Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can someone explain the sick relationship that Southern confederate types have

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:17 AM
Original message
Can someone explain the sick relationship that Southern confederate types have
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 09:20 AM by The Backlash Cometh
with the American Indians?

One thing I noticed is how connected they feel with the American Indians, and they are very quick to point out a blood relative they have in the family that makes them part Cherokee. They seem to favor the Cherokee. One guy had a confederate flag tattooed on one bicep, and feathers and a tomahawk on the other and he even described himself as a redneck.

Yet, when you get down to the talk-radio right-wing diatribes, they absolutely think that our government has given too many concessions to the tribes and, quite frankly, I don't think American Indians feel the same way about them.

Anyone notice this weird disconnect?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. The confederates had quite a good relationship with
Native Americans had many treaties (which were honored) by american tribes and were very involved in soliciting their help. It has always been an interesting alliance with the CSA and the Native tribes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I never knew this. How interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wiregrass Willie Donating Member (436 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
115. Many members of the "five civilized tribes" were slave owners
The Five Tribes were divided during the American Civil War. The Choctaw and Chickasaw fought mostly for the Confederates. The Creek, Seminole and Cherokee were split between the Union and the Confederacy

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
3. Cherokee Sided With The Confederates, Sir
The last Confederate force in the field to surrender was Cherokee cavalry led by Gen. Stand Watie in the southwest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Where were the black hawks in all this?
The guy also had black hawk in him, but he kiddingly said that they don't talk about it much in the family.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. No Idea, Sir
If recollection serves, that was a northern tribe, around Illinois: perhaps that accounts for the distaste....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Thank you so much!
Always good to learn from a fellow DUer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
128. Black Hawk = Iowa
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
139. Black Hawk
was an individual, not a tribe. He was a Sauk, one of two closely related Algonquian groups that lived near the Great Lakes region, Iowa and Kansas. The Sauk and Fox spoke a near identicle language, and had the same cultural attributes.

Black Hawk was the famous Sauk chief who led Indian people in the war named after him, in 1832. In his own language, his name meant "Black-Big-Chest." He had been born circa 1767, and after his father died in a battle, he concentrated on being a healer, or "medicine man."

Years later, he was the leader in the Black Hawk War, in which Abe Lincoln served as a captain. That is, I assume, why some misguided people assume they share some connection to Black Hawk.

After his death, his grave was robbed, and his remains were put on display in the Burlington Geographical & Historical Society Museum. This display resulted in some of the first organized attempts to recover and rebury Indian remains. His skeleton was destroyed in a fire in 1855.

There is no evidence that he had any non-Indian relatives. Often, confused white people select the Indian tribes/nations that appeal to their fantasies (Sioux, Mohawk, and Cherokee, in that order), or make a tribe up (the Black Hawks).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #139
142. Wow. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #139
169. Thank You, Sir
My early nineteenth-century frontier history is awfully rusty, and I appreciate the information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
19. Small wonder
The U.S.Army presided over the Cherokee removal, under the command of William Tecumseh Sherman. Sherman hated the Indians, and conducted the affair with his customary tact and compassion. He was a great general, but one of the meanest s.o.bs who ever lived.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #19
29. Yes, Sherman was a mean s.o.b. The war was nearly over

when he marched through Georgia and South Carolina burning and pillaging. He destroyed a Masonic hall in one city even though his men begged him not to. After the war, former Union soldiers took up a collection to help rebuild the hall, which still exists today. They were camped here for some time and I suppose they got to know some of the people and realized they were a lot like them, since most soldiers on both sides were farmers with small farms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
71. Yes.. note this quote from Sherman on the Indian..
Some want to make this guy a hero... :eyes:

The more Indians we can kill this year the fewer we will need to kill the next, because the more I see of the Indians the more convinced I become that they must either all be killed or be maintained as a species of pauper. Their attempts at civilization is ridiculous...
Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #71
77. "a species of pauper."
Lots of ugly implications there, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AwakeAtLast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #71
110. Just change "Indians" with "Iraqis" and he could be GWB!
:scared:

What a vile man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #71
130. that particular grammatical error comes from a Confederate nostalgia site...
Their attempts at civilization is ridiculous...


http://www.plpow.com/Atrocities_QuotesFromSherman.htm


This bloodthirsty quote doesn't actually refer to the Cherokee, by the way. It refers to the post-Civil War campaigns against the Plains Tribes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #130
157. It refers to Native Americans... Where, did I state otherwise?..
So, by your logic, genocide against Cherokees "bad," but genocide against Plains Indians "good?"

Good God... Some people will defend anything. Such moral relativism is disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #157
192. you were unaware that the poster you were replying to had gotten his facts wrong...
He claimed that General Sherman oversaw the removal of the Cherokee, and you chimed in with a post that began with the word "yes", and followed with the quote we're currently discussing.

So I pointed out the actual circumstances and timeframe of Sherman's quote. That was in the interests of accuracy.




So, by your logic, genocide against Cherokees "bad," but genocide against Plains Indians "good?"

Good God... Some people will defend anything. Such moral relativism is disgusting


Now THIS absurdity might owe to a simple failure of reading comprehension. Aside from merely correcting you on a matter of historical fact, I characterized Sherman's quote as "bloodthirsty". I certainly offered no logic in favor of genocide.

But then I can also see why you'd be tempted to make such a slander. After all, the other thing I pointed out was that your version of Sherman's quote bears a telltale error that marks it as having been copied from a site run by neoConfederate symps. (Oops...)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #192
194. not at all
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 11:41 PM by hlthe2b
I was referring only to Sherman's hateful behavior and attitude towards Native Americans. My case was clearly made and I do not peruse NeoConfederate websites, thank you very much. That quote appears in an Emory law review article on war criminals, requiring a paid subscription. http://www.law.emory.edu/index.php?id=1053/eilrhome.htm

Clearly, there should be a (sic) included, however, there was not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #194
195. that link just says "Congratulations to the 2006-2007 EILR candidates"...
... and there's a picture of a bunch of smiling people in academic robes.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #195
196. Archived articles,
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 11:57 PM by hlthe2b
Emory International Law Review 9.2, Fall 1995

I have a hard copy, but a law library would have as well, if it is not online and you do not wish to subscribe.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #19
116. Open a damn history book! It was Gen. Winfield Scott, not Sherman!
:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoPasaran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #19
154. Cherokee removal happened during the 1830s. Sherman was a teenager then
Born 1820, West Point Class of 1840. Whatever his sins, the Trail of Tears was not among them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
26. didn't they also own black slaves?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #26
45. yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #45
56. Have you ever heard Sarah Vowell's essay on the trail of tears?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
4. Only if you'll explain the sick relationship people on this
board have with the truth when it comes to Southerners, who they blame for all the ills of this country.

