Revisionist History

c.p.w.g.w

So today Franco was exumed and moved to a private burial ground.

Spanish Civil War finished 80 years ago, what does moving his body achieve. Does it make it harder for people to remember Franco's actions.

History is very important going forward, as history does repeat itself and if we continue to sweep it under the carpet, or remove it from public view, it makes it harder to see the signs of history repeating itself.

Seen it state side with Confederate statues being remove. It seems that the west only wants to forget certain types of history.

Yet in London you have statues of David Lloyd George who was prime minister when the English used enturement camps in Wales for the "prisoners" of the 1916 rising...they were pretty much camps that were akin to the camps the Brits used in India which were very close to Nazi death camps.

The winner really does write the history and it's starting to get a little worrying.

Franco’s Grave has become a shrine and a place of focus for those that want Spain to return to its fascist past.

It isn’t about trying to erase the past, it’s about not wanting it repeated.

Odhinn

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

So today Franco was exumed and moved to a private burial ground.

Spanish Civil War finished 80 years ago, what does moving his body achieve. Does it make it harder for people to remember Franco's actions.

History is very important going forward, as history does repeat itself and if we continue to sweep it under the carpet, or remove it from public view, it makes it harder to see the signs of history repeating itself.

Seen it state side with Confederate statues being remove. It seems that the west only wants to forget certain types of history.

Yet in London you have statues of David Lloyd George who was prime minister when the English used enturement camps in Wales for the "prisoners" of the 1916 rising...they were pretty much camps that were akin to the camps the Brits used in India which were very close to Nazi death camps.

The winner really does write the history and it's starting to get a little worrying.

It's not forgetting, its putting things in their place and context. The confederates lost the war, and it was a war in which race was a prominent concern. Having them honoured by statues is a ridiculous slap in the face for the afro-american population of those areas - essentially "lie down croppy, lie down". Ifyou want to worry about history being written "by the victors", then you might direct your attention to statues of lloyd george, churchill. cecil rhodes and so on.

Sand

His body was moved by an act of a socialist government, sympathetic to the cause of his vanquished enemies. His body can just as easily be moved back to its original tomb when the government changes. The only thing those behind the move can be counting on is that his family are so traumatised by the initial move that they are exhausted by it and give up.

It seems an utterly pointless and divisive move. They're afraid of a dead man.

c.p.w.g.w

Odhinn wrote: »

It's not forgetting, its putting things in their place and context. The confederates lost the war, and it was a war in which race was a prominent concern. Having them honoured by statues is a ridiculous slap in the face for the afro-american population of those areas - essentially "lie down croppy, lie down". Ifyou want to worry about history being written "by the victors", then you might direct your attention to statues of lloyd george, churchill. cecil rhodes and so on.

The same people who call the removal of the Confederate statues have no issue with the statues of Churchill or Lloyd George. It's pretty big double standard.

The irony of the op complaining about people trying to re write history and then attempting to do it himself should also be noted.

Sand

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

The same people who call the removal of the Confederate statues have no issue with the statues of Churchill or Lloyd George. It's pretty big double standard.

They have an issue with them too. They're just starting at the top of the list.

Odhinn

Sand wrote: »

His body was moved by an act of a socialist government, sympathetic to the cause of his vanquished enemies. His body can just as easily be moved back to its original tomb when the government changes. The only thing those behind the move can be counting on is that his family are so traumatised by the initial move that they are exhausted by it and give up.

It seems an utterly pointless and divisive move.

Having a massive monument to a man who ran death camps is "utterly pointless and divisive" at this point in time.

Odhinn

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

The same people who call the removal of the Confederate statues have no issue with the statues of Churchill or Lloyd George. It's pretty big double standard.

Bit of a wild claim there. Personally I'd be for the removal of both.

c.p.w.g.w

Odhinn wrote: »

Bit of a wild claim there. Personally I'd be for the removal of both.

But surely an open discussion about both the good and bad carried out by such leaders is very important and a lot more productive in learning from the mistakes of the past

Sand

Odhinn wrote: »

Having a massive monument to a man who ran death camps is "utterly pointless and divisive" at this point in time.

