|View single post by javal1|
|Posted: Mon Jul 10th, 2006 12:00 am||
|Actually, I don't think that's what Burnside asked in the original thread - or at least that wasn't the main point. Seems to me he was asking why the South insists on saying that the North has re-written history, and to be honest I see alot of that right here in this thread.
John, you seem to insinuate that the blacks under reconstruction had it no better than they did as slaves. You need to understand how difficult that is for some of us to swallow. We all understand that we didn't make a jump from slavery to equal rights. But to say they had it no better just seems a bit ridiculous to me. Let's keep in mind that they were no longer in shackles, beaten according to the whims of their "masters", and no longer left to watch as wives and daughters were abused both physically and sexually, again at the whim of their "masters". You dispute that a Northern victory laid the path to freedom, but I would ask what a Southern victory would have led to.
Forgive me if I refer to things that are not in this paticular thread, but in others we've had along the same lines, but I've seen an awful lot of talk about "the north previously had slavery too." That may be true, but there's a few differences. First, I don't hear many northerners denying that. I don't hear them justifying it, or attempting to validate the actions of their ancestors. Fact is, I hear most of them just saying "true, they did, and that was wrong". I'm at a loss as to why Southerners have such a hard time saying that. Second, I don't recall the "North" ever going to war and accepting the deaths of hundreds of thousands simply so they could preserve their barbaric practice. Only the South did that.
It may be obvious by now that I believe the war WAS about slavery. I spent decades studying the subject and reading the writings of the very people proclaimed by Southerners as pioneers before I reached that conclusion. They make it clear. The reason I recommended the article previously was that to me it showed that the South manipulated the term State's Rights so that it applied to slavery, but that they proved hypocritical when it came to applying the theory in a broader sense. And that to me is re-writing history, which of course is where I believe the thread started.
Playing Devil's Advocate is all well and good - I know I do it on a frequent basis - but history shouldn't be re-written in the attempt. The northern victory led to reconstruction, which was better than slavery. Reconstruction led to Civil rights, which was better than reconstruction. Civil rights led us to where we are, which is not where we should be, but light-years away from where we would be if the South had it's way.
In the end, I really appreciate the thoughtful and passionate posts, from SR, Hank, Fight, Burnside, Calcav, Michael and all others. On many other boards, this thread would have gone to hell in a handbasket by now. Just my opinion - you may now resume your regularly scheduled discussion
Last edited on Mon Jul 10th, 2006 12:02 am by javal1