There is NO sick relationship with American Indians and Southerners. Fuck, man, practically all of us are American Indian and Irish - unless that mix is what you consider sick.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Foolish me, I judge people by the way they crap on their neighbors.
Especially in the last seven years, Right-wing southerners have had no qualms sharing their prejudices, so they can take heat in return. I listen to what people say, and I find an incredible hypocrisy in the way right-wingers as a group don't have a problem pouncing on Indian rights, but on an individualistic basis, parade around with American Indian symbols and are proud of their Indian heritage.

But I don't see that going both ways, or American Indians wouldn't be so pro-active about taking back their symbols and words from current establishments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
15. Amen. I saw the header and thought, "Here we go again,

another round of bashing the South at DU."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flying Dream Blues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #15
112. The South gets off easy compared to Texas, too. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
28. Total misconception
I am sick of this board bashing southern folks as RW idiots. My family is from West Virginia with a large component now in Florida. They are current or former coal miners, railroad workers, factory workers, auto mechanics, etc. These are your stereotypical "redneck" looking folks -- John Deere hats, big belt buckles, boots, Nascar fans, hunters, and confederate flag lovers. And they are DEMS all their life! Because they believe Dems help the working man.

And yes, they are Dems who are not really in support of gay marriage, and are not that pscyhed to have illegal immigrants amongst us (especially in Florida). And they're known to use the N word occasionally when discussing african americans. But they're still Dems and need to be acknowledged.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. Not sure what you're expecting.
Just because they're Dems doesn't mean they get a free ride for their prejudicial opinions that hurt others. What are you saying? That they can say whatever they like and hispanics and blacks have to sit quietly and take it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #32
42. What?
My point was that a lot of people assume - unfairly - that "redneck" automatically means RW idiot. Many are actually Dems. If you saw my uncle with his confederate flag t-shirt, boots, and Colt-45 belt buckle, you'd assume he was a big Bush fan. Not so.

My secondary point is that there are a lot of Dems out there who may not subscribe to the "pure" progressive viewpoint on the world, but still vote and have to be taken into account. Personally, I don't think illegal immigrants should get drivers licenses. But I'm still a Dem.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #42
47. And I am saying that just because someone labels themselves as
Dem, doesn't give them a flak suit from other Dems or left-leaning Centrists who feel demeaned by the racist overtones that are often associated with extreme Southern lifestyles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #47
72. What about extreme Boston lifestyles?
If you want to see a bastion of racism, spend some time in south Boston. Having lived both in the South and NE, the NE is just as segregated and intolerant then the South. Ask some of the folks in Roxsbury what they fell about their fellow Democrats in Boston - research the school busing wars to see some sickening violence and racism in a Democratic stronghold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #72
80. Oh, I believe you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #28
43. Try being from Texas
I understand exactly what you're saying. :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #28
101. West Virginia is decidedly not "Southern" for goodness' sake. The
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 02:03 PM by coalition_unwilling
state came into being as a result of its inhabitants being overwhelmingly opposed to the pro-slavery positions of Tidewater Virgina plantation owners. McClellan won his first, insignificant victory (more like a skirmish than a battle) in what is now West Virginia.

So your folks from West Virginia can't ever really be Southerners, as they came from a solidly Union state to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #4
66. Thought it was Scotch-Irish
Hence the St Andrew's Cross in the Confederate Battle Flag



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #66
69. Hmmm..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
7. Confederates and Native Americans know how it feels...
...to have the U. S. jackboot on their throats. I think that is what binds them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. In The Case Of The Confederacy, Sir
That boot should have stomped down a great deal harder....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. You think the U. S. was too soft on the Confederacy?...
Maybe some ethnic cleansing was called for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. I'll settle for putting down their good ole boy networks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Do you mean you would outlaw freedom of association? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. I mean I would expose their conspiracies which have harmed members of
the public. You call it freedom of association, but I call it ex parte communications and conspiracy when the public ends up paying for their mistakes. And when there's secrecy involved, it means they can scurry under their rocks and just watch from the dark as the public looks around waiting for someone to step up and accept accountability. But they never do. They just sit there laughing it up, because they got away with another big one.

And, here's a big tip off. Homeowners who live in private communities aren't considered members of the public in the eyes of local government. They're the biggest victims of white collar crime, and most of them are too blocked to see it. That's why they're the least able to fight against it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. I think that's what the courts are for. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Unless they own the courts too. Good ole boy networks are extensive.
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 10:10 AM by The Backlash Cometh
No one has challenged them properly, because they can't. And you shouldn't be surprised to learn that we may have had an election or two stolen because of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #23
31. You're talking about cronyism, which isn't just a Southern or Republican phenomenon. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. I'm talking about good ole boy networks, which have their roots
in Southern networking. "Good ole boys" are going to be affiliated with white mafia, soon, if they aren't already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. Like I said, it's called "cronyism", and it's widespread. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. We will agree, to disagree.
It's not like I don't have enough first-hand experience to write a book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuntius_Barbari Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #39
141. If you have enough first-hand experience to write a book , then write it!
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

I don't have the experience to write a book about this but I can urge you to do so. Not only would it be good to get your experiences out in the open, but, you would profit thereby! I love to see people profit by telling the truth!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #13
41. Well...
Mass hangings for High Treason come to mind...

Face it, the South had a lot of compassion and Mercy extended to it. Lincoln wanted the affair to just end. He wasn't out for vengeance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #41
49. Definitely out of step with the Republicans of this era.
But, the difference would be that the war with the confederates was OUR civil war. Brother against brother. Of course, mercy should have been extended. I just wish Lincoln had survived to see what solution he would have applied to see if our country would have mended better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #49
127. Also odd that conservative GOP southerners hate Lincoln
I suppose some put the Confederacy and its legacy of white superiority and exploitation even above loyalty to the GOP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #41
50. Who would you hang in your "High Treason" mass hangings?...
Soldiers? Bureaucrats? Merchants? Yankee women who slept with Confederate soldiers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #50
54. Response:
US Consitution, Article III
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person.


Look up the terms of the General Amnesty and the Special Pardons from that time period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #54
67. I wonder how many thousands of DU posters would hang if the U. S. wanted to press it? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #67
73. Don't be stupid.
Making WAR against your country, or ADHERING to the enemy, giving aid and comfort.