And yet people wander about with Che Guevara T-shirts, who admitted himself they killed so many people they didn't have time to determine if they were guilty of any crime or not.

More specifically, the Republican government Franco defeated massacred prisoners and carried out atrocities too. People with blood on their hands are buried throughout the world. It's all ancient history at this point. But the backers of this move communicate their weakness to be so afraid of a dead man.

As I said, a conservative Spanish government can just as easily move his body back. It might even play into their hands as a campaign promise.

Odhinn

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

But surely an open discussion about both the good and bad carried out by such leaders is very important and a lot more productive in learning from the mistakes of the past

Never said there shouldn't be discussion of the facts.

sand wrote:

More specifically, the Republican government Franco defeated massacred prisoners and carried out atrocities too. People with blood on their hands are buried throughout the world. It's all ancient history at this point. But the backers of this move communicate their weakness to be so afraid of a dead man

Spain has never come to terms with the civil war, and there are legal barriers to that happening.

Sand

Odhinn wrote: »

Spain has never come to terms with the civil war, and there are legal barriers to that happening.

Its never come to terms with the Napoleonic wars or the War of Spanish Succession either. At some point you have to acknowledge the past, but focus on the future. Lets be clear - "coming to terms with" is just code for neoliberalism trying to win the narrative having lost the war. The Republicans lost the war 80 years ago. Taking ritualistic revenge against a dead man's body does not change that. Get over it.

Harry Palmr

Franco was a little man in a big tomb, he needs to be in a little tomb.

Odhinn

Sand wrote: »

Its never come to terms with the Napoleonic wars or the War of Spanish Succession either. At some point you have to acknowledge the past, but focus on the future. Lets be clear - "coming to terms with" is just code for neoliberalism trying to win the narrative having lost the war. The Republicans lost the war 80 years ago. Taking ritualistic revenge against a dead man's body does not change that. Get over it.

There were never laws in place against the discussion of napoleonic wars or wars of succession, or laws preventing investigations of crimes committed in the course of those wars. Nor are there statues and mausoleum glorifying napoleon in spain, afaik.



It's not revenge against one man, its to put him and the regime he wrought in its proper place.

c.p.w.g.w

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

The same people who call the removal of the Confederate statues have no issue with the statues of Churchill or Lloyd George. It's pretty big double standard.

Didn't know that there were statues of Churchill and Loyd George in the U.S.

If they were statues of them here in Ireland (I am open to correction) I would say that plenty would want rid of them especially as Churchill was one of the main antagonists in the creation of partition and the starting of the Irish civil war due to his threats at the time.

As to Franco himself, he committed treason by launching a coup against the democratically elected government of his country and had he lost would have most likely been executed. He would have been in the history books either way, nothing changes with his burial place being moved other than annoying people who admire him.

whisky_galore

Nice timely distraction from what is going on elsewhere.

c.p.w.g.w

whisky_galore wrote: »

Nice timely distraction from what is going on elsewhere.

Catalan unrest?

biko

Moving the body of a Spanish dictator doesn't mean history is rewritten.
Sure, today many probably don't even know about Franco anyway.

James Brown

Sand wrote: »

His body was moved by an act of a socialist government, sympathetic to the cause of his vanquished enemies. His body can just as easily be moved back to its original tomb when the government changes. The only thing those behind the move can be counting on is that his family are so traumatised by the initial move that they are exhausted by it and give up.

It seems an utterly pointless and divisive move. They're afraid of a dead man.

It's more important than the man. It's a burial tomb to give honour. No place for a fascist.
On a much much lesser note, it was disgusting to give Haughey a state funeral with all the bells and whistles or the inclusion of Redmond getting pride of place during the 1916 centenary celebrations. That's your revisionist history right there.

blanch152

We in Ireland need to follow their example and get rid of the nazi collaborator Sean Russell’s statue.

c.p.w.g.w

blanch152 wrote: »

We in Ireland need to follow their example and get rid of the nazi collaborator Sean Russell’s statue.

Destroying history isn't the correct thing to do...it's almost Orwellian

El_Duderino 09

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

So today Franco was exumed and moved to a private burial ground.

