Weren't most property owners slaveholders? And therefore Sherman was destroying the property of the slaveholders?
He most definitely was when he was torching farms, and burning the upper-class housing.
It's been a while since I took a history class on this topic but there were tons and tons of poor sharecroppers. The percentage of the population that owned slaves in the south was very, very small.
If I remember correctly, sharecroppers are defined by the fact that they don't own the land they work.
That would in fact be the definition of a sharecropper. However, burning out the farms would have done considerable damage to the sharecroppers, too.
Weren't most property owners slaveholders? And therefore Sherman was destroying the property of the slaveholders?
He most definitely was when he was torching farms, and burning the upper-class housing.
It's been a while since I took a history class on this topic but there were tons and tons of poor sharecroppers. The percentage of the population that owned slaves in the south was very, very small.
If I remember correctly, sharecroppers are defined by the fact that they don't own the land they work.
Yes. But, if you own property and rent it out to sharecroppers well... your not a slave owner (well, you could still be but, your land is not being worked by slaves, you dig?).
Slave labour would have high overhead because one would have to actually buy a slave, so plantation owners would rent new land while building up the cash for a sufficient force (or they'd have bad land that they'd rent out as good land and make more off rent than they could out of the land itself). I know this because that's what I'd do if I was in their position and supported slavery.
I'm originally from Michigan, and living in the South now. I saw just as many Rebel flags in Michigan as I see here. It's partially a rural/urban thing, not just a North/South thing.
I haven't spent much time in surrounding states to see if it's the same, but Michigan really did strike me as a colder version of Alabama.
I can see how you'd get that vibe, depending on where you went. For some reason the state supports a healthy population of armed backwoods weirdos (remember the Michigan militia?).
But it's more urban, and generally rural Michigan isn't quite as dire as rural Alabama. But we're talking about matters of degree.
[/threadjack]
OhtheVogonity on
Oh freddled gruntbuggly...thy micturations are to me/ As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee
Which brings us back to the whole comparison of the battle flag to the swastika, rather than the Nazi flag.
But it's not the same thing as swastika in religious sense. The Battle Flag, no matter what flag it featured in, was still an official symbol of the goverment. The Nazi Flag had several official variants as well, that doesn't mean that any of them are any less offensive or don't exemplify the goverment and it's stances equally.
So a swastika on its own can have a separate meaning as a religious symbol, but the battle flag must be considered as part of the Stainless or Bloodstained banners, a symbol of the government rather than the military?
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Which brings us back to the whole comparison of the battle flag to the swastika, rather than the Nazi flag.
But it's not the same thing as swastika in religious sense. The Battle Flag, no matter what flag it featured in, was still an official symbol of the goverment. The Nazi Flag had several official variants as well, that doesn't mean that any of them are any less offensive or don't exemplify the goverment and it's stances equally.
So a swastika on its own can have a separate meaning as a religious symbol, but the battle flag must be considered as part of the Stainless or Bloodstained banners, a symbol of the government rather than the military?
Well, the swastika was already a religious symbol before the Nazi's hijacked it. If they'd invented it then i think that we'd see even a swastika on its own,not part of a flag, as representing naziism.
Which brings us back to the whole comparison of the battle flag to the swastika, rather than the Nazi flag.
But it's not the same thing as swastika in religious sense. The Battle Flag, no matter what flag it featured in, was still an official symbol of the goverment. The Nazi Flag had several official variants as well, that doesn't mean that any of them are any less offensive or don't exemplify the goverment and it's stances equally.
So a swastika on its own can have a separate meaning as a religious symbol, but the battle flag must be considered as part of the Stainless or Bloodstained banners, a symbol of the government rather than the military?
Well, the swastika was already a religious symbol before the Nazi's hijacked it. If they'd invented it then i think that we'd see even a swastika on its own,not part of a flag, as representing naziism.
The battle flag was already a military symbol before the Confederate government adopted it.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Which brings us back to the whole comparison of the battle flag to the swastika, rather than the Nazi flag.
