apparently the communities these monuments are in dont detest them
Two comments:
First, you obviously have very little understanding of the issue. While some people tend to overestimate the involvement of blacks in the Southern cause, I think a very accurate claim can be made that as many as 90,000 blacks served the CSA in some capacity durig the War. For more on this issue, see Forgotten Confederates by Charles Barrow.
Second, it appears you have read the sign incorrectly. Cantey was indeed a General in the Confederate army, but the incident the sign refers to happened during the Mexican war, not the War Between the States. His body servant saved him in the 1840s, not the 1860s.
Not a single reputable historian makes these claims.
None.
Erik: Not a single reputable historian?
Considering I have a Ph.D. in history, I would suggest I am a "single reputable historian." And one of the editors of the book I suggested you read is a professor of history at Clayton State University and has conducted extensive research on the South. See the R.B. Rosenburg Papers at the University of Tennessee.
William C. Davis, you may have heard of him, but probably not since you don't know much about history and can't correctly read a sign, lavished praise on the book.
Next you'll probably say that blacks didn't own slaves.
So if black people owned slaves and fought for the Confederacy, that makes them right?
Brion,
I also have a Ph.D. in history if we are playing those kinds of games.
But I'm sure the Journal of American History, the Journal of Southern History, and every other known journal is just controlled by liberals who are keeping the truth down.
I mean a single professor at Clayton State, Jesus do I feel smacked down. Then there are the hundreds of professors at other institutions. Again, part of the liberal anti-Confederate conspiracy no doubt.
And yes, the sign is about the Mexican War, but it doesn't matter for this purpose because the sign was created to reinforce the idea of loyal slaves.
Erik,
If you want to get to the point, yes the journals you mentioned are controlled by the academic left. The current emphasis on "whiteness" studies is a prime example. But that is a fallacy of begging the point. So what? Did I say that in my initial post? You are deflecting my critique because you don't know how to respond. Because they don't accept scholarship on the issue of black confederates does not mean it is not important nor a "myth" as you contend. You have an obvious bias on the subject, and your website exemplifies that. Furthermore, your statements are pure historical fallacy. Read David Hackett Fischer's Historians' Fallacies to gain a better understanding of broad statements such as "none," "most," "many," and "hundreds." Name one professor that made a definitive statement such as "black confederates do not exist." Your response shows your lack of understanding and knowledge of the subject. What is your major field of study? I would guess probably not antebellum American history. In fact, I would say you probably studied twentieth-century reform movements with an emphasis on civil rights. If William C. Davis, one of the most recognized historians on the War and hardly a "conservative" or "neo-confederate," praises the book, then I think that is hardly biased. Get to work on your knowledge base and get back to me. From what I see, you know little of Southern history. Try not to discuss issues that are out of your field.
Sarah J--My statement was not a moral judegement. You and Erik and it seems everyone that visits this site are the ones fixated on race and slavery. Did I say slavery was right? It seems you don't know how to take things that point to a world that you want to believe didn't exist. The South was more complex than the evil, racist, whities against the poor downtroden defenseless slaves/black folk world-view that the modern left likes to portray. In that regard, why does Eugene Genovese, the premier historian on slavery and a former Marxist, hate the left? Find that out and you might change your mind about the South and Southern history.
By the way, Erik, you never answered my question about black slaveowners. Did they exist? And, to the point, where is slavery most prevalent today?
So Brion, what's your point, exactly?
It's that reenactor's beard that gives it all away. The glorious Confederacy yadda yadda, happy negroes and their noble masters yadda yadda.
You'd think these guys never visited the modern South or heard Trent Lott raise a glass to his heroes in the Klan. He's probably read history somewhere where they regard Douglas Southall Freeman as something besides a paid-by-the-line asslicker, and Bruce Catton as pushing the limits of orthodoxy. Then they go on field trips and pretend the army of Northern Virginia didn't have chronic amoebic dysentery. It's hella fun.
Brion,
I simply don't respect your point of view enough to argue. Your two black slaveholders essentially means nothing and your crying about the journals being controlled by some sort of academic left is laughable.