Spanish Civil War finished 80 years ago, what does moving his body achieve. Does it make it harder for people to remember Franco's actions.

History is very important going forward, as history does repeat itself and if we continue to sweep it under the carpet, or remove it from public view, it makes it harder to see the signs of history repeating itself.

Seen it state side with Confederate statues being remove. It seems that the west only wants to forget certain types of history.

Yet in London you have statues of David Lloyd George who was prime minister when the English used enturement camps in Wales for the "prisoners" of the 1916 rising...they were pretty much camps that were akin to the camps the Brits used in India which were very close to Nazi death camps.

The winner really does write the history and it's starting to get a little worrying.

Yeah but the English have so little awareness of their own history that it’s irrelevant. The man on the street would probably know DLG was a prime minister but would never hear about the bad things he did.

So his statue isn’t a warning to not repeat past failures. It’s the opposite. It’s already brushing the bad parts of history under the carpet and pretending it was all roses.

The symbols are not the history. The history still has to be told and learned if it’s to be remembered. And there’s no need to put a tyrant like Franco pride of place to remember not to repeat the mistakes that lead to his rise.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

We in Ireland need to follow their example and get rid of the nazi collaborator Sean Russell’s statue.

Well done, Blanch. A very, very, very really special well done. All the statues, streets and institutions still named after the mass murdering British royalist colonial cult in Ireland in 2020 and all you can propose is Russell, a man who didn't even have the luxury of collaborating with Nazi Germany for as long as the British state itself collaborated with Nazi Germany, lest we forget.

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

Well done, Blanch. A very, very, very really special well done. All the statues, streets and institutions still named after the mass murdering British royalist colonial cult in Ireland in 2020 and all you can propose is Russell, a man who didn't even have the luxury of collaborating with Nazi Germany for as long as the British state itself collaborated with Nazi Germany, lest we forget.

This thread was about fascists - Franco in particular - until it was hijacked by the knee jerk rabid anti-Britishness prevalent around here. I am just bringing it back to our own fascists. If there are any statues to Eoin O’Duffy, they should be taken down as well.

whisky_galore

blanch152 wrote: »

This thread was about fascists - Franco in particular - until it was hijacked by the knee jerk rabid anti-Britishness prevalent around here. I am just bringing it back to our own fascists. If there are any statues to Eoin O’Duffy, they should be taken down as well.

Templemore garda college still has an area named after him.
Not surprising, the pub republicans will always try to crowbar in how they hate Brits so much into every thread, as if we needed reminding. It's tired and boring now.

alastair

Sand wrote: »

Its never come to terms with the Napoleonic wars or the War of Spanish Succession either. At some point you have to acknowledge the past, but focus on the future. Lets be clear - "coming to terms with" is just code for neoliberalism trying to win the narrative having lost the war. The Republicans lost the war 80 years ago. Taking ritualistic revenge against a dead man's body does not change that. Get over it.

Neoliberalism isn’t what you seem to think it is.

alastair

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Destroying history isn't the correct thing to do...it's almost Orwellian

We got rid of lots of imperial statuary decades ago. When society changes, it’s perfectly understandable that they don’t want edifices to ideas they’ve jettisoned around them.

alastair

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Yet in London you have statues of David Lloyd George who was prime minister when the English used enturement camps in Wales for the "prisoners" of the 1916 rising...they were pretty much camps that were akin to the camps the Brits used in India which were very close to Nazi death camps.

The winner really does write the history and it's starting to get a little worrying.

Speaking of re-writing history...

There was one singular internment camp in Wales - and it was nothing like a Nazi death camp, or indeed an Indian or South African one. Nobody died at Frongoch, and Lloyd George actually sent everyone back to Ireland the month he became prime minister. He subsequently interned Sinn Fein members alright - but they mostly went to English prisons. The Welsh camp was never re-used.

c.p.w.g.w

alastair wrote: »

Speaking of re-writing history...

There was one singular internment camp in Wales - and it was nothing like a Nazi death camp, or indeed an Indian or South African one. Nobody died at Frongoch, and Lloyd George actually sent everyone back to Ireland the month he became prime minister. He subsequently interned Sinn Fein members alright - but they mostly went to English prisons. The Welsh camp was never re-used.

