Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 11:38am PT
|
As I understand it (now), the North's primary interest in this war was largely economic- as was mentioned, the dependence on the South for a lot of resources (even if this involved slave labor) that the North would need to simply exist. Lincoln was a latecomer to the idea of abolition as a primary reason for the war.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 11:44am PT
|
I haven't seen any reputable analysis that indicated slavery was going to stop any time soon.
I'm at the office, so don't have access to it, but this evening I'll quote from a book that I believe you'll find credible, and that analysis is very well articulated.
I think that we're experiencing a bit of thread drift at this point. This started with frenzied calls to remove a "monument to racism," which is ALL the "Confederacy" was primarily about. I put "Confederacy" in quotes in such contexts, because this thread is primarily a caricature of what the Confederacy was about.
What people here are mostly not getting is that the dispute between the federalist and the anti-federalists left lingering tensions long after the ratification of the constitution, and the anti-federalists were primarily in the South.
Slavery was "an issue" of discussion from the inception of this nation, and slavery was practiced in both the North and the South. But as the North became more urban and industrialized, the South remained anchored in its land-holding, agricultural roots. Thus, slavery remained economically viable for much longer than it did in the North. But THE ISSUE was and remained the federalist/anti-federalist tensions from the very inception of this nation.
Slavery became a "bargaining chip" between the North and South, but you entirely miss the point of the Civil war if you magnify slavery and "racism" (which was almost universal at that time) beyond the "bargaining chip" that it was in the MUCH broader debate.
In a nutshell, the North = federalism, and the South = anti-federalism. THAT was "the issue" under consideration.
So, "that racist monument" is an egregious caricature of actual history! If you want to say, "That anti-federalist monument," well, at least that would be more accurate. Really, that monument is a recognition of great and honorable Southern men, and I repeat: Lincoln and Grant both acknowledged the greatness and honor of those men.
Simple caricatures will not do!
|
|
SusanA
Sport climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 12:00pm PT
|
That is the question nobody seems to want to answer, isn't it. And while I don't know what the North's motivation was, it is worth repeating the words of Abraham Lincoln, during his debates with Stephen Douglas in the run-up to the presidential election in 1860:
“I am not now, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black race; I am not now nor have I ever been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I, as much as any man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Yeah, that was Lincoln. The Great Emancipator.
Ghost, I don't think you understand what the word emancipation means.
If you actually read the entire speech that quote was taken from, Lincoln is absolutely arguing to end slavery. He was arguing for emancipation. At the time, the idea of full equality for blacks was not even on the table. Maybe it was because even Lincoln believed the races to be inferior or maybe he was being pragmatic and not trying to overreach in his goals. But Lincoln was an abolitionist and definitely against slavery.
About your "question that nobody seems to want to answer." Many historians have addressed the question of the North's motivations. A big part of their thinking was that the war would be easily won and things would go back "normal" without much cost. Of course they miscalculated.
The southern states seceded because an abolitionist was president and they believed leaving the union was only way to protect their institution of slavery. Steve pointed out that the evidence is clearly written in the very documents that created the confederacy. They read like a confession to a crime.
I'm sorry Reilly, but this thread is not like some 7th grade social studies class. 7th graders have a far better understanding of the basic facts than the confederate apologists here. This thread is mostly a bunch of old white guys using cynical arguments to justify why it's ok to relate to some really horrible people in history. Another example of what supertopo is known for.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 12:13pm PT
|
Susan, condescension will get you nowhere with me and not very far with Ghost,
but he won’t put it so bluntly.
|
|
SusanA
Sport climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 12:17pm PT
|
Susan, condescension will get you nowhere with me and not very far with Ghost,
but he won’t put it so bluntly.
Well, it got your attention. That's all anyone can really get on an internet discussion about politics.
;-)
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 12:20pm PT
|
Ghost, I don't think you understand what the word emancipation means.
Oh, I understand it all right.
If you actually read the entire speech that quote was taken from, Lincoln is absolutely arguing to end slavery. He was arguing for emancipation.
Yes, I understand that, too.
At the time, the idea of full equality for blacks was not even on the table. Maybe it was because even Lincoln believed the races to be inferior or maybe he was being pragmatic and not trying to overreach in his goals. But Lincoln was an abolitionist and definitely against slavery.
And I also understand that. And I am most definitely not a confederate apologist. But the question that has always stuck in my mind, ever since I first read Lincoln's words (almost 50 years ago), is: What did Lincoln, and those who agreed with him, think would happen to the slaves after emancipation? He was very clear in his view that "the black race" was inferior, and that he was not in favor of giving negroes any rights.
Abolishing slavery was, and remains, an incredibly important move, but what Lincoln was saying -- to my ears -- was something like: "Okay, you're free now, so go starve. And preferably not anywhere near me."
All these decades later, it is hard to know why he, or anyone at the time, said what he said. Did he think that he had to say the black race was inferior in order to win the election, even though in his heart he was not racist at all? Was his opposition to slavery based in morality? Politics? Economics?
I don't know, and probably no one participating in this discussion knows.
But not knowing that is a much different thing than being a "confederate apologist", so maybe back off a bit on the insults.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 12:28pm PT
|
...7th graders have a far better understanding of the basic facts than the confederate apologists here.....
7th Graders know what they're told about history in books written by the winners... Adults know the causes for the war that left almost 3/4 million people dead are far more nuanced.
I don't see anyone arguing that slavery shouldn't have been abolished, just that the marketing arm of the butchering shouldn't take center stage.
|
|
SusanA
Sport climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 12:41pm PT
|
Thank you for your response, Ghost. I was mixing my criticism of several others in my response to your post. Apologies.
You ask good questions. I can't say what Lincoln's vision for the future of African Americans was. I don't believe it was so mean spirited as "Okay, you're free now, so go starve. And preferably not anywhere near me."
Maybe he just wanted to start with "Okay, you're free now..." because it was still far better than being enslaved. Even if it meant starving on their own terms. I have no doubt that many slaves agreed.
Lincoln changed history for the better. Maybe he was not such a saint, maybe he just got lucky, who knows? But he was ultimately successful in an important cause and deserves a monument for that. A big one, like he has.
But it seems the monuments of old confederate generals do not serve any purpose except to apparently remind us of some details in history. But why so much emphasis on specific individuals that stood for nothing noble? Often in the middle of the town square! There is so much other history that deserves recognition. Tear them down and replace them with something more people can relate to. Or just put in a park bench, lol.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 12:50pm PT
|
Actually we do have a very good idea of what Lincoln was thinking about slavery. He was a prolific writer and we have lots of his writing before he ran for president.
|
|
Caveman
climber
Cumberland Plateau
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 01:08pm PT
|
Lincoln knew what would transpire if allowed to resupply ft Sumter.
Just like the explosion on the Maine was used.
Just like the Gulf of Tonkin incident was used.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 02:44pm PT
|
The overarching point here is that this thread caricaturizes what are actually much more nuanced points than: "Racist! Tear it down."
NOBODY here is justifying slavery or racism. But some of us ARE saying that conflating the "Confederacy" (including, specifically, the men that are honored on that monument) with "racism" and "slavery" is taking an amazingly narrow-minded view of the historical realities. And as long as left responds to nuanced argument with "old, white guys trying to justify racism," it just ensures that dialog remains impossible.
It won't be long before (oh, wait, it's already happening) the cry of "racist" will "justify" the burning of books, etc.
How about a thoroughgoing "cleansing"? Cleanse the "racism" and slavery away entirely.
Tear down the pyramids, Roman monuments, countless statues, indeed literally countless monuments and buildings all over the world, ALL of which were built on the backs of slaves and are in fact monuments to entire governmental systems that we now decry or recognize as being based on debunked principles. Heck, tear down the entire UK, as it's still a monarchy, and tear down EVERY monument to past kings, etc.
The men on the Stone Mountain monument were decent, honorable men. They were praised as such, even by their bitter enemies, during their lifetimes and long thereafter. If you're going to tear down recognitions of such people because they didn't agree with you ideologically, you've got a LOT of work ahead of you.
I guess, get to it, and good luck with that.
|
|
Bullwinkle
Boulder climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 02:57pm PT
|
I completely agree! Let's add Hitler and Trump to the Confederate Monument, much like MadBowell they're decent honorable White men, even liked and praised by their enemies, just a tad, misunderstood.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 03:10pm PT
|
Well, dogs liked him.
It was said. Some scum stole his terrier in WW1. Way over the top.
|
|
SusanA
Sport climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 03:12pm PT
|
The men on the Stone Mountain monument were decent, honorable men.
There were also millions of slaves that were honorable and decent. I'd like to think most people are decent and honorable.
These confederate guys didn't get their own mountain because they won a "decent and honorable" contest, LOL!
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 03:18pm PT
|
I guess I take offense with your last paragraph.
Jackson died in combat of a shot in the arm. The other two,Lee and Davis both went to jail,were then released.
Davis ,especially,was a white supremacist the rest of his days in Kentucky.
Lee ,on the other hand,kept a lower profile,but,still argued against voting rights and property ownership of the “freedmen”.
Hardly legacies to be proud of ,let alone monumentalise.
If you think negating racism is idealistic, I think you are wrong.
The other side of that mountain is geological treasure.
Black Mountain is better.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 06:15pm PT
|
You win.
Back to your regularly scheduled echo chamber.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 06:35pm PT
|
Good ,on a forum or in real life I regularly defend people that are and have been scapegoated.
That has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with being a good person.
Find some people that agree with you ,then remember the reasons.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
Wilds of New Mexico
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 06:37pm PT
|
Madbolter, et al., conflate the questions whether the civil war had nuanced, perhaps even rightious origins, and whether actual monuments celebrating the southerners should be erected and maintained at tax payer expense.
The answer to both questions is of course no, but they are different questions.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!