Eric and coozledad: Neither of you have said anything intelligent. Your deflection of the isssues proves my point perfectly. You don't know anything you are talking about. A "reenator's beard"? I have never re-enacted in my life. When is a goatee a "reenator's beard"? This is another stupid fallacy, attack on the person. I don't want to aruge with either of you because I would be better off arguing with my three-year old. She, at least, has some intelligence. You can't handle honesty, and I assume you are both comfortable telling each other how "smart" you are and how "great" your limited view of history supports your stupidity. I have been around Ph.D.s most of my adult life, and I am not impressed by most, including you Erik. You don't want to engage me because you "don't respect my point of view"--a code word for I can't think of anything intelligent to say. That also is a fine example of the close-minded left. "I don't like you and I can't win this argument so I won't debate you."
"Two black slaveowners"? I guess the following BOOKS on the subject are only about two people:
Larry Koger: Black Slaveowners
Michael Johnson: Black Masters
Sherrill Wilson: NYC's African Slaveowners
Gary Mills: The Forgotten People
The 1830 census reported that at least 30,000 slaves were owned by blacks. I guess the "two slaveowners" as you state owned 15,000 each.
By the way coozledad, I live in the South, Alabama in fact, so I think I "visit" it quite often. You'll probably say something like "Well, that proves he's a whitie redneck" or some other racial slur that again proves your stupidity. For two people who profess to believe in "diversity" and "tolerance," I see none of it in your responses. I ran across the idiotic article by Erik on accuweather.com. I was interested in the headline and found that there were so many problems with it I had to comment. I usually avoid stupid blogs like this, but I couldn't let that kind of inaccuracy go unchallenged.
Sarah J: My point is simply that the modern left has a distorted view of the South. That is why Genovese broke with those who were originally on his "side." He, and anyone who is honest, will aruge that slavery was more complex than simple maxims. This site seems to deal in maxims.
And to answer my own question because Erik can't seem to do it, Africa and Asia are the two regions of the world where slavery is still a major problem. I guess that is all the white man's fault. Slavery is one of the oldest institutions in the world. It is and was not only a Southern problem nor an American problem. It was and is a world problem.
By the way, for those who acutally want to learn about slavery and racism in the United States, read the following:
Eugene Genovese: Roll, Jordan, Roll
Larry Tise: Proslavery (explains how American proslavery ideology originated in Norhtern churches)
Anne Farrow: Complicity
Leon Litwack: North of Slavery
I love the hilarious graduate student style refutation here. Boy do I feel burned.
Genovese broke with the left because he and his wife became cultural conservatives on abortion and other such issues. Sorry that 99% of the historical establishment doesn't agree with you Brion.
I love the non-response on every issue from a person who obviously knows little about American history Erik. Again, you attack me personally while avoiding my points. I am sorry that you are not honest enough to break with 99% of the historical establishment.
As for Genovese, yes, he and his wife (who is now dead) are Catholic. That had much (if not most) to do with his "conversion" to cultural conservatism. I am very good friends with three people who know him well, and there was more to his break with the left than what you think. He simply admires the South even with its faults, something the new left, a group you seem to celebrate, will not let anyone do. Adios. Thank you for reinforcing how childish (and stupid) the left continues to be.
I grew up in the north, I guess, as far as you're concerned. North Carolina.
An oasis of tolerance compared to Bama,and the mosquito breeding grounds of the gulf, but still, ultimately a racist shithole, one that treats the civil War like a fucking Walter Scott novel.
If you believe for a damn minute that any of the delusional yahoos who whipped that war up were of a different intellectual caliber than your current idiot standard bearers, you need to get out way more.
I've heard all your bonnie blue flag cheerleading, and "the North did it too!" equivocations all my life, and like as not they were spouted from a tobacco stained pie-hole. You must teach at a finishing school for the sons of cotton mill thugs.
I don't usually engage in this garbage, but really? One of Erik's weaknesses is that he isn't "honest enough to break with 99% of the historical establishment?" So the implication is that 99% of the historical establishment is dishonest? I'd like to see the math and "reason" behind that, but even if it were true, I'd think you'd have bigger fish than Erik to fry in making the "other" 99% of the historical establishment "honest" to be able to teach the "honest" American history. Really.
I don't think anyone on this blog ever said that slavery and racism were only Southern problems.
