Is The Next Right Wing Meme About The Civil War?

[debrand]

On the Daily Show, John Stewart pretty easily destroys Judge Napolitano's arguments about why the Civil War was fought in the US.

http://wonkette.com/543867/jon-stewart- ... -game-show

What worries me is that Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge, holds the easily disprovable view that the Civil War was not about slavery. Is this going to become a meme for right wing Republicans now and not just a minority view among a few fringe southerners?

This is from the Mississippi Declaration of Secession.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississi ... ration.asp

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

[sparkles]

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when our comedians and entertainers are more intelligent than our political leaders and lawmakers.

[salex]

:pull-hair: Even some of my KS relatives (in laws, again) spout this. I pulled down some old documents and printed them off a while back, just so I have paper copies of things before they start disappearing from the Historical Society site.

I keep hearing it was the humanistic North against the Godly South.

[Cleopatra7]

This meme never went away in the first place, at least in the South.

[nausicaa]

This meme never went away in the first place, at least in the South.

Yes. I was taught by several teachers growing up that the Civil War was NOT about slavery. They didn't necessarily go so far as to describe the South as godly though. It was a lot of stuff about states' rights.

At age eleven I figured out this was a bunch of malarkey when I heard that Englad (far and away the major military superpower at the time) offered to ally with the South (which would thereby pretty much ensure the Confederates would win), provided the CSA end slavery, which of course the South refused.

[debrand]

:pull-hair: Even some of my KS relatives (in laws, again) spout this. I pulled down some old documents and printed them off a while back, just so I have paper copies of things before they start disappearing from the Historical Society site.

I keep hearing it was the humanistic North against the Godly South.

My sympathies. This drives me up the wall also because it is so easy to prove that the south's main reason for fighting the Civil War was to preserve their right to own other humans.

Fox news profits off their viewers fears and it concerns me that one of their hosts advances such a crazy twisting of history.

My son got in an argument with my brother's new, very young bride over the confederate flag. She accused my son of disrespecting her heritage. Why the hell would you get outraged over the confederate flag? :cray-cray:

[Swamptribe]

Least we should forget, The Southern Baptist Convention was formed to AFFIRM the right of ministers to own slaves. The did not apologize for this until what, the late 1990's?

[debrand]

Yes. I was taught by several teachers growing up that the Civil War was NOT about slavery. They didn't necessarily go so far as to describe the South as godly though. It was a lot of stuff about states' rights.

At age eleven I figured out this was a bunch of malarkey when I heard that Englad (far and away the major military superpower at the time) offered to ally with the South (which would thereby pretty much ensure the Confederates would win), provided the CSA end slavery, which of course the South refused.

This makes me so happy that I attended elementary school on a military base. Our teachers were pretty open that the south was at fault.

In middle school and high school, it seemed as if my teachers either skipped both the Civil and Vietnam War or I just slept through those lessons. I don't remember learning much about either conflict in school.

[debrand]

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/04 ... -civil-wa/

Here is an interesting summary of the history of state's rights

The states’ rights doctrine has no foundation in the era of Abraham Lincoln. The south seceded from the Union and fought the Civil War, not to uphold states’ rights, but to defend slavery. The South seceded before the new Republican government of Abraham Lincoln took any action to restrict slavery in the south or any other institutions of Southern states. Secession began well before Lincoln took the oath of office, which took place on March 4, following the election year, not January 20. On December 20, 1860, delegates attending a secession convention in South Carolina voted for the “dissolution of the union between the state of South Carolina and other states, under the name of the United States of America.â€

and

The ultimate refutation of the notion that the Confederacy stood for states’ rights is found in the Constitution of the so-called Confederate States of America. This Constitution did not reserve for the states the power to accept or reject slavery, supposedly the basis of secession and war. Rather, in effect, it prohibited its states from interfering with slavery. For states within the Confederacy, the Constitution declared, “citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.†(Emphasis added.) The Constitution also mandated that, “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.“ In addition, the Constitution included a Supremacy Clause modeled on the U.S. Constitution declaring that laws and treaties of the Confederate government “shall be the supreme law of the land.â€

[FloraKitty35]

Now, now from what I understand true right wingers don't call it the "Civil War" or the "War Between the States" they call it the "War of Northern Aggression". :roll:

[Loveday]

Now, now from what I understand true right wingers don't call it the "Civil War" or the "War Between the States" they call it the "War of Northern Aggression". :roll:

And their grandparents probably called it 'the late unpleasantness.' :lol:

[Joan of Snarc]

Least we should forget, The Southern Baptist Convention was formed to AFFIRM the right of ministers to own slaves. The did not apologize for this until what, the late 1990's?

And, lest we forget, Southerners did debate the morality of slavery. They looked to the Bible for their answers. They heard sermon after sermon quoting the Bible and affirming the moral rightness of slavery. They truly believed God was on their side and their Bible and religious leaders confirmed this.

[znthahmed378]

Those are great finds Debrand. Thanks. Now I have primary sources that I can refer to when someone irl or social media blathers on like an idiot that it wasn't about slavery.

This shit infuriates me. In my schools we were always taught the root cause was slavery. Now that I'm older I was shocked to find out there are people who believe otherwise. They may be a fringe group for now, but considering the state of the American education system and the internet in the mix that might change.

[FloraKitty35]

Yes. I was taught by several teachers growing up that the Civil War was NOT about slavery. They didn't necessarily go so far as to describe the South as godly though. It was a lot of stuff about states' rights.

At age eleven I figured out this was a bunch of malarkey when I heard that England (far and away the major military superpower at the time) offered to ally with the South (which would thereby pretty much ensure the Confederates would win), provided the CSA end slavery, which of course the South refused.

The ironic thing about the South wanting to get England into it on their side was that England did not get into it on the South's side in part due to Prince Albert, who get out of his sickbed to do so (he died a couple of weeks later), met with Lord Palmerston, the Prime Minister and decided that since the South didn't want to discuss emancipation, then they really didn't have a need for their cotton, since Britain had India.

[Stephanie66]

:pull-hair: Even some of my KS relatives (in laws, again) spout this. I pulled down some old documents and printed them off a while back, just so I have paper copies of things before they start disappearing from the Historical Society site.

I keep hearing it was the humanistic North against the Godly South.

But KS was a free state. In Lawrence, there is quite a "free state" history. :pull-hair:-your

I don't remember Jon Stewart being *quite* so in-your-face to his guest before. He has "gently" gone back and forth with them, but to bring professors from (I think) NYU, UMASS and Columbia on to correct him? And to nail him on knowing how many soldiers died in the Civil War, but not having a clue about how many SLAVES died in the slave trade? (Napolitano said, "You didn't ask me that question beforehand!" DUDE...YOU WROTE A BOOK!)

[RosyDaisy]

My sympathies. This drives me up the wall also because it is so easy to prove that the south's main reason for fighting the Civil War was to preserve their right to own other humans.

Fox news profits off their viewers fears and it concerns me that one of their hosts advances such a crazy twisting of history.

My son got in an argument with my brother's new, very young bride over the confederate flag. She accused my son of disrespecting her heritage. Why the hell would you get outraged over the confederate flag? :cray-cray:

I'm Southern born and bred, and the confederate flag is disgusting and offensive. You will not find one displayed inside or outside my house...EVER.

[RosyDaisy]

States' rights was used as as a ploy to expand slavery into new territories.

[Stephanie66]

I don't understand the displaying of the Confederate flag in northern states.

[salex]

But KS was a free state. In Lawrence, there is quite a "free state" history. :pull-hair:-your

I don't remember Jon Stewart being *quite* so in-your-face to his guest before. He has "gently" gone back and forth with them, but to bring professors from (I think) NYU, UMASS and Columbia on to correct him? And to nail him on knowing how many soldiers died in the Civil War, but not having a clue about how many SLAVES died in the slave trade? (Napolitano said, "You didn't ask me that question beforehand!" DUDE...YOU WROTE A BOOK!)

KANSAS was "bloody kansas" that was considered a tipping point that led to war We have a huge mural of John Brown in our statehouse.

It is stunning that now, suddenly, any kansan would not know the "right" the states wanted was to have slaves....

[debrand]

I'm Southern born and bred, and the confederate flag is disgusting and offensive. You will not find one displayed inside or outside my house...EVER.

As someone who was born in the Carolinas, I hear ya' Rosy.No one in my family ever displayed the Confederate flag.

[salex]

Of course, another thing that the right wing Christians have been doing lately (even as they embrace the antebellum south) is point out how virtuous the Republicans have always been... especially in the time of Lincoln

http://www.frc.org/op-eds/a-necessary-lesson-for-dems they do this without going into the obvious changes in the last 150 years between the two parties (I view the change in parties to be similar to a pond turning over--while neither party is the same as it was in civil war times, we only have to look at the conservative southern Dems who became republicans (oh, and Reagan too, who would be a RINO today in many opinions) after the civil rights acts in the 60s were put in place. The republican party has changed so much in my lifetime that it is disingenuous for these people to claim previous virtue or sin based on party name.

[Arete]

Isn't that amazing about Reagan? At the time, he was considered slightly to the right of Caesar Augustus. He would not be able to win a Republican primary today to work up to the title of RINO. Which is incredible since he is the closest thing the Rs have to a canonized saint.

[lilah]

Yes. I was taught by several teachers growing up that the Civil War was NOT about slavery. They didn't necessarily go so far as to describe the South as godly though. It was a lot of stuff about states' rights.

At age eleven I figured out this was a bunch of malarkey when I heard that Englad (far and away the major military superpower at the time) offered to ally with the South (which would thereby pretty much ensure the Confederates would win), provided the CSA end slavery, which of course the South refused.

Same here. I took AP history and the teacher kept going on about economics as if slavery wasn't a huge part of the economy. It was infuriating.

[FloraKitty35]

And their grandparents probably called it 'the late unpleasantness.' :lol:

Ironically, I refer my periods as the unpleasantness.

[FloraKitty35]

That "my heritage" shit over the confederate flag makes me want barf. That excuse would be like the Germans saying the Nazi flag was part of their "heritage".