StarDestroyer.Net BBS

On pro-southern revisionism: The problem is that a lot of people (the revisionists) are having a hard time distinguishing between the individual southern soldier, who was as brave a fighting man America ever produced and was fighting for his state's independence (little different from the patriots who fought under Washington), and the slaveocrats who dominated the south and got 600,000 brave men killed because they didn't agree with the outcome of a presidential election. I lost ancestors on the Confederate side. They were poor farmers who, in my view, got killed because the slaveholding aristocrats in North Carolina were traitors who then sold treason as patriotism to them.

The trailer for Sweet Home Alabama reminded me of how bad the South can be, I never knew it meant so much.

Bah, you people watch too many damn movies.

Go read the book, it tends to have much more depth and better in my opinon. I thought though that the dad wrote a much better book (the Killer Angel) compared to what the son did though. And movies don't do the books justice.

Sort of like watching Blackhawk Down vs reading the book, you can guess which one is more accurate.

0.1 wrote:Bah, you people watch too many damn movies.

Go read the book, it tends to have much more depth and better in my opinon. I thought though that the dad wrote a much better book (the Killer Angel) compared to what the son did though. And movies don't do the books justice.

Sort of like watching Blackhawk Down vs reading the book, you can guess which one is more accurate.

The American civil war interests me not, maybe my father, but not me.

The three English ones however are far more my thing.

I'm not seeing it in theaters, its too long. However it might buy the DVD if I like it after rental.

Oy, I knew this would degrade to a southern bash fest...

Again, the prevalent view that the south is full of 'South is gonna rise again!' racists rears its ugly head.

The south is NOT full of these types, in fact, they are a great minority.

And, Valdemar, I notice you are from the UK. Did you at one time live in the south, or take an extended holiday there (+1 year)? If not, then, I really cannot see where you would have the right to say that the trailer for Sweet Home Alabama reminded you how bad the South can be. Of course, in places (few and far between, mind you), it CAN be as bad as you might think. But, it isn't as overly prevalent as you might think.

On pro-southern revisionism:
Imperator, you said it nicely, and I agree with you mostly. But, of course, we also must remember that the war started over states rights, and ended up about half way through turning into a war over slavery. Of course, in the long run, it is probably best the south lost the war. But not because of the issue of slavery. Slavery was an outmoded and obsolete practice, and wouldn't have existed for more than 5 years after the war had the south won. In fact, after a few more years or so, the south would have most likely rejoined the union.

If the south had freed the slaves, which was an inevitable occurance, during the war, though, it would have, most likely, turned in favor of the south. There would have been many ex-slaves who would have fought, and, it possibly would have ended in peace.

Actually me Grandparent's ancestors ran into the swamps rather then being drafted. The "My Grandaddy fought in Picket's Charge was prevelent for years in Southern politics until Huey Long came along.

I will never understand this "States' rights" thing. I can understand fighting for freedom. I can understand fighting to defend your homeland. I can understand fighting for your rights. But fighting for the rights of one level of government versus another? What the fuck?

Darth Wong wrote:I will never understand this "States' rights" thing. I can understand fighting for freedom. I can understand fighting to defend your homeland. I can understand fighting for your rights. But fighting for the rights of one level of government versus another? What the fuck?

It also involves issues with the federal government - interpretations of the extent of federal power differ, and the South felt that the federal government was overstepping its constitutional bounds at the expense of the states. Of course, they didn't have a problem with the federal government interfering with states' rights when it came to the fugitive slave law, which was a pretty egregious infringement on the rights of the northern states, in my opinion.

Durran Korr wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:I will never understand this "States' rights" thing. I can understand fighting for freedom. I can understand fighting to defend your homeland. I can understand fighting for your rights. But fighting for the rights of one level of government versus another? What the fuck?

It also involves issues with the federal government - interpretations of the extent of federal power differ, and the South felt that the federal government was overstepping its constitutional bounds at the expense of the states. Of course, they didn't have a problem with the federal government interfering with states' rights when it came to the fugitive slave law, which was a pretty egregious infringement on the rights of the northern states, in my opinion.