The camps in Wales were akin to the camps used in India which were very close to Nazi camps(aside from the gasing)

careless sherpa

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

The camps in Wales were akin to the camps used in India which were very close to Nazi camps(aside from the gasing)

Whatever about the conditions in the camp, the idea of throwing everyone in together so there could be political education, organisation and consolidation seems absolutely crazy. I wonder did they not see a flaw in the practice

alastair

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

The camps in Wales were akin to the camps used in India which were very close to Nazi camps(aside from the gasing)

No it wasn’t. And there was only the one camp. Most internees were only there for a couple of months - everyone remaining was released before Christmas 1916.

https://www.rte.ie/centuryireland/index.php/articles/frongoch-a-day-in-the-life

alastair

careless sherpa wrote: »

Whatever about the conditions in the camp, the idea of throwing everyone in together so there could be political education, organisation and consolidation seems absolutely crazy. I wonder did they not see a flaw in the practice

Lloyd George certainly did - which is why he closed the place as soon as he was made Prime Minister.

Muppet Man

Reminded of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHIxxqoKnM4

kowloon

On a slight tangent: Were those Confederate statues not put up as late as the 1960s? Any statue going up during the Civil Rights movement is fairly suspect. If they were put up a century earlier I say let them stay.

whisky_galore

kowloon wrote: »

On a slight tangent: Were those Confederate statues not put up as late as the 1960s? Any statue going up during the Civil Rights movement is fairly suspect. If they were put up a century earlier I say let them stay.

Most of them were put up 1900s-1920s, when a lot of the veterans were dying off, to cement the "lost cause" narrative of the South, that it was a just war in the face of Northern aggression.

Odhinn

Odhinn wrote: »

It's not forgetting, its putting things in their place and context. The confederates lost the war, and it was a war in which race was a prominent concern.

Pretty good example revisionist history right there and ignoring the propaganda of the victors. It was a war in which economics was the prominent concern. Withdrawing from the Union being the second reason, and race coming far behind... and only when the Union chose to promote it. You really should consider how the Union treated former slaves both while in the military and after the war had ended. Union officers were notoriously racist towards those blacks who joined the union forces.

Lincoln freed the slaves in confederate states not under union control, not within the union itself. He encouraged them to join the union military where they were used as cannon fodder... promises were made that were never kept. Congress later expanded the freedom of the slaves, but even then, there were plenty of examples of loop holes which allowed the continuance of slavery under other names especially relating to children born to slaves and becoming slaves due to their parents status. It was just the buying of new slaves that was particularly blocked.

I could go on, and on, but there's little point. Some people just want to deny what history really represents, and promote a particular set of perceptions.

Having them honoured by statues is a ridiculous slap in the face for the afro-american population of those areas - essentially "lie down croppy, lie down".

Having them honored is an indication that they represented a time and people very different to the one we live in now... it also reminds people that double standards exist especially about people telling certain "truths".

Many Confederate officers were too poor to have slaves, but all confederates are equally guilty. Collective guilt is remarkably convenient. Then too, collective innocence is also incredibly convenient... and that's why this kind of revisionism is becoming more commonplace. The union is guilt free in spite of being slave owners themselves... Black people don't want to acknowledge that their own racial history contains far more examples of slavery (and for a longer period) than the 'whites' in America.

Ifyou want to worry about history being written "by the victors", then you might direct your attention to statues of lloyd george, churchill. cecil rhodes and so on.

History is being rewritten by liberals and minorities. Not so much by the victors anymore.

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

Most of them were put up 1900s-1920s, when a lot of the veterans were dying off, to cement the "lost cause" narrative of the South, that it was a just war in the face of Northern aggression.

Which it was, and Union diaries of officers/politicians of the time, reflect such a stance. There was no way that the Union would allow an economically important region to leave and set themselves up as a direct competitor. Freedom is horribly inconvenient sometimes... especially if they want to leave... You should take a look at what happened during and after the War of 1812.. you'll find plenty of examples of northern aggression.