I don't see any taliban fighters here. And Unless you join Al Queda (ADHERE) and give them aid and comfort, your response was BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #73
113. But who defines what "aid and comfort to the enemy" is? Somebody like Dick Cheney? n/t
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 03:09 PM by Al Federfer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #113
138. It requires adherence first! None of us would pass that. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #67
75. You mean if present day Republicans succeeded with their coup?
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 12:06 PM by The Backlash Cometh
That's the point. DUers represent the Constitution. Republicans want to undermine it. You can't build the truth on a foundation of lies. The Republicans lost the authority to use the Constitution against Americans, when they went about stealing elections and politicizing government. That was an act of treason in itself, and I'm sure history will view it that way.

The point that the original poster was trying to make was, that the North had the power and the legal right to put down the confederacy further, had they wanted to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #75
78. I also was pointing out the legal definition of Treason.
It is making war against your country, through rebellion or civil war, or adherence to the enemy giving aid and comfort. So being an official in the rebel government or a rebel soldier was treason. Doing business or sleeping with rebels, despicable, but not treason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #75
114. Cheney/Bush don't care about having the "authority" to do something...
Isn't that obvious now? Whoever controls the government makes the rules -- sometimes with guns.

The idea that the U. S. should have executed masses of people after the Civil War is hideous and shameful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #54
171. President Davis and General Lee were both indicted for treason
President Davis insisted on his trial.

He had a high powered group of northern lawyers ready to defend him financed by Cornelius Vanderbilt and Horace Greeley (both abolitionists), and he kept insisting on his Constitutionally guaranteed public and speedy trial. His defense was a simple one. Since secession was Constitutional, the Civil War was the illegal conquering of a foreign power by the United States, and if the US Army would kindly leave, and release him, he would get onto the work of rebuilding his destroyed nation.

Since the Constitutionality of secession was completely up in the air, and therefore the result of a trial was a wildcard, the US government never gave Davis his trial. They just left him indicted month after month, years after year. Eventually, Davis was bailed out of prison (Vanderbilt and Greeley each put up $ 25,000O) and Davis left for Canada.

General Lee never insisted on his trial. He just retired quietly to the presidency of a small college, where he made quite a few reforms as he had done years before as Superintendent at West Point.

My own opinion is that secession was Constitutional. The states joined the Constitutional pact by votes of their legislatures, and of course could leave the same way which they did. If the original Constitutional vote would have made clear the joining was forever, then the nation never would have been formed to begin with.

Doesn't matter now. The case was decided on the battlefield.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #171
183. Kind of makes you wonder if this whole State's Rights bullshit the
Republicans conjured up with Newt Gingrich was a Southern invention and attempt to break away from the Union, in their own way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #50
70. All of the above!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #50
98. Army Officers Above Captain's Rank, And Government Officials About County Commisioner Level, Sir
It really is a pretty straightforward business, the crushing of rebellion: one decapitates the society in rebellion. The Confederacy was treason, treason in arms against the state: there is no other word for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #98
117. What a sad statement. So bloodthirsty and vengeful. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #117
164. You Say That Like These Were Bad Things, Sir....
There are rules to rebellion, and chief among them is that failing at it brings death.

The Federal government' s failure to enforce the nation's laws and Constitution in the South directly after the end of the War of Southern Treason, directly traceable to its leaving in place the social authorities and leading classes of the Confederacy, is the root of a great many social ills currently afflicting our society.

Are you seriously attempting to press the case that a course of action fostering Ku Klux terrorism, Jim Crow laws, and the poisonous romanticism of 'Birth of a Nation' is a superior course to one that would have prevented such things, and produced a class of propertied freedmen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
96. To Answer Your Question, Mr. Federfer
No examination of the history of the Reconstruction period can lead to any conclusion but that the Federal government was far too lenient with Confederate survivals in the region. Our country's social and political life sufers the after-effects of that leniecy to this day. President Lincoln might have been able to pull the reconciliation style settlement off, but once he was murdered, the only sane policy was that of the Radicals: the 'state suicide' doctrine applied to the secessionist territories, treason trials, making property-owners and voters of the freed slaves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #96
118. So there should have been a thorough "cleansing" of the South? Chilling. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #118
166. The Normal Processes Of Suppressing Rebellion, Sir
Would have brought great benefit to the nation. That they were not followed has brought it great harm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #96
132. What group survived the civil war that might be a feeder group
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 04:49 PM by The Backlash Cometh
for good ole boys?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aristus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
97. The Confederacy was the beneficiary of the most generous surrender terms in history.
How did they respond? With a century-long program of terror, murder, theft and rape against defenseless African-Americans. A program that continues today in the Republican Party that allows black people only if they conform to Stepinfetchit roles. Witness the immensely gifted and talented Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice bowing and scraping to those assclowns Bush and Cheney. Yeah, the hammer should have come down much harder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #97
119. So the U. S. should have executed more White people? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #119
124. just the traitorous ones...
We could have saved ourselves a lot of grief that way. If we had it to do over, then yeah -- we should have done to them everything that our laws allow us to do to traitors.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #124
131. What "groups" survived the confederate defeat that might be a
feeder group for good ole boys?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #124
143. It's okay for the goverment to kill people, as long as you don't like them?
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 05:13 PM by Al Federfer
You're spouting the same crap one expects to hear from flagsuckers in Freeperland. Sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #143
147. There must be a few screws loose in your head.
It's not that they are not liked, it's that they were TRAITORS whose treasonous actions led to the deaths of Hundreds of Thousands of people! Not to mention the destruction of vast amounts of property, and damages to commerce. Congress has the power to put down insurrections, and this was a nasty one.

Treason has a very narrow defined definition in the US constitution, in Article III, Section 3, because it is one of the worst criminal offenses a man can commit. It is a betrayal of the worst order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #147
149. The Founding Fathers were also "traitors", weren't they? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #149
151. Yes, if you're a Tory lover. But most of them left the States and moved to the Abacos
when the British lost.

What exactly do you think B. Franklin meant when he said, "we must all hang together or surely we will all hang separately."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #149
158. lame argument. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #149
165. And Would Have Been Hanged Had They Lost, Sir
Something they themselves labored under no delusion concerning....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #165
180. You see, sometimes a little treason is what we need...
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 10:22 PM by Al Federfer
...not slavish devotion to the myth of Federal nobility. Breaking your chains often requires great risk. The lamenting I read in this thread, that your murderous masters didn't kill more non-believers when they had the chance, is the most reprehensible thing I've ever encountered on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #180
184. Are you suggesting that the confederacy should rise again?
You do realize what has been said? The American forefathers knew what the penalties were if they failed. They would have been hung for treason. If the same rules applied to the Confederacy, they also would have hung for treason.