But it's not the same thing as swastika in religious sense. The Battle Flag, no matter what flag it featured in, was still an official symbol of the goverment. The Nazi Flag had several official variants as well, that doesn't mean that any of them are any less offensive or don't exemplify the goverment and it's stances equally.
So a swastika on its own can have a separate meaning as a religious symbol, but the battle flag must be considered as part of the Stainless or Bloodstained banners, a symbol of the government rather than the military?
Well, the swastika was already a religious symbol before the Nazi's hijacked it. If they'd invented it then i think that we'd see even a swastika on its own,not part of a flag, as representing naziism.
The battle flag was already a military symbol before the Confederate government adopted it.
So are you saying that the Confederate Flag doesn't have racist connotations, or what? If you think the analogy doesn't work, don't use it.
Which brings us back to the whole comparison of the battle flag to the swastika, rather than the Nazi flag.
But it's not the same thing as swastika in religious sense. The Battle Flag, no matter what flag it featured in, was still an official symbol of the goverment. The Nazi Flag had several official variants as well, that doesn't mean that any of them are any less offensive or don't exemplify the goverment and it's stances equally.
So a swastika on its own can have a separate meaning as a religious symbol, but the battle flag must be considered as part of the Stainless or Bloodstained banners, a symbol of the government rather than the military?
Well, the swastika was already a religious symbol before the Nazi's hijacked it. If they'd invented it then i think that we'd see even a swastika on its own,not part of a flag, as representing naziism.
The battle flag was already a military symbol before the Confederate government adopted it.
So are you saying that the Confederate Flag doesn't have racist connotations, or what? If you think the analogy doesn't work, don't use it.
I'm not saying that. In fact, I already stated that like some other flags, it is offensive to some people, but that does not mean that everyone who flies it is by default doing so for those offensive reasons.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
You've never seen anybody argue that Sherman was an evil man? Every book I've read about the ACW says he was a pretty bad guy. I've read your posts before, though, so I understand what kind of people you might hang out with. I realize it is edgy to think like that.
And no, Incenjucar, that isn't what I meant. I've read plenty of books and seen documentaries on the ACW. Not to be a dick waver or whatever. Sherman was an evil guy. Trying to be edgy as shit and think otherwise is fucking stupidity.
Sherman was not an evil guy. You've provided zero reasons to make that claim. The fact that your high school textbooks were shitty and tried to balance out the Civil War by repeating the demonization of Sherman - and I'm sure the "it wasn't really about slavery" BS - doesn't mean that's historically accurate or a viewpoint commonly held by historians. The Lost Cause school exerted disproportionate influence on high school textbooks through the 50s-90s as a direct reaction to desegregation and is the source of most of the incredibly wrong ideas about the Civil War, including that Sherman's March to the Sea was "evil" or that Lee was a noble non-racist.
You've never seen anybody argue that Sherman was an evil man? Every book I've read about the ACW says he was a pretty bad guy. I've read your posts before, though, so I understand what kind of people you might hang out with. I realize it is edgy to think like that.
And no, Incenjucar, that isn't what I meant. I've read plenty of books and seen documentaries on the ACW. Not to be a dick waver or whatever. Sherman was an evil guy. Trying to be edgy as shit and think otherwise is fucking stupidity.
Sherman was not an evil guy. You've provided zero reasons to make that claim. The fact that your high school textbooks were shitty and tried to balance out the Civil War by repeating the demonization of Sherman - and I'm sure the "it wasn't really about slavery" BS - doesn't mean that's historically accurate or a viewpoint commonly held by historians. The Lost Cause school exerted disproportionate influence on high school textbooks through the 50s-90s as a direct reaction to desegregation and is the source of most of the incredibly wrong ideas about the Civil War, including that Sherman's March to the Sea was "evil" or that Lee was a noble non-racist.
No, that wasn't in my history schoolbooks. You've consistently downplayed every single example I've posted, so whatever. "Who the fuck cares!" indeed.
You've never seen anybody argue that Sherman was an evil man? Every book I've read about the ACW says he was a pretty bad guy. I've read your posts before, though, so I understand what kind of people you might hang out with. I realize it is edgy to think like that.