But then, logic isn't terribly popular these days....

alastair

On confederacy denialism:

https://theweek.com/articles/718986/how-america-forgot-true-history-civil-war

alastair

alastair wrote: »

On confederacy denialism:

https://theweek.com/articles/718986/how-america-forgot-true-history-civil-war

Exactly my point... It was a Race issue. No other reason is allowed to be considered.

One example (and there are others): The Cotton tax by Northern supporters on Southern products isn't allowed to be a factor. Imagine this. You're growing cotton, and can make decent profits exporting your crops... or you can be forced to sell your crops to northern factories at a lower price to Northern businessmen, who will in turn, manufacture based on your crops, and then export the products for much higher profits.

The North contained the majority of Industry and trade links. The south contained the majority of raw materials needed for those factories, and food production for the country. Manufactured products naturally selling for higher amounts, so the North being significantly richer than the South, but needing the Souths crops for their own production base.

The Union supporters present the Slave question as being the main reason for the war ... but ignores everything that was done to marginalise Southerners leading up to that point. The war was to force the South to remain within the Union, under the severe control of Northerners. Just look at the extent that Southerners were treated after the war. That isn't retribution. That's a desire to dominate, and fear that they would ever rise to resist again.

KWAG2019

Confederate statues seek to glorify racists and white supremacists. They have no place in any society that values equality. The US civil war had several strands in its causation but at heart it was about secession and secession was about slavery. Revisionism is the concerted attempts to muddy those waters and that project is the GOP project of gerrymandering, “culture” wars, redefining liberal as a type of insanity while promoting the most extreme liberal economic view, racism, promoting the uber rich over the “middle” class, packing the judiciary and promoting Christian fundamentalism. Trump is the consequence and front man of revisionism: fake news and alternative facts.

KWAG2019

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Confederate statues seek to glorify racists and white supremacists.

Hardly. Name the statues that were torn down which specifically glorify racism and white supremacists? or even support slavery? Have you even looked at the notations of those statues?

They have no place in any society that values equality.

Equality would suggest that the interests of those people who value these statues be protected too.

Again, I haven't seen any statues which promoted racism or white supremacy. The statues commemorated the lives of people who fought and died to protect the values of their society. There's an estimation that less than 10% of Southerners owned slaves when the war began. You genuinely think all southerners were pro-slavery and white supremacists? They fought for many other reasons than slavery, and their values should be remembered for the bravery that they engaged in.

For example, Union forces committed war crimes in the South during the war. Should every reference of Union statues be removed because of that? I don't believe so. Our history should be remembered for both the good and the bad. Cherrypicking our history encourages a Black/white perspective... in reality history is dominated by shades of gray, and we should acknowledge that. This manner of simple thinking dumbs down future generations and their appreciation of their past. Without understanding our past to the fullest extent, we cannot become a greater and more just society.

The US civil war had several strands in its causation but at heart it was about secession and secession was about slavery.

Secession was about economics and power. Not slavery. There was no chance the North would allow its bread basket to leave...

Revisionism is the concerted attempts to muddy those waters and that project is the GOP project of gerrymandering, “culture” wars, redefining liberal as a type of insanity while promoting the most extreme liberal economic view, racism, promoting the uber rich over the “middle” class, packing the judiciary and promoting Christian fundamentalism. Trump is the consequence and front man of revisionism: fake news and alternative facts.

Trump is the reaction to the amount of fake news, liberal revisionism, and racial divisions that Obama along with other presidents encouraged to happen. Obama did more than any other president to encourage divisions within American society.

I don't like Trump... but I'm not going to allow my dislike of him to blind me to the behavior of previous presidents who fractured American society, and elevated corporate America above the voters. Fake news and alternative facts has been happening since Bush Junior. The fact that you place all responsibility on Trump simply shows your inability to be balanced.

KWAG2019

Deleted User wrote: »

Hardly. Name the statues that were torn down which specifically glorify racism and white supremacists? or even support slavery? Have you even looked at the notations of those statues?



Equality would suggest that the interests of those people who value these statues be protected too.