So, are you suggesting that the Confederacy should try again? And exactly what Democrat would not support Federalism? What is your political leanings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #184
199. Do you have a government job? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #180
200. My Murderous Masters, Mr. Federfer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #149
201. and, had they lost, would have received exponentially harsher treatment than did the confederacy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #13
107. "Ethnic cleansing"? How are Confederates different than any other American
ethnically?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #107
125. they're not -- he's just trying to wallow in victimhood...
Fake victimhood, at that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #8
65. HELL YEAH! SHERMAN WAS TOO KIND!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #65
76. Extreme circumstances call for extreme measures
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #76
79.  Yup!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #76
84. Do you say this re: our current troops in Iraq, Blackwater,
and their murder of civilians, our government-sponsored torture and rendition? "Extreme circumstances call for extreme measures," Indeed...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #84
153. Nope - those are not extreme circumstances
Postwar Germany, Postwar Japan, The South - those were very different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #65
83. Would you say this of the current day attrocities against civilians?
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 12:45 PM by hlthe2b
I'm a Westerner, but I will NOT make a hero of one, who while a tremendous General, had such callous disregard. Sherman is among the two individuals who consistently is mentioned in law reviews (from Northern as well as Southern schools) in history as having been guilty of war crimes.

Judge him well on his abilities to command, but certainly not on his humanity. Not to mention his genocidal views on Native Americans.. See my quote posted above in the thread. He was not and should not be viewed a hero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. Sherman did the right thing in the South, end of story.
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 12:50 PM by JVS
If you want to try to generalize that to apply to other situations, that's your problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. You share his disregard for innocent civilians then.. your own people
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 01:07 PM by hlthe2b
End of story...

Here's his quaint little quote of genocidal views towards Native Americans to had to your collection re: your "hero"
The more Indians we can kill this year the fewer we will need to kill the next, because the more I see of the Indians the more convinced I become that they must either all be killed or be maintained as a species of pauper. Their attempts at civilization is ridiculous...
Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman



:eyes: Thank God for the ignore function.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #87
88. What do you mean my own people? People who waged war against my country, they sucked!
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 01:11 PM by JVS
And they deserved to have their houses burned
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #88
91. and raped?
You conveniently ignore Sherman's promotion of Native American tactics that clearly equate to genocide. Yes, these are all OUR people. I don't defend the confederate view of the war, but I sure as hell won't defend a war criminal, no matter how expedient he was as a "general."

That you do so is incredibly depressing to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #91
92. What does his stance on Native Americans have to do with being right about burning the South?
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 01:44 PM by JVS
Like I said before, he did the right thing. The South deserved it.

And if you're not using the ignore function, why are you so thankful for it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #92
93. he's your "hero..."
I hate to see who else is on that list.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #93
95. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #95
106. There is always a constant whine about the final act to end a war.
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 02:17 PM by NutmegYankee
Whether the devastation of Georgia and South Carolina or the use of the atom bomb, people always second guess the necessary act required to halt the mindless slaughter on the battlefields.

The South started the war. Sherman was completely correct in his action to bring about a swifter end to the war. How many more people had to die to bring the war to a "proper" end? Sherman may have had some nasty views, but his destruction of the ability to wage war is no different than what we did to Japan and Germany.

I find it impossible to weep for an insurrection that started the war, continued the war, and cost our country many lives.

Why does the other poster weep for these traitors?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #106
137. because I am not a moral relativist
Killing, raping and destroying the homes, foodstocks, and livelihoods of civilians and other non-combatants that get in your way became among those attrocities of war that we, as a nation came to decry and prompted the US to bring the world together to develop the Geneva Conventions. I continue to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #137
140. Gee. Missed the whole history of WWII there.
Interesting. I like to think we were the good guys in WWII.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #140
148. on balance... we were..
That is far afield from my point, however. (although I think you know that).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #95
136. nice, very nice
I'll let the moderators deal with this, since you clearly do not wish any civil discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #65
99. The General Was Quite Mild By Historical Standards, Sir
And it is not the conduct of warfare that was addressed in any case, but rather the failings of the Reconstruction period, i which the Federal government proved far too lax in enforcing the law and upholding the rights of all citizens in the formerly Confederate region.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #99
102. I was not being sarcastic.
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 02:05 PM by JVS
I also find your hangings for captains and up to be too lenient. Lieutenants and up would have been better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #102
168. Please Accept My Apologies, Sir, For My Misunderstanding
"I will fight the secesh till Hell freezes over, then fight on the ice!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #99
111. Sherman understood better than most in the North what a
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 02:28 PM by coalition_unwilling
determined adversary the South would be. He had served as a superintendant at a private military academy in Lousiana, so he knew with a grim certainty what the North was in for.

Sherman understood that to prevail in a 'civil war', one side must entirely destroy the other side's "will and capacity to fight." Placed against the Nazi ravages in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, against the Japanese brutality in Asia, Sherman seems quite mild to me also. Judged against the depredations Protestants visited upon Catholics (and Catholics upon Protestants ) during the 30 Years' War, Sherman certainly seems no worse.

In my opinion, the central problem with assessing Sherman's brutality (or relative lack thereof) is that the American Civil War has no good historial analogue that comes to mind. And one must attempt to assess Sherman within his historical context and not by current moral standards or one commits the sin of "presentism." That same sin allows many African Americans to argue loudly and voiciferously that Lincoln was a "racist." This despite the fact that no less a figure than Frederick Douglass (Lincoln's contemporary) characterized Lincoln as "the great Emancipator" and "racist" is the last word Douglass and his African-American contemporaries would have used to describe Lincoln.

Personally, I think the U.S. military occupation of the South should have extended past 1876, when it formally ended with the Hayes-Tilden compromise. But I also happen to be a big fan of Sherman and Grant so perhaps the two attitudes go hand-in-hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #111
145. The U. S. Government Uber Alles, right pal? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #145
167. Honestly, Mr. Federfer....
Do you suppose hatred for the United States government a requirement for persons of left and progressive views?

Do you seriously imagine what you have just said amounts to any form of argument?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #167
179. We now have the biggest U. S. Government in history. Do you like it? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #179
185. The Republicans version of big government, is far different than the
Democrat's version. Republicans have always brought on economic depressions, Democrats, on the other hand, know how to spread the money where it will spur the economy. Isn't that ironic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #185
198. After Hillary's been in office for a while, you won't be able to tell them apart. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #111
155. Good post. Right on the money. And yes...

I certainly agree with your assessment of the military occupation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #155
163. ?
why did you fight with the south in re-enactments? oh, that's right, it was all in fun. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
104. Thank you. We've had our disagreements (over Israeli policy
in Lebanon, for example), but on this I'm with you 1000% (and not the 1000% percent McGovern backed Eagleton with, either :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Well, if they understand what it means to be subjugated, they should
show a little more sympathy for black and hispanic Americans too.

