Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
The Mississippi Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans has come up with an idea for celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Civil War—known to some as the “War between the States.” The veterans group has proposed that the state of
Mississippi issue a series of specialty license plates commemorating the war. These specialty plates, planned for the years 2011 through 2015, would each have a different design.
What has some people upset is the specialty license plate slated for the year 2014, which would honor General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest, a native of Tennessee, is considered by some to have been a military genius. Others feel differently about Forrest who is “reviled” by some for allegedly having lead a massacre of Black Union troops at Fort Pillow in his home state in 1864. It should be noted that Forrest also served as the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
According to ABC News, the NAACP is planning to send a letter to Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour requesting “that he publicly denounce the license plate and use his office to prevent it from being issued.” Derrick Jackson, president of the Mississippi state NAACP, said of Forrest: “He should be viewed in the same light that we view Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. The state of Mississippi should deny any vanity tags which would highlight racial hatred in this state.”
Although many historians agree that Nathan Bedford Forrest distanced himself from the KKK later in his life, some believe “it was too little too late because the Klan had already turned violent before Forrest left.”
Sources
Buddha,
Legend has it that the Southern plantations prior to the Civil War were actually retreat centers for African slaves. The slaves were merely recuperating from their kidnapping in Africa and the harrowing boat ride to the Americas. We can’t let the facts get in the way of a nice exciting legend.
AY,
I know, I know … my bad … slap me with a wet noodle …
Sl,
Do not bash the educational system the family has in place….
I think I know where some have learned their Civil War history …
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151637/for-the-confederacy
SwM,
One more just for fun …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryEXqzwrvVA
The drummer is playing banjolin, the bassist is playing fiddle, the keyboardist is playing drums, the sax player is playing accordion, and 3 different vocalists sing verses with a 4th vocalist singing harmony.
Blouise, I like the Joan Baez cover too.
SwM,
One of my favorite versions of “The Night …” was done by Joan Baez because the lyrics are so clear. When performed in front of certain audiences this song can cause problems as those who support the North sing … la, la, la (rejoicing) and those who support the South sing … na, na, na (lamenting)
The video did not take. Will try again.
Has anyone here heard the storytelling album, ‘White Mansions?’ It is told from the viewpoint of several white southerners during the civil war. There are several great performers on the album. Waylon Jennings has the part of “The Drifter.” His name is never revealed, but he was wounded fighting for Texas in he US-Mexican War. He is not a combatant in the Civil War, but traveled from town to town, telling about what he sees. The song “Southern Pride” comes near the end of the album as The Drifter comments on the inevitable outcome.
Otteray Scribe:
Ole Jeb the Reb dont make no scuses for the bad actions of his forefathers. We should have ended it ourselves, it is a stain on our heritage that we had to be shown the way by a bunch of Yankees. Pilgrims, Irish and Catholics for Christ sakes, can you believe it? Got our asses whipped by a bunch of mackerel snapping mics and Puritans.
What the hell were we thinking? God dam plantation owners and their mint juleps and cotillions.
I will posit that a person who gets their information from only one source, is ill informed. Think of the Fox News viewers who would not think of watching other news aggregation channels.
No investigator or researcher would depend on one source. Also, no matter what written material one reads, it is the opinion or observation of the writer.
There is an old story from China. The old father was tired of his sons squabbling. They could not agree on anything. So, he sat them down facing each other across a table. Between them, he sat a beautiful vase. Then he asked each son what was on the vase. The first son said, “It is a beautiful flower.”
Then the father turned to the other son and asked him what he saw. The second son replied, “My brother is a blind fool. That is a fierce dragon on the vase,” and with that the brothers again started arguing about what was on the vase.
With a sigh, the old man turned the vase, revealing to each brother that on one side was a flower and on the other a dragon.
The same event may be–is likely to be–viewed differently by different viewers. An echo chamber does no one any good.
Only those who diligently seek the truth via facts and cross-checking those facts using forensic investigative techniques will eventually uncover the truth.
As a southerner myself, I grew up in the culture. Even as a child, I could see much that was simply wrong-headed. I found it offensive that some of the evil I have experienced first hand could actually be extolled as a virtue.