Again, I haven't seen any statues which promoted racism or white supremacy. The statues commemorated the lives of people who fought and died to protect the values of their society. There's an estimation that less than 10% of Southerners owned slaves when the war began. You genuinely think all southerners were pro-slavery and white supremacists? They fought for many other reasons than slavery, and their values should be remembered for the bravery that they engaged in.

For example, Union forces committed war crimes in the South during the war. Should every reference of Union statues be removed because of that? I don't believe so. Our history should be remembered for both the good and the bad. Cherrypicking our history encourages a Black/white perspective... in reality history is dominated by shades of gray, and we should acknowledge that. This manner of simple thinking dumbs down future generations and their appreciation of their past. Without understanding our past to the fullest extent, we cannot become a greater and more just society.



Secession was about economics and power. Not slavery. There was no chance the North would allow its bread basket to leave...



Trump is the reaction to the amount of fake news, liberal revisionism, and racial divisions that Obama along with other presidents encouraged to happen. Obama did more than any other president to encourage divisions within American society.

I don't like Trump... but I'm not going to allow my dislike of him to blind me to the behavior of previous presidents who fractured American society, and elevated corporate America above the voters. Fake news and alternative facts has been happening since Bush Junior. The fact that you place all responsibility on Trump simply shows your inability to be balanced.

You see, dear reader, the strategy. The opening pseudo question to try to claim that there are different grades of confederate statues. Fighting for the confederacy was fighting to secede to preserve slavery. All confederate statues are tainted. All must go.

Next the claim that equality means that if someone has the view that slavery isn't a bad thing and those who fought to maintain it should be honoured then their views have to be taken into account. They don't. Their views are vile. They can express them and then they are ignored because they are vile and the statues are demolished.

The "values" of the south and their "bravery" are irrelevant. You may as well honour the bravery of Nazis.

The assertion in regard to secession is absolutely at odds with reality. Secession was about slavery.

And at last the big Trumpist lie. Accuse the other of what you do yourself. The only way Obama promoted division was by triggering racists and neo confederates with their absurd revisionism and culture war.

/end

alastair

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5b_-TZwQ0I

KWAG2019

alastair wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5b_-TZwQ0I

Lol. And yet they try. LOL.

KWAG2019

KWAG2019 wrote: »

You see, dear reader, the strategy. The opening pseudo question to try to claim that there are different grades of confederate statues. Fighting for the confederacy was fighting to secede to preserve slavery. All confederate statues are tainted. All must go.

Actually no, since if you look at actual history rather than articles posing the authors opinions.... you'll find that the recruiting parties and the marching songs of the confederate forces didn't scream outrage at the Northerners coming to take their slaves away. Since most of them didn't have slaves, and were highly unlikely every to ever be able to afford them.

Instead, if you do some research, you'll find that it's the question of Southern independence in response to the greed of Northerners that's the cause for most common southerners. After all, the taxation policies and other economic changes pushed by the Northern states sought to squeeze all profits out of them and into Northern coffers.

Hence, why the war and secession was an economic movement rather than a defiance of the abolishing of slavery. In fact, if you dig a bit, you'll find that before the North introduced the freeing of slaves, the South also discussed doing the same. Both armies needed more men to fight, and it was the North who made the declaration first. Again, only related to slaves within confederate areas, and not within Union states (many of which did have slaves at that time)

Fact is, slavery only really concerned the rich in the South, and the vast majority of those Southerners involved in the fighting were not rich.

Next the claim that equality means that if someone has the view that slavery isn't a bad thing and those who fought to maintain it should be honoured then their views have to be taken into account. They don't. Their views are vile. They can express them and then they are ignored because they are vile and the statues are demolished.

Except, of course, that you have still to prove that either the people who raised those statues or the people the statues represented supported the issue of slavery, or racism...

You and others are simply repeating the same mantra. That everything connected to the South and the "Civil war" (or the war of Northern aggression") was about slavery, racism, and white supremacy. I've pointed out larger issues which haven't been adequately addressed.

The "values" of the south and their "bravery" are irrelevant. You may as well honour the bravery of Nazis.