I'm just sayin...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. I would suspect that
Has the confederacy survived, they would have been more sympathetic to Hispanics due to sheer proximity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #11
24. I suspect that, had the Confederacy would have survived, Hitler would have won WWII.
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 10:10 AM by tom_paine
NOTE: This post is NOT meant to desparage all of the South or all Southerners. There are many fine, good, and decent people in the South, as there are everywhere. But he Bush NeoConRebfederacy has it's HQ in the Old Confederacy, and it uses the Rebfederate language of the 1960s as it's rhetorical vehicle (laundered of overt racism, of course; see you can call Black and Jews liberals and say awful racist things and it's OK...because you're not talking about Jews and Blacks so it isn't racism). And I will not apologize for reality. But I hope the many good Southerners here at DU won't immediately assume this is a "South Bashing Post".

We ALL know how Bushies often take positions "just to piss liberals off",and how they form their own identity not by who they are, but by the Jews, errrr, Lierals they despise.

Know this: whatever Bushie arrogance and superiority we must deal with is NOTHING compared to what it was before Yankee Liberals gave 'em the beat-down and made 'em give up their slaves (yeah, Bushies, the War Between the States wasn't about slavery it was about States' Rights :puke . Yeah the Right to Own Slaves, Bushies)

Further, as we can see from the 60s, much of the Nazis beliefs about inferior races were shared part and parcel by the BushieRebfederates, althouhg I will be charitable and say the Bushie Rebs didn't go so far as to desire the extermination of Black or Jews - who would work the fields and lend the money?).

Therefore I postulate, if only to oppose the disgusting Yankee Liberals and probably moreso, such as the deep inner feelings Bushie Rebfederates and Nazis feel about inferior races and the weakness of liberalism, the Bushies likely would have back Hitler, or stayed out of the fight because it would be immoral for them to fight alongside the Mongrel Yankee Race against some Right-Wingers who really knew what they were about...crushing the weakness of liberalism.

So I am very glad the Bushie NeoConRebfederacy was defeated in 1865, because I and millions would mostlikely not be alive today, and the Nazis would rule at least one-third of the Earth.

Go ahead, watch Fox News or other BushRebfederates, listen to them speak and then realize that this is how they sound AFTER the 1860s and 1960s, TWO rounds of enforced civilizing by The Mongrel Race of Yankee Liberals (and yes, read a history book to see that these Nazi-like pronouncements were made repeatedly by Bushie NeoConRebfederates back in the 1860s and 1960s), and postulate what they would be now if their arrogance had not been smashed TWICE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #24
34. Dude, chill out. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #34
44. No. Too many people in this country spend too much time with their fingers in their
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 10:47 AM by tom_paine
ears and their hands over their eyes.

It is far too late for that, and it is WAAAAY too late to fail to notice the straight line running right back through Bushler, Cheney, and their bunch to the 1960s KKK murderers (well the bunch that didn't get their own hands dirty, but ordered others to commit murder and oother atrocities) and to the 1870s Bushie NeoRebConfederates killing all the Yankee Liberals and Uppity Nigras they could get their hands on for a half-century or more.

Clearly, you have some love or attachment to the Old Confederacy. Fine. As a Jew, I feel much the same towards Israel. But I will not deny the reality that, as Israel allies itself further with Bushies and further uses Bushie tactics on it's enemies, that my unquestioning support (I am not anti-Israel either, but have moved to the fence, as it were) must be reexamined.

You love the Old Confederacy, it sounds like. I spent much of my childhood admiring it, as well. The martial brilliance of Lee and Jackson was astonishing, and the fact that they held out for four years against an overwhelmingly superior military force is a story of courage and detemination, at least until one realizes what they were fighting for.

But I cannot and will not ignore the reality of who they are and what they did before during and after the War, and all the way to the 1960s that still exists in the massive Minority Vote Suppression campaigns the Bushies successfully wage everywhere, but especially in the Old Bushie Rebfederacy.

And I won't chill out. This is no more the time to chill out that 1937 Germany was for a Jew. And I WON'T apologize for reality.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #44
51. I enjoy reading your posts. They have a great deal of courage in them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #51
82. Also, perceptiveness, and your throw-away line, to chill out, didn't exactly
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 12:41 PM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
redound to your credit on this thread, which could scarcely be dealing with more serious matters.

A point tom_paine perhaps didn't get quite right is that the Confederate forces were so admirable and patriotic. The distinguished Southern author, Shelby Foote, who contributed to that epic TV documentary on the civil war, pointed out that the Union side fought with one arm behind their back, and were effectively fighting irregulars in an asymmetric war, as in Iraq. Irregulars always look good fighting on their own turf against a conventional army.

As they do in relation to football matches, interested parties seem to view armed struggles through a topy-turvy prism. To this day, after Germany was smashed and the remnant of its people pauperised and humiliated beyond measure, Hitler is viewed as a strong man by numpties all over the world.

Although ethnic and cultural racism are common to all of mankind in some degree, there are few aspects of American history, which fill the rest of the world with as much contempt as its ongoing treatment of its African-Amerian population, with lynchings up to the second half of 20th century, and a Senate reluctant to enforce sanctions against the perpetrators. A Southern underclass, it seems, both rich and poor, still flaunt the noose as a rallying point of hatred and contempt (a misnomer for the reality - a fear of the African Americans' general, physical superiority). Well, as a matter of fact, it was apparently middle-class Southerners, such as shopkeepers, local dignitaries, etc, who were the main culprits, the driving force behind the lynchings and general persecution, while Foote places the main and ultimate blame for the Civil War, unsurprisingly, I suppose, on the plantation owners.

I don't doubt there are many good Southerners, but there's an enormous backlog of pure evil on the part of their fellow-citizens for them to offset, and querulous apologists for the South seem ambivalent in a way that I don't believe would have been possible outside your home turf. You'd either be a "lyncher" or feel great shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #82
86. Just one point:
I wasn't the poster who told him to "chill out."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #86
108. Sorry. And thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chovexani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #44
57. Man I wish we could nominate individual posts in a thread
This one and your previous one should be their own OP. :yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #24
172. If the Confederacy had survived, perhaps
there would have been no World War II.

History has so many turns, there's no way of projecting its angles.

You can read Harry Turtledove, but I think his Civil War series is his weakest work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
81. Have you ever seen "CSA: Confederate States of America"?
Check it out - it's a what if scenario of what would happen if the South won the civil war. Slavery continues to the day, the US sides with Hitler, the South goes on to create the "Tropical Empire" they planned and conquered South America. Really scary movie - Spike Lee did it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #81
173. The movie theorised that the Confederacy
not only won its independance, but then went on to conquer the entire United States.