In fact, I've written pretty extensively, though not here, about northern racism, specifically Pennsylvanian racism.
I also love the South. I lived in South Carolina and in New Orleans, Louisiana, studied Southern literature.
In fact, if you'll flip through the archives, you'll find a nice post that Erik started and many of us contributed to in comments, about how the South is often caricatured and maligned unfairly.
However, I'm not flying a confederate flag or trying to excuse racism by whimpering that black people are racist too!
Everyone's racist to some degree or another. Doesn't make it right.
BMcC's linkroll:
* Abbeville Institute
* American Conservative
* Chronicles
* Conservative Heritage Times
* Lew Rockwell
* Ludwig von Mises Institute
* Taki Mag
About Brion:
I consider myself to be an anti-federalist, paleoconservative, cigar smoking, history loving, baseball enthusiast, muscle car driving, metal head, Dixie first, political junky, family guy.
Yee-fuckin'-haw.
More evidence that paleo-con is just a clever euphemism for 'neoconfederate douchebag' or 'redneck with post-graduate degree'.
(You weren't kidding, Sarah. :P)
My point is simply that the modern left has a distorted view of the South.
I'd just like to point out that "the modern left" has more than a few adherents who are southerners--myself among them. I think the person with blinders on is the one who's assuming that the south is overwhelmingly conservative. It's getting more liberal as it gets younger, and race is less and less of an issue, the younger it gets.
Yes Brion, clearly I know nothing of American history.
No, in fact I simply think you are an idiot and do not deserve to be taken seriously. I am not going to waste time actually refuting your points, such as they are. I have better things to do such as having my cat scratch out my eyes or getting a root canal.
I am impressed though that matttbastard plunged into depths I fear to tread, and actually looked at Brion's website. Dixie First huh. Treason in Defense of Slavery lives.
You know what's really funny to think about? How Brion and other Treason in Defense of Slavery advocates feel about how having a black man president. Hilarious.
Wow, where to start. I wasn't going to respond to Erik again, but these new posts (with the exception of Sarah's and Incertus' polite responses) prove that childish is, indeed, the only way some of the people here seem to know how to respond.
coozledad: Your incoherent, grammatically murderous,and hate filled response shows your true colors. Just to be clear, I was not born in Alabama. I have spent most of my life in other states, including Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina and Florida. And all of family is either from the North or West originally, though I would consider myself, as my webpage states, to be pro-Southern. When was that a crime? I did not say I don't have biases, but all of the evidence I gave Erik, with the expection of one book, comes from people who would not be considered "pro-Southern" in the least. I read Erik's article because I am interested in different viewpoints, but even as he admits, his article was based on the misinterpreation of a historic marker. That is dishonest and misleading and was my original point. I did not "learn" my pont of view from "cotton mill thugs" or "delusional yahoos" or "tobacco stained pie-holes." I read history, and a lot of it, much of which I thought was wrong based on both primary reseach and other history. History is biased. ALL of it. Don't think so? Read what classical historians such as Polybius said about the writing of history, or if you can't find that, how about Novick's That Noble Dream.
Mr. Trend: Those were his statistics, not mine. A lot of good, honest history is written by people from all ideological backrounds, and many of the biggest names would disagree with Erik. He makes broad and stupid gereralizations: none, two, five, 99%. Read my earlier posts. I just used his number to make a point.
matttbasterd: That is the most impressive post I have seen on this site! You can read and surf the net! WOW! Let me frame that one. I am glad you continue the trend of name-calling rather than intelligent conversation.
Sarah J: I didn't "whimper" that black people are racist, too. You put words in my mouth. I said history is complex, as life is complex, and Erik's diatribe was an assault on the South and those who don't think like him. He can't respond because he has the brain capacity of a dinosaur. I didn't say racism is right. In fact, I said the opposite if you read my posts carefully. I would suggest the word "problem" to be a clear indication as to what I think about slavery and racism.
Incertus: You are certainly correct, and I think that liberal Southerners have much in common with conservative Southerners, as black Southerners have much in common with white Southerners, i.e. religion, language, etc. Liberal Southerners have always been there. W. Wilson, Jack Byrnes, and now W.J. Blythe (Clinton) just to name three. Both sides tend to emphasize the differences rather than the similarites. That is the problem.