Once more, it's the blanket collective guilt. Not all Wehrmacht troops were Nazi's nor were all Germans Nazi's. If they had been, then, far less innocents would have escaped German held territories both before, and over the course of WW2.

I'd have no issue with Germans honoring the bravery of German soldiers who fought in WW2. Just as I'd have no issue with Britain honoring the bravery of British soldiers. I would have issue with them honoring a proven mass murderer, and placing propaganda on the statue to promote such behavior in the future. It's like honoring Churchill. Do you honor him for his actions during WW2, or condemn him for his hard-line decisions prior to that which caused suffering, and death? Probably you would prefer to remove any reference of him entirely, because such a decision would make you uncomfortable. :rolleyes:

The assertion in regard to secession is absolutely at odds with reality. Secession was about slavery.

I've pointed out obvious flaws in claiming that slavery was the only reason for the war, or secession, and you're holding your hands over your ears, shouting " la la la la la".

And that's why you support revisionist policies... because you want to change reality to match your Black/white good/bad limited viewpoint. Rather than deal with the realities of life. History must become a safe space for you to feel comfortable observing.

And at last the big Trumpist lie. Accuse the other of what you do yourself. The only way Obama promoted division was by triggering racists and neo confederates with their absurd revisionism and culture war.

/end

Oh lord... You really have bought the radical liberal agenda hook, line, and sinker. You realise that Disney has recently bought Fox News, and that the vast majority of US media is owned by openly liberal or globalist organisations?

c.p.w.g.w

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

The camps in Wales were akin to the camps used in India which were very close to Nazi camps(aside from the gasing)

If you mean Frongoch internment camp in Wales? which has a small memorial remembering the Irish republican prisoners the camp is long gone. I have been there.

It's grossly insulting to compare it to the nazi death camps.

whisky_galore

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Exactly my point... It was a Race issue. No other reason is allowed to be considered.

One example (and there are others): The Cotton tax by Northern supporters on Southern products isn't allowed to be a factor. Imagine this. You're growing cotton, and can make decent profits exporting your crops... or you can be forced to sell your crops to northern factories at a lower price to Northern businessmen, who will in turn, manufacture based on your crops, and then export the products for much higher profits.

The North contained the majority of Industry and trade links. The south contained the majority of raw materials needed for those factories, and food production for the country. Manufactured products naturally selling for higher amounts, so the North being significantly richer than the South, but needing the Souths crops for their own production base.

The Union supporters present the Slave question as being the main reason for the war ... but ignores everything that was done to marginalise Southerners leading up to that point. The war was to force the South to remain within the Union, under the severe control of Northerners. Just look at the extent that Southerners were treated after the war. That isn't retribution. That's a desire to dominate, and fear that they would ever rise to resist again.

Aw bless, all those marginalised plantation owners.

Slavery bad, the South lost. Get over it.

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

Aw bless, all those marginalised plantation owners.

Marginalized crop farmers. The amount of plantations pales in comparison to the amount of farms ran by poor families... but that wouldn't fit the mantra of the South being full of racists and slave owners.

Slavery bad, the South lost. Get over it.

Never said that Slavery wasn't bad. I'm objecting to this blatant attempt to redecorate history.

1641

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty good example revisionist history right there and ignoring the propaganda of the victors. It was a war in which economics was the prominent concern.

Your posts are to say the least a highly partisan interpretation of history, promoted by many Southern historians up to the 1950s, but since largely discredited (except in Southern White Nationalist circles).


Slavery was the key reason for the civil war. That is not to say that the North went to war to free the slaves. Slavery as an institution was unpopular in the North but the Abolishionist position was a minority movement. Nevertheless anti-slavery sentiment was growing, driven by several factors –the Fugitive Slave Laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850), the Dred Scott decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford), the Kansas Missouri War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas), and the success of the novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

Lincoln’s election manifesto included the key element of limiting the extension of slavery into the new western territories, ie, it would be confined to its original Deep South states. This policy broadly reflected his personal view at the time. Although he came to be an Abolisionist, both as a strategy and out of personal conviction, he was not one in 1860.