I mean you can write whatever alternative history you want, but the Confederacy conquering Detroit and Boston? Was that even ever thought about in General Lee's wildest dreams?

It really went off the deep end in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #173
175. The South had a formidable military
Essentially it was one half of the US Military. Armaments and everything.

It could have easily happened - the rebs were not some collection of turkey farmers. They were the US Military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #175
177. That's a good one
Of the two possible options, I'll assume you're making a good history joke. I sure love funny history jokes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
105. Ah, but you see, pre-1960, most white Southerners did not consider
African Americans "people". It's perfectly OK to subjugate sub-humans if all they are is a higher form of animal. Thank God for SNCC and MLK Jr. is all I can say.

Read W.J. Cash's "The Mind of the South" for more on pre-Civil Rights Era white southern attitudes toward race and towards African Americans specifically.

N.B. Cash was a good ole' boy himself (if memory serves), which gives his analysis considerable weight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
74. Johnny Reb deserved every ounce of jackboot he got
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 12:04 PM by Taverner
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #74
150. I hope you don't find yourself under that same boot, my friend. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #150
152. The average Southerner wasn't hurt by reconstruction one bit
It was the large plantation owners who suffered without their slave labor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #152
174. It was the war that got the average southerner
One fourth of all adult men killed and another one fourth wounded.

The livestock was slaughtered, factories destroyed and transportation system systematically destroyed.

That's what got the average person.

No group of Americans (other than Native Americans) ever suffered the kind of losses the Confederates suffered. They fought way too long. Until there just wasn't anything left to fight with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #174
176. Well, they shouldn't have taken arms up against their country
I'm all for Californian Independence. But doing by legal means, not by invading Pennsylvania (that was the first act of Southern Aggression).

If they were conscripted, they could have high-tailed it North. Many did.

The idea they were fighting for (slavery) was abhorrent, genocidal and evil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al Federfer Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #176
178. Should one never take up arms against their country (i.e., government)? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #178
189. The Government is the Constitution.
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 10:54 PM by NutmegYankee
That said, why are you here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #176
181. They left the Union by formal vote
To them it looked as legal as when they joined the Union by the same vote.

Texas voted with its legislature and then Governor Houston insisted on a vote of the people too.

The voters of Texas voted 80 % to 20 % to leave the USA.

It sure looked legal to them. Especially since they just voted to join the USA not 15 years earlier. Just another vote to change their government.

I'll also agree about fighting for slavery being evil and abhorrant but genocidal? The number of slaves went up every year in the south right up to the Civil War which only made sense since they were valuable property. Genocidal? Not if you understand what the word means.

Also, Pennsylvania was the first act of southern aggression? That one's just got me thrown for a loop. Okay I'll ask it? What the f**k are you talking about? You could argue Fort Sumpter. I guess you could argue Sharpsburg, but that was after the CSA had been invaded for over a year, but Pennsylvania? What are you even talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #181
188. Nope.
The state chose to join and the land became part of the United States. The land is added to the federal territory. When the state chose to succeed, the goverment pulled out of congress, but only congress can disposition the territory. I don't see any act of congress giving the territory away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #188
190. Well that's what the Supreme Court would have had to decide
There were certainly many theories and legal opinions.

Which would the Supreme Court side with?

No one knew which is why President Davis was never put on trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #190
197. Became a moot point when the south attacked. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #176
187. Fort Sumter was the first act of agression. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
103. African Americans know how it feels to have the white Southern
jackboot on their throats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supernova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
17. The Cherokee were the largest tribe in the SE
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 10:12 AM by supernova
and we did uh..." intermarry" ... a lot. Edit: I use quotes because well you know, people are human. :-) ;-)

So it stands to reason a lot of Southerners claim Cherokee heritage.

Racism doesn't mean you hate all other "races" equally. It means you are very selective about whom you hate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. That would explain it. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. Southerners are not all racist, anyway. I'm reading

an interesting book detailing how the most racially segregated towns and suburbs are not in the former Confederate states but in the MidWest, NorthEast, NorthWest. It's by the author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me" and is quite long and detailed, with extensive footnotes. I always thought this was the case and he's proven it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. No, they're not all racist, but, quite frankly, few people have survived
the racist pull of the Republican Southern strategy propaganda. The southerners I knew as a child growing up abroad, are far different than the southerners that have had a very vocal voice in the last seven years. Only those who identify themselves as liberal, really have the principles I remember growing up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supernova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. Thanks for the tip
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 10:13 AM by supernova
Sounds like a book I'd enjoy reading too.

I've always had a theory, never been able to confirm, that sorta works like this:

The Civil Rights movement could only have happened here and succeed here simply because we did spend so much time in close proximity, and in some cases related to, people whom we supposedly "hated." Sort of playing off the idea that sometimes it's your family you treat worst of all.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #27
36. Exactly
And sometimes you see these wealthy so-called liberals talking about race relations while they live in gated communities far removed from any actual minorities.

I have one friend in Mass who talks a great game about diversity and the value of other cultures. Yet she lives in an all-white wealthy enclave (complete with her own horses) and sends her three kids to an exclusive private school with only a tiny percentage of minorities.

Kind of funny when people don't even recognize their own hypocrisy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supernova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #36
48. Innit, though?
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 10:35 AM by supernova
*shaking my head*

Equality is for other people as long as I get to live in my own private Idaho.

edit: I've spent a fair amount of time in other parts of the US and in other countries. It's amazing what I hear because I'm blonde and blue eyed. People let all their racism out because they think I'm just like them.

Now, i will admit to racism on my part that I might not be aware of, but I would hope that some kind soul would set me straight if I ever did that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #48
52. Isn't that the truth?
In my sickly days when I was a lot lighter skin than I am today, I heard all kinds of things that people passed off as common conversation. Maybe that's why I have no patience for pretend civility, anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supernova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. Me neither.
I'd almost rather listen to Jesse Helms and his ilk rant than some fool who "thinks" they're being "liberal".

At least the JH conversation is an honest one, no body is try to fool anybody, least of all ourselves.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #22
33. Oh, I'll look for that book
I'm currently reading "Lies My Teacher Told Me".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackVelvet04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
30. Cherokee Nations declaration of support.............
Declaration by the people of the Cherokee Nation of the causes which have impelled them to unite their fortunes with those of the Confederate States of America

http://cherokeehistory.com/declaration_of_cherokee_trea...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #30
38. Thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackVelvet04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
40. Isn't it nice to have
someone you can be superior to?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #40
46. It's part of the human condition. We ALL seek it out in one way or another.
Why do you think all of those Jerry Springer-type shows have done so well and always will? Because they tap into that very human desire to find ourselves superior to others, and the fact that when we see Jerry Springer's wretches, they make us feel better about ourselves.

