WP: Virginia 4th-grade textbook criticized over claims on black Confederate soldiers

[GritzRgreat]

The face of a champion.

He looks Irish!

[thebluefood]

He probably was, Gritz. There were A LOT of Irish that fought for the Union during the war.

[CrabR]

I think Lincoln, and the North in general, fought the war to preserve the Union.

I concur, although Lincoln did abhor slavery his primary objective in the beginning was to preserve the union at all costs

"If I could preserve the Union by freeing none of the slaves I would do it; if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." - Abraham Lincoln

[GritzRgreat]

He probably was, Gritz. There were A LOT of Irish that fought for the Union during the war.

Yep, one of my favorite stories is when the Unions "Irish brigade" faced off against their southern

counter parts at the battle of Fredericksburg. As seen in the movie Gods and Generals.

A terrible battle with the southern Irish cheering on the bravery of the union boys in the face of

murderous fire..

[HailGreen28]

Sorry, I don't buy it. Your side didn't lose, your side won.

It's 2010. This is "your" side.

Great point to end this on.

As far as Southern history goes, there's a lot of good history. Just as far as the Civil War goes, it ought to be acknowledged the South was wrong on that. Kinda like this clip:

LOL.

[jnhay]

What kind of person says "I am a fairly respected writer"? That's her argument?

[Predicto]

The poor are manipulated by the powers in change to fight/die for a bad cause time and time again.

Its been that way throughout history not just the south.

Of course.

So why romanticize a bad cause like the Confederacy just because people who were not bad fought for it?

If anything, it is disrespectful to the common southern man's complicated heritage to try and rationalize away what the Confederacy actually stood for.

[Chicken Fried]

It may not be the "only" thing, but it is the "main" thing.

I'm a former Virginian, and I have heard all of these points many times. They don't change the basic reality of the situation. The romantic myth of the honorable Confederacy remains hollow, no matter how many times someone notes that the average Southerner didn't own slaves. At best, it shows that the average Southerner was manipulated into fighting and dying for a bad cause.

Well I was going to show how the scene was far more political than anyone is recognizing, and by political I mean beyond slavery, and I'm going to post it sometime in the next few days no matter who wants to hear it again or not. Gosh, someone might actually not have heard the argument before and they might learn something from it. In fact, you might not be aware of every point out there on the matter.

[Chicken Fried]

did anyone in a policymaking capacity care what the motivation of the grunt was?

I do because your posts have led me to believe you have a strong hatred for everything Confederate to the point that you seem to think all rebels were bad people.

[Larry]

I do because your posts have led me to believe you have a strong hatred for everything Confederate to the point that you seem to think all rebels were bad people.

Despite the fact that you can't find a single place where he said so. (I'd bet. Admitting that I haven't even attempted to check.)

"Why did Joe Dogface sign up" has absolutely nothing to do with "what was the reason for the war".

That's because Joe Dogface didn't start the war. His Congressman did.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of German soldiers in WW2 were honest, decent, people, who signed up because they thought that Germany was The Good Guy. (In fact, I wouldn't have trouble believing that most concentration camp guards honestly believed that they were defending their country. Or at least, doing an unpleasant job that needed to be done.)

That doesn't mean that Germany was the Good Guy.

[GritzRgreat]

Despite the fact that you can't find a single place where he said so. (I'd bet. Admitting that I haven't even attempted to check.)

"Why did Joe Dogface sign up" has absolutely nothing to do with "what was the reason for the war".

That's because Joe Dogface didn't start the war. His Congressman did.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of German soldiers in WW2 were honest, decent, people, who signed up because they thought that Germany was The Good Guy. (In fact, I wouldn't have trouble believing that most concentration camp guards honestly believed that they were defending their country. Or at least, doing an unpleasant job that needed to be done.)

That doesn't mean that Germany was the Good Guy.

Or our wars on native Americans.

[Chicken Fried]

Despite the fact that you can't find a single place where he said so. (I'd bet. Admitting that I haven't even attempted to check.)