The civil war was brewing for a least a decade before it broke out. There was no Southern move to abolish slavery in the 1850s – the economy depended on it. Instead the South were insisting on their right to extend slavery into the new territories in the West. If they established new Slave States they would continue to dominate Congress as they had done since the 1820s. They had used this dominance to control trade policy in a way that favoured the South (trade/economic policy was a long Northern grievance). The North wanted to build up its industries to compete with Britain. This included tariffs on cheap British imports – among them cotton products, the cotton having originated in the South.

The Southern economy was dependent on mass export of basic commodities (esp cotton) produced cheaply on the backs of slave labour. Much of these commodities went to Britain, which was then the world’s dominant industrial producer of cheap consumer goods. Hence, the sympathy of many of the industrialists in Britain (and their friends in Government) to the Southern cause, even though popular sentiment in Britain was strongly anti-slavery. Control of congress by the South would also mean blocking any other restrictions on slavery.

There was at least one other reason the South wanted to extend slavery into the new western territories. Since the closure of the Atlantic slave trade one of their main “commodities” was slaves. The price had risen considerably, and breeding and selling slaves was a valued source of income for the slave owners. (The slave markets were akin to cattle fairs). The more they could extend slavery into the new western territories the more they could extend this valued market. Conversely, confining slavery to the original Southern slave states would limit it. The extravagant houses and lifestyle of many of the slave owning plantation class often concealed heavy indebtedness – they were dependent on their economic model for survival. And many were resentful towards the holders of their debts, such as northern banks.

No, the poor whites did not own slaves and never could – they were too expensive. But they both feared and hated them. And they were largely determined to preserve the “southern way of life” which was dependent on slavery. But, like in all wars, some were simply conscripts who had little ideological commitment (the same could be said for many northern conscripts).

Economics of course was a factor leading to the war – as it is in most wars. But in this case it was the economics of slavery.

Partisan? Not really. I take issue with the idea that the war was primarily about slavery from the virtuous point of view of freeing the slaves. Slavery was definitely a primary issue, but the use of slavery as a reason for the war is far more complicated than other posters would like to explore.

Economics and political power were at the root of the war. A war between rich people with the poor dying for them. The industrialist north versus the agrarian south. Industrial tycoons, versus the Plantation owners.

The South opposed the creation of further states without slavery since they would automatically place greater influence within the grasp of the northern politicians, who promoted greater degrees of economic tariffs against the south. The Northern states were primarily industrialized and demanded that the south supply them with resources to fuel their factories, preventing them from exporting their crops to other countries.

Plantations with slaves were far more successful and profitable than single crop farmers... and if you look at the period after the war, the plantations were seized from the southerners, and filled with freed slaves but paid less than white people would have been. The lot of the slaves didn't improve dramatically after the war considering the amount of promises broken by the Union, and in some cases, slavery continued but under different formats.

I'm not claiming that slavery is acceptable nor am I claiming the south to be innocent in its use of slavery. Various states within the South were diehard slave owners, and considered it an essential part of their culture. At the same time, I refuse to accept this whitewashed history which ignores the use of slavery by northern states, nor that the slavery question was used by both sides to further political agendas relating to influence and economics. Same with the perception that as soon as Lincoln, declared the slaves to be free, that the slaves in northern territories were actually free. Truth is, they were used... and used harshly.

Consider the posts that I responded to. Actually consider the attitude of their posts. It's a black/white good versus evil attitude that fails to consider the complexities of the situation. The south were bad, and the north were good. All southerners were racists and white supremacists... and the northerners were pure crusaders against the issue of slavery.

The behavior of the North prior, during, and after the war doesn't matter, because the South were notorious slave states. That's my issue with all of this. This attitude of accepting propaganda designed to paint one side as bad and the other as wonderful.

I don't particularly like how the South existed prior to the war. Fact is, I don't like what the North was either. Slavery, in many different forms, existed in both areas. The actions of both sides in the war were awful. Were the South right in going to war? Somewhat. The economic considerations were definitely a serious reason for war when diplomacy had failed.

I'm curious... in your opinion... had the South freed its slaves prior to the war, do you think the North would have stopped seeking economic domination over the South?