I won't apologize for reality. You have it, too, Blackvelvet04, unless you are feeling particularly superior to t hose of us who cannot quash what is apparently a hardwired human trait.

Finally, one can condemn something without necessarily feeling superior to it, although I will agree that, due to the nature of primate emotions and our own refusal to even accept that we ARE primates, the two usually go hand in hand.

So what? The OP is correct, and even if the Bushie neoConRebfederates were outnumbered by Loyal Americans two-to-one in the Old Confederacy, instead of the other way around, that wouldn't change.

Those that can;t attack the message, attack the messenger.

By the way, I am superior to no one. I am smart in some areas, dumb in others...like most people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackVelvet04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #46
59. Exactly....
human nature seems to be that everyone needs to feel superior to someone.

My point was it isn't a big mystery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chovexani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
55. Cherokee is the only tribe they know
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 11:10 AM by Chovexani
Much less the only one they can pronounce. That's why they all claim it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orangeone Donating Member (395 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #55
58. Did you ever


that it's almost always a female Cherokee ancestor, never a male?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackVelvet04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #58
61. Where do you get your information? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orangeone Donating Member (395 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #61
89. Just my experience

talking to people. It's just seems that white guy with non-white women, wasn't frowned upon as much as white woman with non-white guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #58
100. not only female, but quite often a princess
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 01:58 PM by fishwax
also known as "the myth of the Cherokee princess"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #100
121. ah yes, the whole "Cherokee Princess" nonsense...
:rofl:

Pathetic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #58
156. That's because Cherokee brides were more "affordable" than "white" brides...
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 06:36 PM by mitchum
to the typical southern yeoman farmer.
That's not snarkiness or speculation, but the truth

edit: typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackVelvet04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #55
60. No, it's not.....
the Cherokee traveled and lived throughout much of the south and they intermarried a lot. They also sided with the Confederacy.

Could you possibly be any more condescending?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #55
109. The Eastern Band Cherokee were settled throughout the Southeast
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 02:23 PM by Lorien
It was one of America's largest tribes. I know a fair number of "good ol' boys" down here in the South who are indeed part Cherokee and obviously so, and it's always fun to point out to them that they are biracial, and that some qualify for NAACP membership. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #55
122. ironically, their ancestors were the ones who wanted the Cherokee gone...
Now they're stealing the Cherokee name and culture, 'cause that's all there is left to steal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #122
146. *cough* Pequod *cough*
Enough with the regional ignorance, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #146
193. I know all about it and will never deny it...
I also won't invent fanciful revisionist tales about how it was really all the fault of the Crown, and I'm prolly a Nipmuck princess by rights if teh REAL historical TRUTH were known!!!1!1!!


:eyes:


How's that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #55
144. What a completely ignorant post.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #55
170. And maybe some of them drive Jeeps.. My guess
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nealmhughes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
62. First, the "idealization" of a minority within what may be viewed as a successor that minority is
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 11:42 AM by nealmhughes
hardly novel. Witness the so called "Scythian" heritage of the Poles. There was a huge movement during the Polish Revival of the 19th Century to idolize their supposed "ancestors." The Turks adopted the trappings of both Byzantinium and the Old Caliphate to some extent.
It is just Roamntic Nationalism, pure and simple.
As to southern "confederate types" -- they are everywhere and not always southerners by birth, residence or heritage. George Allen, anyone? Why pick the Cherokess? Well, there is an Eastern Band of Cherokees still extant in the Smokies. Indian Removal occurred in the late 1830s, which was not too far removed from the lives of the people of the SE at the outbreak of the Civil War. Cherokees, who were conned by a small cadre of their self-anointed and paid "leaders," were given a choice by the Act: to live under the laws of Georgia, register their lands and pay taxes or remove themselves to the Indian Territory. Well, I have a feeling that they were not too hip on that, but believe it or not, Jackson actually felt that removal was the only to prevent the tribes of the SE from falling the way of the Pequots and other NE tribes, which the Yankees quite successfully exterminated - if not physically, then at least culturally.
The Cherokee Nation was highly "civilized" by our naive Western standards by the time of removal: an alphabet, a representative government and supreme court at New Echota, farmers who owned slaves, practiced Christianity and largely were bilingual in English and Cherokee, as well as intermarried into their European neighbors. I guess that made them special in the eyes of otherwise racist "confederate types" these days.
I always say for those beginning their initial library studies: "American Indians, Jesus, conspiracy, and the Civil War for your de facto mandatory popular lit purchasing if you are going to use the 'patron based' collection management style." You can't go wrong with a large portion of the -- well, male, anyway -- reading public if you pad the collections with these! Why? I have no idea. I would have us all reading Zinn, Paine and Voltaire in French, as I have no idea what drives popular cultural tastes.
Finally, the Cherokee were allies of the CSA, as many have already noted and they and the other eastern tribes who were removed to Oklahoma were slave holders. I guess it boils down to "the enemy of my enemy."
These soi disant "confederate types" probably are antiquarians who have an extensive collection of CSA regiment rosters and perhaps even buttons as they evolved thru the course of the war, but do they read the academic critical history? I doubt it. All that analysis puts one off too much and proves rife with things they presently believe to be true: do most of the people in the USA know that the CSA outlawed the growing of tobacco, cotton and other cash crops to the exclusion of all crops that were not foodstuffs? Doesn't bode well for the "little Jeffersonite government" idolization, now does it?
Finally, I have read diaries from Whites who witnessed the Trail of Tears and they are uniformly filled with sorrow and pity for the Indians being transported, going to the camps to visit with them, buying some of their handicrafts and surplus stock that was becoming weak and sickly from the trip, and even giving out food and blankets to them. Once the Cherokee were on their flatboats and on the Tennessee River, the people of the Valley were able to see that "They're people just like us! Why they even pray like we do and are Presbyrerians! They are wearing clothes like we do and the young people and the leaders speak English with a Scottish accent!"
Painting people with broad strokes does no service to anyone. To begin, there is no "All Anything." "Types" are that on the observors' witness alone, not the "types'" self description - unless of course, they are.
Reading George Fredrickson's Black Image in the White Mind presents a very compelling vision of how people can hold contradictory imagry, and I urge all to read it. It is one of the best books on US intellectual history out there. Now if George or one of his disciples could only write Indian Image in the White Mind. . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #62
64. Thanks for the info.
"English with a Scottish accent!"