And no, Incenjucar, that isn't what I meant. I've read plenty of books and seen documentaries on the ACW. Not to be a dick waver or whatever. Sherman was an evil guy. Trying to be edgy as shit and think otherwise is fucking stupidity.
Sherman was not an evil guy. You've provided zero reasons to make that claim. The fact that your high school textbooks were shitty and tried to balance out the Civil War by repeating the demonization of Sherman - and I'm sure the "it wasn't really about slavery" BS - doesn't mean that's historically accurate or a viewpoint commonly held by historians. The Lost Cause school exerted disproportionate influence on high school textbooks through the 50s-90s as a direct reaction to desegregation and is the source of most of the incredibly wrong ideas about the Civil War, including that Sherman's March to the Sea was "evil" or that Lee was a noble non-racist.
No, that wasn't in my history schoolbooks. You've consistently downplayed every single example I've posted, so whatever. "Who the fuck cares!" indeed.
That's because your examples are "but he totally took this rich slaveowning cunt's china and silverware! What a monster!" That's not really "downplaying" them; it's "putting them in context."
None of what you posted was that bad. There was the usual looting, destruction of property, and "living off the land." The second was to prevent the Confederacy from using the property and the third was so they could survive.
They were all about republic and personal individuality but there's that whole slavery thing.
Are there any hardcore liberals who say buying anything made in sweatshops, domestic or imported, supports slavery? It's not like the modern American flag is 100% sterling when it comes to fair pay.
They were all about republic and personal individuality but there's that whole slavery thing.
Are there any hardcore liberals who say buying anything made in sweatshops, domestic or imported, supports slavery? It's not like the modern American flag is 100% sterling when it comes to fair pay.
There are people who make that argument, yes. However, whatever blood there is on the American flag (and I agree that there is a lot) does not serve to make the Confederate flag clean in comparison.
I think it's a load of crap. Especially the apologist bullshit they slide in there, "well, if the North had only handled slavery like Brazil did, there wouldn't have been a war!"
While it doesn't have anything to do with the Confederate flag, does anyone actually have a problem rooting for a Confederate protagonist? Buster Keaton's The General caused me to squirm a little at first but I laughed all the same by the end. It's public domain by now, right?
Honestly, Sherman was a goddamn teddy bear compared to what I would have done in the same position.
There wouldn't be a South.
This. The southern aristocracy got off easy. They lost their silver and their slaves; they should have lost their lives.
Yep.
Nine times out of ten these wars are the result of aristocratic assholes anyways - Even the fucking 9/11 shit. The very goddamn first thing I would do would be to shatter the aristocracy, take their shit, and then offer it to the unlanded people.
I think it's a load of crap. Especially the apologist bullshit they slide in there, "well, if the North had only handled slavery like Brazil did, there wouldn't have been a war!"
Dunno, the fact that there are mulatto descendants of confederate veterans in Brazil does seem to indicate that they may have handled the race thing just a bit better than in the US.
Not that racism doesn't exist in Brazil, but it's not nearly as, well, black and white a matter as here.
Sherman's march may have been necessary, but it may have made things in the aftermath of the war that much harder. It may not have been that brutal ultimately, but I think that the symbolic significance of Union soldiers burning down cities made a huge impact even on the poorer classes. Likely made reconciliation harder when the people you're supposed to be reconciliating with are the ones that destroyed you or your neighbor's homes.
We wouldn't be talking about all this as much as we are though, if the Reconstruction hadn't gone so badly. I think the deep fissures between South and the rest of the country grew a lot deeper then.
We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children. (The Sioux must) feel the superior power of the Government.
Also there is some goddamn bloodlust in this thread.
That gives plenty of reason for the Indians to hate him. That doesn't give reason for the Southerners to hate him. Hell, they would have supported the extermination of those damn Indians.
That gives plenty of reason for the Indians to hate him. That doesn't give reason for the Southerners to hate him. Hell, they would have supported the extermination of those damn Indians.
Brig. General Stand Watie would probably have a problem with your assessment, tribal problems aside.
We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children. (The Sioux must) feel the superior power of the Government.
Also there is some goddamn bloodlust in this thread.
Like, Stalin-level bloodlust.
I'm against capital punishment, but very few of these assholes flying the Confederate flag are. And given what the Southern aristocracy did, they most definitely should have been put to death.
Thanatos on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I'm against capital punishment, but very few of these assholes flying the Confederate flag are. And given what the Southern aristocracy did, they most definitely should have been put to death.
Should we extend that to their whole families, what about their children? Under what age do we stop blaming the younger ones for whatever they happened to do being raised to believe as their forefathers.
How much evidence is required before a person would be sentenced to death? How many people are we talking about and how long would the process take? Do we just execute without trial so save money?
Sherman's march may have been necessary, but it may have made things in the aftermath of the war that much harder. It may not have been that brutal ultimately, but I think that the symbolic significance of Union soldiers burning down cities made a huge impact even on the poorer classes. Likely made reconciliation harder when the people you're supposed to be reconciliating with are the ones that destroyed you or your neighbor's homes.
We wouldn't be talking about all this as much as we are though, if the Reconstruction hadn't gone so badly. I think the deep fissures between South and the rest of the country grew a lot deeper then.
Reconstruction was probably one of the most horribly handled projects ever in this country. Alienate and disenfranchise a people until a radical, extremist core forms, then suddenly one day do a 180 and decide hey, lets give that radical, extremist core control of everything, that'll work out great, right?
That gives plenty of reason for the Indians to hate him. That doesn't give reason for the Southerners to hate him. Hell, they would have supported the extermination of those damn Indians.
The argument was that Sherman was evil, which the quote pretty much illustrates.
That gives plenty of reason for the Indians to hate him. That doesn't give reason for the Southerners to hate him. Hell, they would have supported the extermination of those damn Indians.
The argument was that Sherman was evil, which the quote pretty much illustrates.
It illustrates that Sherman agreed with the prevailing wisdom of the time regarding the "Indian Problem."
Granted, he was a pretty big dick. Pulling quotes and examining them in modern context can make virtually any historical figure look that way, though.
It illustrates that Sherman agreed with the prevailing wisdom of the time regarding the "Indian Problem."
Granted, he was a pretty big dick. Pulling quotes and examining them in modern context can make virtually any historical figure look that way, though.
If Sherman gets a pass for his genocidal views toward the Indians I don't see how we can vilify slaveowners. They justified that with their own 'prevailing wisdom', as well.
You know, none of the shit in the past how many explains why people fly the flag now. Well, other than the fact they're a bunch of dipshits.
Brazil, silverware, burned cotton. None of those explain the morons flying the flag today.
It's kinda like the thing from Clerks II...it's not exactly something you can take back and impart good meaning to. The ANV battle flag is tarnished; there is no salvaging it. Southerners (the good ones) let people take it and fuck it up completely. It's hard to say, "But it doesn't mean that!" and have people take you seriously. That's what it's associated with.
If you want to show pride in your heritage, why not fly something like the Bonnie Blue Flag instead? Flying the ANV battle flag is just being intentionally antagonistic.
It illustrates that Sherman agreed with the prevailing wisdom of the time regarding the "Indian Problem."
Granted, he was a pretty big dick. Pulling quotes and examining them in modern context can make virtually any historical figure look that way, though.
If Sherman gets a pass for his genocidal views toward the Indians I don't see how we can vilify slaveowners. They justified that with their own 'prevailing wisdom', as well.
Both are morally abhorrent. Both are inexcusable.
Correct. Sherman was a bad man. His march however, was not evil.
Posts
Slave labour would have high overhead because one would have to actually buy a slave, so plantation owners would rent new land while building up the cash for a sufficient force (or they'd have bad land that they'd rent out as good land and make more off rent than they could out of the land itself). I know this because that's what I'd do if I was in their position and supported slavery.
oppressive regime than? They were all about republic and personal individuality but there's that whole slavery thing.
I can see how you'd get that vibe, depending on where you went. For some reason the state supports a healthy population of armed backwoods weirdos (remember the Michigan militia?).