That's what I'm talking about; all I ever hear is a lot of mumbling when I ask how anyone could possibly get so riled up over "States' rights versus Federal rights" that he would take up arms against his countrymen. The "they wanted to protect their slave-based economy" argument makes sense, since there's real economic incentive there, which is one of the reasons I have always felt rather dubious about the "States' rights" idea.

Darth Wong wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:I will never understand this "States' rights" thing. I can understand fighting for freedom. I can understand fighting to defend your homeland. I can understand fighting for your rights. But fighting for the rights of one level of government versus another? What the fuck?

It also involves issues with the federal government - interpretations of the extent of federal power differ, and the South felt that the federal government was overstepping its constitutional bounds at the expense of the states. Of course, they didn't have a problem with the federal government interfering with states' rights when it came to the fugitive slave law, which was a pretty egregious infringement on the rights of the northern states, in my opinion.

That's what I'm talking about; all I ever hear is a lot of mumbling when I ask how anyone could possibly get so riled up over "States' rights versus Federal rights" that he would take up arms against his countrymen. The "they wanted to protect their slave-based economy" argument makes sense, since there's real economic incentive there, which is one of the reasons I have always felt rather dubious about the "States' rights" idea.

If you're getting screwed on account of the rights of one layer of the government, you would be justified in taking up arms against it. This is essentially what the American revolution was. The South was getting genuinely screwed by the unfair tariff, but that doesn't change the fact that they seemed to be most interested in preserving slavery (at least according to what they wrote at the time of secession).

NF_Utvol wrote:Oy, I knew this would degrade to a southern bash fest...

I apologize if I gave that impression, my beef is with those try to elevate the Confederate cause to that of a Noble one, rather than pro-slavocracy that it was. I'm sure that 90% of Southern fighters geninuely thought they were fighting off "Yankee Aggression", at least until the Confederate government issued a draft that exempted large slave holders. (Leaving many poor Southern soldiers to wonder, "What the fuck...?")

A even bigger beef of mine is how many people in the South seem to think the entire Southern culture was united againest the Union. I already brought up North Texcas fighting it's own war against the pro-Confederate gov. In the mountains of North Carolina and Eastern Tennesee(spelling is for the weak), it wasn't safe for confederate troops to enter the area. One of my classmatemates at my "A" school in the Navy was from the Smokey Mountains area, and he had an ancestor who was a pro-union partisan.

If the south had freed the slaves, which was an inevitable occurance, during the war, though, it would have, most likely, turned in favor of the south. There would have been many ex-slaves who would have fought, and, it possibly would have ended in peace.

Maybe. More likely all those ex-slaves would remember who'd been hosing them for as long as they could remember, and either flee North and/or fight Southerners.

Darth Wong wrote:I will never understand this "States' rights" thing. I can understand fighting for freedom. I can understand fighting to defend your homeland. I can understand fighting for your rights. But fighting for the rights of one level of government versus another? What the fuck?

The deal is that, for the longest timne, the American People took a very strict-constitutionalist view of the Government. The Federal Government should do what's in the constitution and no more. Even in the 50's, Eisenhower had to justify a interstate program as "National Defense", because it wasn't in the Constitution.

Was the Federal Government acting out of bounds leading up to the Civil War? Yep. Oddly enough, most of the time the Federal Government wasn't acting outside it's power at the Southern States' desire, as Durran Korr has already pointed out.

It all does back to Jefferson's views concerning federalism; he was never the biggest fan of the Constitution, really - you probably wouldn't much care for an important foundational document that was created behind your back while you were off representing your country in France. He was a strong believer in keeping federal power to an absolute minimum, and that it should virtually never interfere in the affairs of the states. I sympathize with this view, but also like Hamilton's public view on federalism; when the rights of citizens are being violated by one layer of government, they can use another layer of government to protect themselves. I say "public view" because Hamilton would have likely swept the states away altogether and governed the country from the capital if given the opportunity.