Erik: Two more things. I was right on when I guessed about your major field of study. And when did an MA with a lecturers position become a Ph.D. College Professor? Just curious.
Grammatically murderous, maybe, but at least I don't write that turgid 19th century wannabee shit.
Do you stuff peppermints in your ass?
MA with a lecturer's position? You have some old information there my friend.
You guessed that I was an environmental historian? Why?
Also, why have I been feeding the troll?
Erik:
First: Since you probably won't see this in my other post, I'll put it here again: Two more things. I was right on when I guessed about your major field of study. And when did an MA with a lecturers position become a Ph.D. College Professor? Just curious.
Second: Did the Founding Fathers commit treason when they seceded from the British Empire? Was the Northeast speaking treasonously when it advocated secession in 1803, 1815, and 1848? Were Jefferson and Madison treasenous when they advanced nullification and secession in 1798? Was the North treasenous when several states nullified the fugutive slave law? Were the Antifederalists (realy the federalists; the other side were the nationalists) treasonous when they resisted the new Constituion at the ratifying conventions because it gave too much power to the central government? Again, just curious. Stick to 20th century progressive history. You will be safe there and with more of your kind.
And, no, I don't worry about Obama's race. You're the one who keeps bringing that up on your "objective" blog. I haven't heard anyone comment on his race from my side. That is what the left is blathering over, and it is the left who is fixated on race. Didn't Obama play the race card on Clinton? I think he (BC) mentioned that during the primary race. I am concered about having a Marxist/Socialist/Progressive as president, but I say go for it! Give us cap and trade and higher gas prices! Give us more taxes and more welfare! Expand our glorious big brother government! Hurah! Save us oh mighty big brother from ourselves.
Huh. "History is complex, as life is complex," but apparently "Marxism/Socialism/Progressive" is simple and can all be lumped together. Funny how that works.
Erik: No, I guessed that you focused on 20th century refomr movements with an emphasis on civil rights, i.e. progressive history.
Are you not a lecturer at Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas with an MA? How old can that info be? You say in your profile you are located in Georgetown, TX, and claim to be a college professor.
Mr. Trend: Take your pick my friend. Marxists in the United States figured out that they couldn't call themselves that and win elections, so they started using the term "progressive."
See Herbert Croly The Promise of American Life. The original bible for the modern progressive ideology, if of course, you exclude the Communist Manifesto.
You clearly have no understanding (or simply choose not to bother learning) about any differentiation between various strains of “leftism”. The simple equation of all "progressive" agendas with "communism" reveals that. So congrats - you`re insistence that things be treated complexly, followed by your gross simplifications of anything further left than your own ideologies, make you a hypocrite, too. Bra. Vo.
Anony: I understand progressivism very well, and the various "strains" as you suggest. I have studied political ideologies quite extensively, in fact. But since you are so smart, tell me what difference there is between a "progressive" like say Herbert Croly or Edward M. House (a Southerner) or more recently Saul Alinsky. There are differences, but what are they genius?
Erik: Because it ups our Technorati ratings.
Preach on, Brother Brion. Good luck with that.
It's up to everyone else here to decide on an individual basis what you want to do with him, but I am going to stop feeding this troll and hope to move on to more productive conversations.
Talking with people who equates Democrats with communists, who longs for the days of slavery, and who has a "Dixie First" agenda, which I can only conclude is someone who, like Trent Lott, believes that so many problems would have been solved had Strom Thurmond been elected president in 1948, seems to be an exercise of only limited value. Even if it does provide great amusement.
However, Sarah's point made just above my comment is a powerful counterargument to everything I just said.
Erik: Because it ups our Technorati ratings.
Speaking if which, I nominated y'all in the "Best Hidden Gems" category, along with my own blog, for the weblog awards.
Wow--thanks so much!!!
One last tidbit:
Anony: I understand progressivism very well, and the various "strains" as you suggest. I have studied political ideologies quite extensively, in fact.
Shorter: "I am aware of all progressive traditions."
Even shorter: "YEE-HAW!!!1one"
Commenting by HaloScan