"Why did Joe Dogface sign up" has absolutely nothing to do with "what was the reason for the war".

That's because Joe Dogface didn't start the war. His Congressman did.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of German soldiers in WW2 were honest, decent, people, who signed up because they thought that Germany was The Good Guy. (In fact, I wouldn't have trouble believing that most concentration camp guards honestly believed that they were defending their country. Or at least, doing an unpleasant job that needed to be done.)

That doesn't mean that Germany was the Good Guy.

What about the part where he said Confederate apologists sicken him? It's not a bad thing to have pride in your heritage. In fact, I wish more people did.

[Larry]

What about the part where he said Confederate apologists sicken him? It's not a bad thing to have pride in your heritage. In fact, I wish more people did.

Nothing wrong with having pride in your heritage.

Inventing a fictional heritage, however, . . .

The Civil War did not occur because the south feared that a federal Department of Agriculture would take too much power away from the local county agents. It occurred because southern states believed (possibly with reason) that they were going to lose their slaves.

[Chicken Fried]

Nothing wrong with having pride in your heritage.

Inventing a fictional heritage, however, . . .

The Civil War did not occur because the south feared that a federal Department of Agriculture would take too much power away from the local county agents. It occurred because southern states believed (possibly with reason) that they were going to lose their slaves.

I'm not inventing anything. All I'm saying is that while the war would not have occurred without slavery, it was not by any means the only reason. There were many other very important factors. The Southerners were not all racists as many people like to portray them. Give me a few days and I'll get my thoughts up on here in more detail. And I will do it because the Civil War is my favorite thing to learn about in US history, and I really enjoy discussing it.

[Chicken Fried]

Nothing wrong with having pride in your heritage.

Inventing a fictional heritage, however, . . .

The Civil War did not occur because the south feared that a federal Department of Agriculture would take too much power away from the local county agents. It occurred because southern states believed (possibly with reason) that they were going to lose their slaves.

I'm not inventing anything. All I'm saying is that while the war would not have occurred without slavery, it was not by any means the only reason. There were many other very important factors. The Southerners were not all racists as many people like to portray them. Give me a few days and I'll get my thoughts up on here in more detail. And I will do it because the Civil War is my favorite thing to learn about in US history, and I really enjoy discussing it.

[Larry]

I'm not inventing anything. All I'm saying is that while the war would not have occurred without slavery, it was not by any means the only reason. There were many other very important factors. The Southerners were not all racists as many people like to portray them. Give me a few days and I'll get my thoughts up on here in more detail. And I will do it because the Civil War is my favorite thing to learn about in US history, and I really enjoy discussing it.

Yes, you are absolutely correct.

Slavery was not 100% of the reason, it was only 99%.

However, "let's not pay attention to that. Look, I can spend days talking about the other 1%." and "Confederates did not all have three eyes" is nothing more than an attempt at deflection.

[Rocky21]

Yes, you are absolutely correct.

Slavery was not 100% of the reason, it was only 99%.

I love how we've taken this complex issue and turned into 1 simplistic talking point.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

I dont believe the Civil War ever happened...its just something liberals made up to make the South look bad.

[Homercles82]

Yes, you are absolutely correct.

Slavery was not 100% of the reason, it was only 99%.

However, "let's not pay attention to that. Look, I can spend days talking about the other 1%." and "Confederates did not all have three eyes" is nothing more than an attempt at deflection.

I love made up percentages.

[Larry]

I love how we've taken this complex issue and turned into 1 simplistic talking point.

I love how we've taken this simple issue and successfully hidden it for 100 years through diversion, revisionism, fraud, and spin.

That's how we wind up with people, 100 years after the fact, making blanket declarations that "the war wasn't about slavery". The Dallas it wasn't.

Is it possible, if you dig far enough, to find people, somewhere, whose reasons for starting the war were slavery and something else? No doubt.