Darth Wong wrote:That's what I'm talking about; all I ever hear is a lot of mumbling when I ask how anyone could possibly get so riled up over "States' rights versus Federal rights" that he would take up arms against his countrymen. The "they wanted to protect their slave-based economy" argument makes sense, since there's real economic incentive there, which is one of the reasons I have always felt rather dubious about the "States' rights" idea.

Part of why it's hard to understand taking up arms for states rights is because the Union victory in the war crushed the old conception that the United States was less a single nation than a union of sovereign states (before the war, "United States" was plural, as in, "The United States ARE going to teach those stinking Canadians a lesson"). It was that old conception that motivated most of the common soldiers in the Confederate Army and much of the officer corps as well (most famously Robert E. Lee, who was offered command of the entire Union Army but declined because his home state, Virginia, seceded).

Of course, the motivation for the aristocrats who ran the south to secede in the first place was the preservation of slavery. There were other issues bothering them, tariffs chiefly among them, but note that when South Carolina threatened to secede in 1838 over tariffs, none of the other Southern states joined it, and South Carolina backed down when Andrew Jackson threatened to send troops. When the future Confederacy began to secede in the winter of 1860-61, the universal reason given was that Lincoln, the abolitionist, was going to use the Federal government to end slavery in the south. Lincoln had no such intentions, and both Congress and the Supreme Court were controlled by southerners, so this was patently impossible, but there's no limit to what panic can accomplish.

NF_Utvol wrote:My 8th grade history teacher was in Gettysburg.

On that note, yes, go see Gods and Generals, it is an awesome movie.

Your 8th Grade History teacher took part in a battle 140 years ago (1863)? If your 19-21 now, that means this was around 1995 or 132 years after the battle. How the hell did he manage that?

Rob Wilson wrote:

NF_Utvol wrote:My 8th grade history teacher was in Gettysburg.

On that note, yes, go see Gods and Generals, it is an awesome movie.

Your 8th Grade History teacher took part in a battle 140 years ago (1863)? If your 19-21 now, that means this was around 1995 or 132 years after the battle. How the hell did he manage that?

Well, DUH, he was 155 years old!

Didn't everyone get first hand history lessons?

Hehehehe.

NF_Utvol wrote: Well, DUH, he was 155 years old!

Didn't everyone get first hand history lessons?

Hehehehe.

I can believe some of my teachers were that old!

Lonestar wrote:I saw that Movie, man was I pissed with it.

It went away from the book a wwwwwwwhhhhole lot. Instead of showing a more or less 50-50 view of the Civil War, with Winfield Scott Hancock and Chamberlain on the Union viewpoint and Lee&Jackson on the Confederate viewpoint, we had Chamberlain and a Confederacy Masterbation(sic) fest.

I was freaking appalled. Once more, American media (to say nothing for the education system) is elevating a bunch of slaveholding traitors to Mythical Heros. Sure they were great military leaders. Some of the Finest West Point produced. But they were not heros. And Gods and Generals skewed their true selves mightily.

The movie also managed to omit the Battle of Antietam, an important part in the book and the bloodiest day in American Military History.

So, for you Americans on this board, don't go see this movie if you want to "Learn about one of the most pivotal points in American history that is beginning to fade into obscurity and PC-myth." (If he means "it was about slavery" = "PC myth" Lonestar would have to turn big&Green and smash stuff)

From what I've read they filmed the Battle of Antietam but cut it out because of the length of the movie. Supposedly it will be on the DVD in some form or another. It was the major section of the movie that Jeff Daniel's character was supposed to be in. Perhaps that section would even out the viewpoints a little?

Darth Wong wrote:That's what I'm talking about; all I ever hear is a lot of mumbling when I ask how anyone could possibly get so riled up over "States' rights versus Federal rights" that he would take up arms against his countrymen. The "they wanted to protect their slave-based economy" argument makes sense, since there's real economic incentive there, which is one of the reasons I have always felt rather dubious about the "States' rights" idea.

States' rights come from the Constitution. The enumerated powers clause states that whatever powers the Constitution does not explicitly grant to the Federal government are implied to have been granted to the states and the people. America hated the idea of a powerful federal government, which anyone can see just by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which effectively neutered it. Under those, the federal government didn't even have the power to tax.

As of late, the only reason I've seen states whine about states' rights is because they want to keep the government from smacking down their unjust practices. I guarantee that, if the federal government ever passes a law legalizing gay marriages, all the rural states will piss and moan about states' right and how the federal government is encroaching on them.

The only real reason for lower-level government is because the federal government isn't needed on every level. You don't need Congress debating over whether or not to repair Main street in Bunktussle, Oklahoma. However, I see no reason why states should be legislating things like gay marriages. Things should be consistent across the country on larger issues like that.

Durandal wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:That's what I'm talking about; all I ever hear is a lot of mumbling when I ask how anyone could possibly get so riled up over "States' rights versus Federal rights" that he would take up arms against his countrymen. The "they wanted to protect their slave-based economy" argument makes sense, since there's real economic incentive there, which is one of the reasons I have always felt rather dubious about the "States' rights" idea.

States' rights come from the Constitution. The enumerated powers clause states that whatever powers the Constitution does not explicitly grant to the Federal government are implied to have been granted to the states and the people. America hated the idea of a powerful federal government, which anyone can see just by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which effectively neutered it. Under those, the federal government didn't even have the power to tax.

As of late, the only reason I've seen states whine about states' rights is because they want to keep the government from smacking down their unjust practices. I guarantee that, if the federal government ever passes a law legalizing gay marriages, all the rural states will piss and moan about states' right and how the federal government is encroaching on them.

The only real reason for lower-level government is because the federal government isn't needed on every level. You don't need Congress debating over whether or not to repair Main street in Bunktussle, Oklahoma. However, I see no reason why states should be legislating things like gay marriages. Things should be consistent across the country on larger issues like that.

Hmm, I suppose I could ask where exactly the Constitution gives the federal government the right to go about legislating on marriage, but I suppose that would be fruitless. I like Dick Cheney's idea - encourage states to adopt homosexual marriage, but no federal policy in place in this area.

Darth Wong wrote:Why should that surprise you? The growing political power of the South means that we're starting to see an awful lot of revisionist history. Give it another five years, and we'll be hearing that the Union was unmitigated evil, and that the Noble South Will Rise Again (oh wait, we're already hearing that).

...and that's wrong how?

Could someone give me a link to the review before it gets swallowed up?

Durran Korr wrote:Hmm, I suppose I could ask where exactly the Constitution gives the federal government the right to go about legislating on marriage, but I suppose that would be fruitless. I like Dick Cheney's idea - encourage states to adopt homosexual marriage, but no federal policy in place in this area.

And I suppose I could ask since where the Constitution grants the states the power to take infringe the rights of groups of people without fear of federal correction, but I suppose that would be fruitless, too. On issues where people's rights are clearly being violated, the federal government should step in and let the states know that their right to govern does not make them sovereign nations, nor does it give them the power to encroach on people's rights.

Durandal wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:Hmm, I suppose I could ask where exactly the Constitution gives the federal government the right to go about legislating on marriage, but I suppose that would be fruitless. I like Dick Cheney's idea - encourage states to adopt homosexual marriage, but no federal policy in place in this area.

And I suppose I could ask since where the Constitution grants the states the power to take infringe the rights of groups of people without fear of federal correction, but I suppose that would be fruitless, too. On issues where people's rights are clearly being violated, the federal government should step in and let the states know that their right to govern does not make them sovereign nations, nor does it give them the power to encroach on people's rights.

No one is honestly arguing that the states have a Constitutional right to abuse their citizens. The real debate is how much power the Constitution gives the federal government to rectify those abuses. And I do agree, the federal government needs to act as another layer of protection for certain abuses. But I don't think the federal government needs to be legislating with regards to things like gay marriage; society does not need a centralized plan to run itself.