After I was grown and had a chance to travel, I began to see things from the viewpoints of others and to take in views that had theretofore been alien to me. There was great heroism and valor displayed on both sides of the battle lines in the Civil War. There was also treachery, treason, craven cowardice and official corruption on both sides. There has never been a war in the history of mankind that this was not true. And to quote someone whose name I have forgotten, “A civil war is not civil.”
I fail to see the value in continuing to fight the war a century and a half after both sides laid down their arms. I agree with Shelby Foote that the greatest thing to come from that war was that the phrase, “The United States are…” became, “The United States is…”
I respectfully suggest those who think they live in occupied territory get over it. The war is over. The CSA lost and it is not coming back. Ever. The United States is a single nation, made up of political organizations called states and territories. No state is sovereign unto itself any more than a single county or parish is sovereign from the state.
The deep south is a vibrant area of the country that is moving forward on many fronts. Great cities like Atlanta, Birmingham, Jackson, Memphis, Miami, new Orleans and Baton Rouge are centers of culture, education, medicine and commerce. There is no going back to the mid-nineteenth century. Not going to happen no matter what little pockets of historical nostalgia buffs would like to dream about.
Buddha,
“Holzer is a radical stanch revisionist. Don’t be played the fool by the lincoln cult. Elaine M only reads radical revisionist so be sure and read the comments on the ref site after his article…”
Why should one listen to the words of an educated, accomplished man who is a leading authority on the Civil War era? Instead…I’m being told that I should heed the words of someone who commented on Holzer’s article. Good grief!
Speaking of legends–methinks Anoynomous may be one in his own mind.
Buddha, you should know that I AM a member of a Lincoln cult. Every February 12th, I and the members of the cult that I belong to assemble after midnight in a home that was once a station on the Underground Railroad. We don stovepipe hats and make up revisionist stories about the Civil War and the Confederacy. We tell Jefferson Davis jokes and celebrate the saving of the Union. We’re awful people.
😉
I’m telling you guys, this is all about group identification. It’s the exact same reason that when the Broncos get called for intentional grounding it was an honest mistake or a bad call, but when the Raiders get the same penalty, it was because they’re dirty dirty cheaters.
The subject that you’re least likely to have an intelligent conversation with someone about is the subject touching on their self image.
I say we stop all this nonsense, go up to the post about fat heads, and get into a discussion debating the merits of Epicurean and Platonic relationships to food.
“History is verifiable through records.”
SB
“History is verifiable through records and forensics.”
“According to legend . . .”
Well there’s your problem right there. You can’t tell the difference between a legend (a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable) and a history (a chronological record of significant events often including an explanation of their causes).
History is verifiable through records.
Legend isn’t verifiable.
By definition.
Your revisionist version of history is called a myth because, duh, it is a myth.
myth \ˈmith\, n.,
1a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : parable, allegory
2a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society b : an unfounded or false notion
3: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
Hmmmmm . . . let’s see . . .
“[A] usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon” . . . in this case explaining the worldview of racist Southern historical revisionists based upon “an unfounded or false notion” and “person[s] or thing[s] having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence”.
It’s that ol’ facts versus beliefs thing biting you historical revisionist/racist apologists in the ass again.
But since most of your lot are religious primitives as well as historically and otherwise illiterate, that you’d make up things to justify your retrograde stupidity and attempt to cover over actual history so you don’t look like the bad guys you are doesn’t really come as a surprise to people with an actual education.
We see people acting in denial and self-rationalization all the time around here.
Why?
Because very few shitty people will own up to their own evil but would instead rather have a lie to tell themselves – a psychologically defensive mechanism – so that they can think they are the good guy. I know this because the basics of human psychology tell me so. The basics of human psychology also tell me something else . . .
You’re not only historical revisionists and racists, but you’re cowards as well.
You want to be racists? Then own it, you pansies. Say “I’m a racist and proud of it!”
Or you can keep hiding behind weak logic, lies and myth like a little girl hiding behind mommy’s skirt.
Either way it’s funny.
Because either way it shows what pathetic failures you are at being a decent human being and that you want to blame your own shortcomings and lack of compassion for your fellow humans on some mythological fantasy past.
Holzer is a radical stanch revisionist. Don’t be played the fool by the lincoln cult. Elaine M only reads radical revisionist so be sure and read the comments on the ref site after his article. The following is one comment.
“The wheel and hub analogy works well for me, too.
Society then, as now, is often a poupourri. There were those who held ‘enlightened’ views on race relations in both North and South and those who were racist; regardless of slave-ownership status. Like all generations, ours included, they had their biases that today are seen as incorrect. I’m sure that 150 years from now, some of our cherished beliefs will be found equally inadequate.
According to legend, the only ‘law’ that Stonewall Jackson ever ‘broke’ was to help his wife in teaching black children how to read. I suspect if you asked Jackson, Lee and several others, they’d say they fought for their state. I also suspect, if pressed, they would have understood and conceded that, given the understanding of the time, the institution of slavery was of vital economic importance. They would also have had no illusions that support of slavery was what unified the confederacy and thus the ‘hub’ analogy works quite well.
My gut feel, though, is that the boys from Alabama – and Texas – stormed Little Round Top first and foremost for their state. They figured continuing with slavery, or not, was for their state to choose and could, in that sense I suppose, find themselves defending the ‘peculiar institution’. That being said, in their mind they fought for their state and the right of that state to institute law as it saw fit.
Conceding all that, belittling the opposing view as ‘myth’ – and further linking opposition to our current president with a revisionist view of history – is at least a little over the top in my estimation. I’m still waiting for a rational response and/or apology for that extremism.”
Secession – Revisionism or Reality
By Harold Holzer
http://www.historynet.com/secession-revisionism-or-reality.htm
Secession fever revisited
We can take an honest look at history, or just revise it to make it more palatable
Try this version of history: 150 years ago this spring, North Carolina and Tennessee became the final two Southern states to secede illegally from the sacred American Union in order to keep 4 million blacks in perpetual bondage. With Jefferson Davis newly ensconced in his Richmond capital just a hundred miles south of Abraham Lincoln’s legally elected government in Washington, recruit¬ing volunteers to fight for his “na¬tion,” there could be little doubt that the rebellion would soon turn bloody. The Union was understandably prepared to fight for its own existence.
Or should the scenario read this way? A century and a half ago, North Carolina and Tennes¬see joined other brave Southern states in asserting their right to govern themselves, limit the evils of unchecked federal power, protect the integrity of the cotton market from burdensome tariffs, and fulfill the promise of liberty that the nation’s founders had guaranteed in the Dec¬laration of Independence. With Abraham Lincoln’s hostile minority government now raising militia to invade sovereign states, there could be little doubt that peaceful secession would soon turn into bloody war. The Confederacy was understandably prepared to fight for its own freedom.
Which version is true? And which is myth? Although the Civil War sesquicentennial is only a few months old, questions like this, which most serious readers believed had been asked and answered 50—if not 150—years ago, are resurfacing with surprising frequency. So-called Southern heritage Web sites are ablaze with alternative explanations for secession that make such scant mention of chattel slavery that the modern observer might think shackled plantation laborers were dues-paying members of the AFL-CIO. Some of the more egregious comments currently proliferating on the new Civil War blogs of both the New York Times (“Disunion”) and Washington Post (“A House Divided”) suggest that many contributors continue to believe slavery had little to do with secession: Lincoln had no right to serve as president, they argue; his policies threatened state sovereignty; Republicans wanted to impose crippling tariffs that would have de-stroyed the cotton industry; it was all about honor. Edward Ball, author of Slaves in the Family, has dubbed such skewed memory as “the whitewash ex¬planation” for secession. He is right.
As Ball and scholars like William Freehling, author of Prelude to Civil War and The Road to Disunion, have pointed out, all today’s readers need to do in order to understand what truly motivated secession is to study the proceedings of the state conventions where separation from the Union was openly discussed and enthusiastically authorized. Many of these dusty records have been digitized and made available online—discrediting this fairy tale once and for all.
Consider these excerpts. South Caro¬lina voted for secession first in December 1860, bluntly citing the rationale that Northern states had “denounced as sinful the institution of slavery.”