I'm certain that there has never been a war in history where the people who started the war unanimously agreed that there was one, exactly one, and only one reason for the war.

But that doesn't change the fact that slavery was the reason for the war.

But feel free to keep trying to push the agenda that it was really about something else. Us simplistic talking points people will simply pay attention to the main reason, and ignore the attempted distractions.

[Larry]

I love made up percentages.

Well, let's see.

In this thread, we've had assertions that slavery was 99% of the reason for the war.

And assertions that it was zero.

In your opinion, which assertion is closer to the truth?

[Homercles82]

Well, let's see.

In this thread, we've had assertions that slavery was 99% of the reason for the war.

And assertions that it was zero.

In your opinion, which assertion is closer to the truth?

I am giving no percentage on how much it was a factor in the war because we have no way of actually calculating that. Slavery was a primary issue yes but not the only issue. If you want to assign it a percentage, and I have no idea why you would other than trying to convince people through false percentages, then give it a 51% majority because there are too many other issues involved.

Using false percentages does not make your argument anymore valid nor does it make you appear any more scholarly.

[Chicken Fried]

Yes, you are absolutely correct.

Slavery was not 100% of the reason, it was only 99%.

However, "let's not pay attention to that. Look, I can spend days talking about the other 1%." and "Confederates did not all have three eyes" is nothing more than an attempt at deflection.

I usually give people the benefit of the doubt, but I really question your knowledge of the events leading up to the war.

[Chicken Fried]

Well, let's see.

In this thread, we've had assertions that slavery was 99% of the reason for the war.

And assertions that it was zero.

In your opinion, which assertion is closer to the truth?

Haha so you're asking which of these insanely idiotic "pulled out of my ***" percentages is worse? "Hey, teach, my answer isn't as stupid as his, so why'd I still get an F?"

[mcsluggo]

I do because your posts have led me to believe you have a strong hatred for everything Confederate to the point that you seem to think all rebels were bad people.

First, I was born, raised, and educated in Virginia, and Virginia is where I have chosen to live and raise my kids.

You could argue (and from what i have already heard, i would be open to being convinced) that Stonewall Jackson was not only a better a general than anyone on the other side, but was also a better person. And you could point to the millions of individual good people and heroic dramas that took place as individuals tried valiantly and with great nobility to protect their small world as the big world crashed around them (we have to save Tara at all costs!)

It doesn't matter.

the stories are interesting, and the individual stories are what make history come alive and mean something, but they don't matter to the BIG picture. I am positive that most Nazi soldiers were also good parents, loved their mothers, and were there to help a neighbor in need. I am positive that most Mongol generals worried about how their kids would cope in a chaotic and changing world. We could obviously go on and on and on here.... but it doesn't matter if Tojo's average soldier was a good guy or not-- the Japanese AS A COUNTRY were wrong. War in general is terrible thing, even when it is necessary and the best available option. It turns some loving fathers into worm food, some other loving fathers into horrified scrambled messes, and some others into monsters. all sides suffer, and all sides cope. and some component of coping is rationalization.

There were plenty of southerners that were good people before, during and after the war. but it doesn't matter to the BIG picture. In most cases Right versus Wrong in war isn't very clear cut. IN the case of the Civil war, IT WAS. People that fought for the south were not necessarily bad people, but they DID fight for a bad cause, whatever their personal motivations were. People TODAY that try to defend/glorify/apologize for the confederacy are also fighting for a bad cause, but they don't have the excuse that the actual soldiers did: that world events larger than their own small world swept them up, and they had to simply do the best that they could do during those events. Some confederacy apologists really are bad people, with downright evil motivations, but I think that most are just misguided. But in all cases, confederate apologists today are CHOOSING to defend the WRONG SIDE, they are not swept up in world events, and doing the best that they can… they are CHOOSING out of all the abstract causes that they can choose to make a stand on to expend energy to actively support the decision to go to war in defense of the right to keep millions of people enslaved.

Confederate apologists are wrong.