What does this suggest? Is there an implication there that the Southern culture has strong roots from Scot-Americans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
recovering democrat Donating Member (365 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #64
90. Yes
Southern states had significant Scottish immigration. Cherokee (John Ross) and Creek (William McIntosh) indian nations had significant Scottish ancestry. I have primarily Scottish ancestry. My husband has the Scottish-Cherokee ancestry. We are both Georgia natives.

Ross is fascinating - Principal Chief during the removal and Civil War - he was seven-eights Scottish and barely spoke the Cherokee language!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #90
135. Do you have any more history on McIntosh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
recovering democrat Donating Member (365 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #135
159. McIntosh
Pretty good summary in Wikipedia - especially good picture of William McIntosh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McIntosh

When they have Scottish Games in the south (and I guess everywhere else), usually there is a parade of the tartans representing the various clans. McIntosh is usually represented by a gentleman in indian headdress and kilts. Great combination! I haven't attended one in quite some time so I don't know if they are still doing this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #159
161. How incredible that land deals show up this early for this family.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
recovering democrat Donating Member (365 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #161
191. McIntoshes and land
An earlier relative, cousin Lachlan McIntosh was a Revolutionary War General - also found a duel with Button Gwinnett after which Gwinnett died and McIntosh lived. Of all the ironies, Lachlan's Georgia plantation was occupied by the British and destroyed so he ended up poverty-stricken after serving admirably in the Revolutionary War. Couldn't hold on to his land either, but for really different reasons.

McIntosh County is named in honor of this family.

Actually, this kinda all fits in with the original premise of your post and it is truly a shame we miss a lot of history that helps explain the confusion that is the south.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
63. I'm reminded of northerners who deny being racists but who are deeply so
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 11:48 AM by eleny
Being a native New Yorker born and raised in NYC, I'm aware of disconnects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #63
68. They use to say,
The North likes the race in general, but not the individual; the South likes individuals, but not the race.

When I had my little hissy0fit with the son of the confederacy, and he was pointing to the black men in his crew (he was the supervisor) to show that he got along with black people, I couldn't help noticing that the black men in his crew were a rich pure black color, showing little signs that their ancestors had mingled with people of other races. I couldn't help feeling that this son of the confederacy got along with this particular crew because there was an understanding between them that most would find offensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
94. you tell me. i cant figure it. my brother INSISTS we are, ... yup... cherokee
bah hahahah. his sons have come to me about our cherokee blood. i keep telling brother and his kids NO indian in us what so ever, but it continues to be in our lines. my sons and i laugh about this because he says so many in the school he goes to claim exactly this and they are blond, blue eye, and fair skin.

and then you are right, they are the first to be bigots and bitch.

quite a phenomenon from what kids and i have seen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #94
129. precisely. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
120. Fake Indians wallowing in other people's victimhood...
The hell of it is, the "neoConfederates" are the descendants of the very people who agitated to have the REAL Cherokees forced off their land in the first place. It was bleeding-heart yankees who unsuccessfully pleaded the Cherokee case in Congress, and it was white Southerners who demanded their removal. And got their way -- as usual.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nealmhughes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #120
123. Actually, Cherokee removal was done under Van Buren, not Jackson!
The Act was signed by Jackson, but he went out of office before he could implement it, and it was the USSC who were the Cherokee Nation's "champions" and then Jackson said "Let them now enforce it." He went out of office and Van Buren did exactly not that! The entire rotten episode was steeped in 3 things: SC's Nullification Crisis, which threatened to rise up again in Georgia; discovery of gold in North Georgia; and finally, the land rush for upland cotton lands after the discovery of short staple as a viable crop v. the long staple Sea Island variety that had formerly ruled.
Georgia was evicting Cherokees, claiming that their rules trumped those of the solemn and nominally binding treaties and ready to have their militia go to war with the C.N. in order to evict them to ensure the land rush for whites was made complete.
When one reads the State of the Union addresses from A. Jackson in succession, he starts out lamenting the loss of the NE tribes, and hopes that the SE tribes do not follow the Yankees' way. Then he begins to claim the necessity of removal to preserve their heritage and freedom. He doesn't mention nullification, but he had already just dealt with that in SC and obviously, had it on his mind. He could have gone to war with Georgia or make a concession at the expense of the 5 Tribes. The political leaders chose the latter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #123
126. yeah, I know...
The neos seem to have this notion that their Cherokee brethren were cruelly ripped away from the land by evil Northerners in the federal government, and that Southern whites -- who all have a Cherokee Princess somewhere in the family -- tried to stop this terrible deed but failed, and that this was prolly one of the Great Wrongs that lead to the founding of the Confederacy...


Bullshit.


Well, the Cherokee were expelled, and the people who had wanted their land did manage to get the Feds to do it for them. But that's about the only part of that narrative that isn't pure invention.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
book_worm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
133. love the broad stroke re: "southern confederate types"
as if the south is the only part of the country which has racists. If you study your history you'll find that there was quite a bit of racism in places like Chicago and Boston--the south has no monopoly on "southern confederate types." In the 20's when the KKK was still going strong they were, belive it or not, strongest not in the south but in the Midwest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #133
134. But, but, I don't live in Chicago or Boston or in the Midwest.
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 05:13 PM by The Backlash Cometh
And quite frankly, there's a problem down here that is far more insidious than people realize. Once it's revealed, maybe things will have a chance to be put in perspective, or at least, people won't be blindly claiming that hispanics and blacks have a criminal gene, just because there are more of them in jail. Maybe there are more of them in jail, because it serves someone's purpose to cover-up what others are doing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mutineer Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #133
182. The Irish were horribly discreminated against in the North to name just one other group
that the North wasn't exactly nice too. "No Irish need apply" was a sign often seen in store windows. But oh yeah, I forgot, it's DU. Let's keep as many stereotypes going as we possibly can when it concerns the South and let's whitewash (so to speak) known history when discussing the North.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #182
186. How about the Scot-Irish? Don't you think they've overcome their
subjugated past?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ella Donating Member (209 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
160. They favor the Cherokee
because many white Southerners cannot make themselves admit to the African ancestry they demonstrably have (genetic tests have confirmed this time and time again). Whenever the child of some blonde blue eyed type turns out with dark curly hair, and tans easily, they claim it's the Indian in them. To admit that it's the African in them would be to admit to sexual congress with people they consider even lower than the Cherokee. The Southern slave culture was built on lies and those lies continue to this day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #160
162. Keeping secrets does seem to be part of the southern experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NOLALady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #160
202. Quite true, Ella.
Genealogy is my hobby and you would not believe the number of people I've met who were unaware of their African ancestors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 05:29 AM
Response to Original message
203. Locking.
The Moderators have come to the decision that this thread has run its course.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 01st 2014, 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC