• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Rejecting words and actions which perpetrate, support or encourage white supremacists

General Grant went almost everywhere in the so-called Confederate south and he and his men had extensive dealings with all parts of the population. It is absolutely a descriptive passage, from a first-hand witness.

As for the leadership class and the officers and the bulk of the soldiery, I agree with your second paragraph.

I'm sure it was written as a descriptive passage, but it reads almost as a plea of sorts, like he's appealing to the better angels of Southern Nature. I understand I'm reading subsequent history into that passage though.

How much of that was written contemporaneously vs. closer to publication?

I think it's fair to say that Northern elites at the time deserve as much blame for the ultimate failure of reconstruction (after some real early successes) as poor southerners, but poor white southerners aren't obsolved, then or now, simply because Grant correctly observed that emancipation (or racial equality) would actually help them as well. To the extent poor white southerners ever shared Grant's belief in 1867, they certainly didn't by 1887 and many still don't in 2017.
 
I wasn't there.

All I've attempted to do is to describe (not defend) the admittedly inconsistent mindset of many/most particularly rural southerners today--those who harbor long-standing suspicion of outsiders, particularly the yankee, the liberal, and the federal government. And who don't see themselves as particularly racist. A point you may feel is irrelevant, but nonetheless important to them. And therefore, a rise of overt racism now may have the effect of alienating many of these folk from the "right" and the Republican party (particularly if the party does not adequately distance itself from the alt-right (etc.). And it may be an opportunity for some awakening to the reality of the racist past and present of their heritage.
 
Obviously. Honoring people who took up arms against the country to restrict the freedoms of Americans is ridiculous.

Perhaps you should walk over to the USF history department and learn something today about the primary cause of the Civil War when you take a break from your rigorous lecturing schedule.
 
For example: Winston-Salem's Confederate monument should no longer be ignored

Quote:
----------
...The late Walter Marshall, a black man and a longtime county commissioner accustomed to being a voice in the wilderness, wanted the statue removed or relocated as a condition of the sale.

“The Confederacy was not legal, as far as I’m concerned,” Marshall said at the time. “It was a form of treason. You don’t recognize people who did not recognize the country as being legitimate.”

The United Daughters of the Confederacy thought otherwise, however. The group claimed ownership and put its collective foot down.

“The UDC, back in 1905, raised the money to have that built,” said Cindy Casey, a past president of the local chapter. “The county wrote in the newspaper a resolution thanking the UDC for giving the monument for citizens to enjoy. ... The statue represents men who died in the Civil War. It has nothing to do with race or racism.”...


...Casey, who is no longer with the UDC, said that statues and monuments are a very difficult subject. “I absolutely abhor white supremacy,” she said. “It has no place in our community.”

Down the block, at the vigil, a 70-year-old Air Force veteran named Woodrow Haney admitted that he hadn’t thought much about the Confederate monument in his hometown.

“I’m a black man. To black people, it’s about slavery and oppression,” he said. “I’ll say this about (Confederate monuments) … I hope they move all those statues way out in a park somewhere so that people who want to see them can and they’re not right out in the middle of everything.”

Ron Pardue, a white man who lives in Clemmons, said much the same thing. Perhaps it is time to move such statues and monuments. Maybe they belong in cemeteries or near Civil War battlefields, and not smack in the middle of a burgeoning, modern downtown.

“Symbols change over time, or at least our understanding of them does, and I am no longer comfortable with it where it is,” Pardue wrote in an email.

As things stand now, ownership of the monument is still claimed by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, and it sits on ground in an easement granted by the county when it sold the old courthouse to a developer.

Further complicating matters, the legislature, in 2015, passed a law making it more difficult to remove or relocate such monuments.

“It’s murky, at best,” said Dudley Watts, the county manager. “A lot of people have tried to tip-toe around it.”

Maybe it’s time we do something about it. Maybe it’s time to stop treating the monument like Uncle Earl’s lawn jockey. Pardue, and others like him, think so.

“My opinion on the memorials is evolving,” he said. “Charlottesville was a tipping point for me. Seeing the battle flag used next to (the) Nazi swastika made it crystal clear.”

The Confederate monument, nestled next to the old Forsyth County Courthouse, sat mostly alone and largely ignored this weekend. Perhaps it’s time we stop looking away.
----------
 
Last edited:
Yes, Id love a good argument about how the civil war wasn't about slavery and was instead about some romanticized bullshit to make southern descendants feel better about their ancestors.
 
The whole "heritage not hate" mess is white fragility at its finest.
 
I'm sure it was written as a descriptive passage, but it reads almost as a plea of sorts, like he's appealing to the better angels of Southern Nature. I understand I'm reading subsequent history into that passage though.

How much of that was written contemporaneously vs. closer to publication?

I think it's fair to say that Northern elites at the time deserve as much blame for the ultimate failure of reconstruction (after some real early successes) as poor southerners, but poor white southerners aren't obsolved, then or now, simply because Grant correctly observed that emancipation (or racial equality) would actually help them as well. To the extent poor white southerners ever shared Grant's belief in 1867, they certainly didn't by 1887 and many still don't in 2017.

The memoirs as a whole were composed shortly before Grant's death. I'm not a historian and don't know how much he drew on journal for recollection of pre-war events, though he used contemporary notes and reports for other sections.

I'm not interested in absolving anyone, I'm just stating the fact that the material interests of the free working class were in opposition to those of the slave power. It's also true that Baldwin's question of why white people found it necessary to invent "the [redacted]" isn't answered by that.
 
I wasn't there.

All I've attempted to do is to describe (not defend) the admittedly inconsistent mindset of many/most particularly rural southerners today--those who harbor long-standing suspicion of outsiders, particularly the yankee, the liberal, and the federal government. And who don't see themselves as particularly racist. A point you may feel is irrelevant, but nonetheless important to them. And therefore, a rise of overt racism now may have the effect of alienating many of these folk from the "right" and the Republican party (particularly if the party does not adequately distance itself from the alt-right (etc.). And it may be an opportunity for some awakening to the reality of the racist past and present of their heritage.

I really hope you are right. I think this still underestimates the raw number of overt racists and I also think that when push comes to shove white southerners who don't consider themselves overt racists are going to choose the same side they have always chosen.

Again, I hope I'm wrong.
 
Charlottesville: Race and Terror – VICE News Tonight on HBO

[video=youtube;P54sP0Nlngg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=P54sP0Nlngg[/video]

I'm not going to give myself nightmare fuel. I'm sure this is interesting. I'll watch it tomorrow.

1:55 "You trying to figure out what's going on now? It's too late, bro! Y'all just be ready for tomorrow. Y'all couldn't help the couple people that was out here tonight. Just be ready tomorrow at least."

Should've listened to that guy..
 
Perhaps you should walk over to the USF history department and learn something today about the primary cause of the Civil War when you take a break from your rigorous lecturing schedule.

An excerpt from South Carolina's declaration of succession:

"...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety."

It was slavery and racism, Stupid.
 
Yes, Id love a good argument about how the civil war wasn't about slavery and was instead about some romanticized bullshit to make southern descendants feel better about their ancestors.

Read up on the Tariff of 1828 (aka the Tariff of Abominations) after you rescue Doug Master's dad from the Middle East.

And I never said slavery wasn't AN issue. It was. It simply wasn't THE issue that the SJW's would have you believe.

But it doesn't really matter, does it? Facts that don't fit the narrative of the Tunnels' left are simply dismissed and any dissenting voices are labeled 'racist'.

It's much simpler that way.
 
No, its not. That's not to say that white supremacists don't enjoy the same right to peaceful assembly as everyone else, but white supremacist views are anything but peaceful.

If white supremacists want to hold private meetings, or get together for a backyard cookout, that's fine.

Holding a rally in support of white supremacism is a violent act. It's hate speech, it is not protected under the constitution based on any reasonable interpretation and should not be protected as if it is.

I get that the sophistry of "bigotry against the bigot" and "the fascism of anti-fascists" is a comfortable and useful distraction from the discomfort of confronting one's own beliefs in the face of changes in public opinion and acceptance, but the time is growing short for the jhmds and Junebugs of the world to pick a side.
 
Read up on the Tariff of 1828 (aka the Tariff of Abominations) after you rescue Doug Master's dad from the Middle East.

And I never said slavery wasn't AN issue. It was. It simply wasn't THE issue that the SJW's would have you believe.

But it doesn't really matter, does it? Facts that don't fit the narrative of the Tunnels' left are simply dismissed and any dissenting voices are labeled 'racist'.

It's much simpler that way.

It's next level irony that the Southerners who "believe" that the Civil War was fought over a protectionist Tariff enacted 32 years before shots were fired overwhelming supported our current president and when asked to state why often point to his protectionist stance on trade.

I get it, that does sound a lot better than racism.
 
Back
Top