport of 'gentlemen of color' who parade their superiority, rub their well-stuffed black skins, and thank God they are not as he. Of all things I cannot bear to see negro slaves, affect superiority over the poor, needy, unsophisticated whites, who form a terribly large proportion of the population of the South."
Pollard could vision steps and advances "toward the rearing of that great Southern Empire, whose seat is eventually to be in Central America, and whose boundaries are to enclose the Gulf of Mexico." Ahead were "magnificent fields of romance" for the South, as he saw its future. "It is an empire founded on military ideas; representing the noble peculiarities of southern civilization; including within its limits the isthmuses of America and the regenerated West Indies; having control of the two dominant staples of the world's commercecotton and sugar; possessing the highways of the world's commerce; surpassing all empires of the world's ages in the strength of its geographical position."
Philadelphia newspapers quoted a speech by Senator Herschel V. Johnson of Georgia in their city. "We believe that capital should own labor; is there any doubt that there must be a laboring class everywhere? In all countries and under every form of social organization there must be a laboring class -- a class of men who get their living from the sweat of their brow; and then there must be another class that controls and directs the capital of the country. He pleaded: "Slave property stands upon the same footing as all other descriptions of property."
--"Abraham Lincoln, Vol. II, Prairie Years, by Carl Sandburg pp.217-221
The election of Lincoln showed that slavery was not safe in the Union.
The slave power through down Old Glory to protect slavery.
No it didn't.
"Lincoln said at Springfield on June 18 that the condition of the Negroes in the United States had deteriorated sharply since the era of the fathers, "and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hopeless as in the last three or four years"
And yet harshness was no real part of the temper of Americans of the South, who differed no whit from Americans of the North. The main excitant impulse was fear, and they wanted to protect the institution, not to penalize the individual. It was because the free Negro menaced the institution, because manumission undermined it, because all self-help systems for the slave corroded It, that pro- slavery men urged new legislation. Their object was not to surround slavery with an atmosphere of terror. It was to shore up an institution built on quick- sand and battered bv all the forces of world sentiment and emergent industrialism.
Ruffin was personally the kindliest of masters. The unhappy fact was that it had become impossible to safeguard slavery without brutal violence to countless individuals; either the institution had to be given up, or the brutality committed.
The legislators of Louisiana and Arkansas, of Alabama and Georgia, with humane men like Ruffin and the Eastern Shore planters of Maryland, had faced this alternative. They had chosen the institution. The Richmond Examiner stated their choice in unflinching language:
It is all an hallucination to suppose that we are ever going to get rid of slavery, or that it will ever be desirable to do so. It is a thing that we cannot do without;that is righteous, profitable, and permanent, and that belongs to Southern society as inherently, intrinsically, and durably as the white race itself. Southern men should act as if the canopy of heaven were inscribed with a covenant, in letters of fire, that the negro is here, and here foreveris our property, and ours foreveris never to be emancipatedis to be kept hard at work and in rigid subjection all his days.
This has the ring of the Richmond publicise Fitzhugh, and would have been repudiated by many Southerners. But Jefferson Davis said, July 6, 1859, "There is not probably an intelligent mind among our own citizens who doubts either the moral or the legal right of the institution of African slavery." Senator A. G. ' Brown said September 4, 1858, that he wanted Cuban, Mexican, and Central American territory for slavery; "I would spread the blessings of slavery . . . to the uttermost ends of the earth." Such utterances treated slavery as permanent, and assumed that it must be defended at every point."
-- "The Coming Fury" by Bruce Catton
The slave power COULD have given up slavery -- that was the sense of the time. But they wanted to go backwards, not forwards.
And the war came.