Georgia delegates similarly warned against the “progress of anti-slavery.” As delegate Thomas R.R. Cobb proudly insisted in an 1860 address to the Legislature, “Our slaves are the most happy and contented of workers.”
Mississippians boasted, “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world…. There is no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union.” And an Alabama newspaper opined that Lincoln’s election plainly showed the North planned “to free the negroes and force amalgamation between them and the children of the poor men of the South.”
Certainly the effort to “whitewash” secession is not new. Jefferson Davis himself was maddeningly vague when he provocatively asked fellow Missis¬sippians, “Will you be slaves or will you be independent?…Will you consent to be robbed of your property [or] strike bravely for liberty, property, honor and life?” Non-slaveholders—the majority of Southerners—were bombarded with similarly inflammatory rhetoric designed to paint Northerners as integrationist aggressors scheming to make blacks the equal of whites and impose race-mixing on a helpless population. The whitewash worked in 1861—but does that mean that it should be taken seriously today?
From 1960-65, the Civil War Cen¬tennial Commission wrestled with similar issues, and ultimately bowed too deeply to segregationists who worried that an emphasis on slavery—much less freedom—would embolden the civil rights movement then beginning to gain national traction. Keeping the focus on battlefield re-enactments, regional pride and uncritical celebration took the spotlight off the real cause of the war, and its potential inspiration to modern freedom marchers and their sympathizers. Some members of the national centennial commission actually argued against staging a 100th anniversary commemoration of emancipation at the Lincoln Memorial. Doing so, they contended, would encourage “agitators.”
In a way, it is more difficult to understand why so much space is again being devoted to this debate. Fifty years have passed since the centennial. The nation has been vastly transformed by legislation and attitude. We supposedly live in a “post-racial era.” And just two years ago, Americans (including voters in the former Confederate states of Virginia and North Carolina), chose the first African-American president of the United States.
Or is this, perhaps, the real underlying problem—the salt that still irritates the scab covering this country’s unhealed racial divide?
Just as some Southern conservatives decried a 1961 emphasis on slavery because it might embolden civil rights, 2011 revisionists may have a hidden agenda of their own: Beat back federal authority, reinvigorate the states’ rights movement and perhaps turn back the re-election of a black president who has been labeled as everything from a Communist to a foreigner (not unlike the insults hurled at the freedom riders half a century ago).
Fifty years from now, Americans will either celebrate the honesty that animated the Civil War sesquicentennial, or subject it to the same criticisms that have been leveled against the centennial celebrations of the 1960s. The choice is ours. As Lincoln once said, “The struggle of today is not altogether for today—it is for a vast future also.”
________________________________________
HAROLD HOLZER is one of the country’s leading authorities on Abraham Lincoln and the political culture of the Civil War era. A prolific writer and lecturer, and frequent guest on television, Holzer serves as chairman of The Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation, successor organization to the United States Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission (ALBC), to which he was appointed by President Clinton in 2000, and co-chaired from 2001–2010. President Bush, in turn, awarded Holzer the National Humanities Medal in 2008.
http://www.haroldholzer.com/hh_2_bio.html
Well said OS. The Emmett Till story still resonates in Chicago where he lived.
Stamford,
The 21st century is only the name of an insurance company to these slavery lovers and history deniers.
Gyges,
“SL,
I’ll not have you badmouthing the Three Stooges. Moe had a price on his head because of his portrial of Hilter in You Nazty Spy.”
Please accept my most humble apologies 🙂
——————————————————
On another note, what our white power, slavery apologist posters seem not to comprehend that even if only a fraction of African-American’s were slaves, and even if only a fraction were treated like less than dogs, it still does not make the idea of “owning” human beings as property to be bought, sold and beaten at will was, and still is, wrong.
Face it – the South believe it had the moral right to own slaves and they firmly believed that their honor and gentlemanliness would resoundingly defeat the Union army … and, as in many things, Southerners were proven wrong. The South got its collective ass kicked. Yet, we have bohunks still fighting the Civil War … we are now in the 21st Century … when do you freak shows think you’ll eventually make it to the 20th Century?