But it's more urban, and generally rural Michigan isn't quite as dire as rural Alabama. But we're talking about matters of degree.
[/threadjack]
So a swastika on its own can have a separate meaning as a religious symbol, but the battle flag must be considered as part of the Stainless or Bloodstained banners, a symbol of the government rather than the military?
- John Stuart Mill
Well, the swastika was already a religious symbol before the Nazi's hijacked it. If they'd invented it then i think that we'd see even a swastika on its own,not part of a flag, as representing naziism.
The battle flag was already a military symbol before the Confederate government adopted it.
- John Stuart Mill
I'm not saying that. In fact, I already stated that like some other flags, it is offensive to some people, but that does not mean that everyone who flies it is by default doing so for those offensive reasons.
- John Stuart Mill
Sherman was not an evil guy. You've provided zero reasons to make that claim. The fact that your high school textbooks were shitty and tried to balance out the Civil War by repeating the demonization of Sherman - and I'm sure the "it wasn't really about slavery" BS - doesn't mean that's historically accurate or a viewpoint commonly held by historians. The Lost Cause school exerted disproportionate influence on high school textbooks through the 50s-90s as a direct reaction to desegregation and is the source of most of the incredibly wrong ideas about the Civil War, including that Sherman's March to the Sea was "evil" or that Lee was a noble non-racist.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Are there any hardcore liberals who say buying anything made in sweatshops, domestic or imported, supports slavery? It's not like the modern American flag is 100% sterling when it comes to fair pay.
There are people who make that argument, yes. However, whatever blood there is on the American flag (and I agree that there is a lot) does not serve to make the Confederate flag clean in comparison.
Consider also that the vast majority of confederados are mixed race...
There wouldn't be a South.
This. The southern aristocracy got off easy. They lost their silver and their slaves; they should have lost their lives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SRhjz1pYg8
Yep.
Nine times out of ten these wars are the result of aristocratic assholes anyways - Even the fucking 9/11 shit. The very goddamn first thing I would do would be to shatter the aristocracy, take their shit, and then offer it to the unlanded people.
Dunno, the fact that there are mulatto descendants of confederate veterans in Brazil does seem to indicate that they may have handled the race thing just a bit better than in the US.
Not that racism doesn't exist in Brazil, but it's not nearly as, well, black and white a matter as here.
We wouldn't be talking about all this as much as we are though, if the Reconstruction hadn't gone so badly. I think the deep fissures between South and the rest of the country grew a lot deeper then.
So you would embrace genocide as a solution to a wholly distasteful practice. Makes perfect sense.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
Also there is some goddamn bloodlust in this thread.
Like, Stalin-level bloodlust.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Brig. General Stand Watie would probably have a problem with your assessment, tribal problems aside.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
Should we extend that to their whole families, what about their children? Under what age do we stop blaming the younger ones for whatever they happened to do being raised to believe as their forefathers.
How much evidence is required before a person would be sentenced to death? How many people are we talking about and how long would the process take? Do we just execute without trial so save money?
How far do we take vengeance before it's enough?
Reconstruction was probably one of the most horribly handled projects ever in this country. Alienate and disenfranchise a people until a radical, extremist core forms, then suddenly one day do a 180 and decide hey, lets give that radical, extremist core control of everything, that'll work out great, right?
Brazil, silverware, burned cotton. None of those explain the morons flying the flag today.
Granted, he was a pretty big dick. Pulling quotes and examining them in modern context can make virtually any historical figure look that way, though.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Both are morally abhorrent. Both are inexcusable.
It's kinda like the thing from Clerks II...it's not exactly something you can take back and impart good meaning to. The ANV battle flag is tarnished; there is no salvaging it. Southerners (the good ones) let people take it and fuck it up completely. It's hard to say, "But it doesn't mean that!" and have people take you seriously. That's what it's associated with.
If you want to show pride in your heritage, why not fly something like the Bonnie Blue Flag instead? Flying the ANV battle flag is just being intentionally antagonistic.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
Correct. Sherman was a bad man. His march however, was not evil.