Thread: "South celebrates Civil War, largely without slaves"

NYT: South celebrates Civil War, without slaves - U.S. news - The New York Times - msnbc.com

I personally think that it is retarded to have a 'secession ball' and a mock swearing in of Jefferson Davis as the president of the confederacy.... But even if they have to fulfill the urge to "act" like something happened that didn't and celebrate, could they at least be honest about it and make mention as to the cornerstone of why there was a war in the first place? Slaves, and someone's perceived 'right' to own them.

ATLANTA — The Civil War, the most wrenching and bloody episode in American history, may not seem like much of a cause for celebration, especially in the South.
And yet, as the 150th anniversary of the four-year conflict gets under way, some groups in the old Confederacy are planning at least a certain amount of hoopla, chiefly around the glory days of secession, when 11 states declared their sovereignty under a banner of states’ rights and broke from the union.
The events include a “secession ball” in the former slave port of Charleston (“a joyous night of music, dancing, food and drink,” says the invitation), which will be replicated on a smaller scale in other cities.
**************************
“I can only imagine what kind of celebration they would have if they had won,” said Lonnie Randolph, president of the South Carolina N.A.A.C.P.
He said he was dumbfounded by “all of this glamorization and sanitization of what really happened.”
When Southerners refer to states’ rights, he said, “they are really talking about their idea of one right — to buy and sell human beings.”

I wonder how the reenactors would react if some Brit ex-pats celebrated King Georges victory over the colonies....... without any mention of taxation without representation.

I think it's dumb to parade around in your underwear and a mask chanting Latin and burning a giant owl in effigy, but to each his own.

Wow Wicked...what state do you live in? Ahh, Massachusetts.

Slavery in Massachusetts

How's life in the very first Slave State?

Ignoramus.

Originally Posted by hawgballs

You are correct, "to each his own"......

But why the willfull ignorance? When the grand wizard commander-in-chief of the Sons of the Confederacy claims "“We in the South, who have been kicked around for an awfully long time and are accused of being racist, we would just like the truth to be known", why ignore or disregard the main reason for those perceptions? If anything, these actions will only solidify(rightly or wrongly) the opinions of those that he is trying to influence.

I wish lots of people would stop doing lots of stuff, but as long as the actions of the (relative) few do not sway the collective opinions of the rest of those geographically located in the "south", I'm fine.

Same as some church-goers...I wish lots of them would stop doing certain things, but I can't control it...as long as nobody lumps me into the same group and paints me with the same broad brush, I'm ok.

They're ignorant - so they will behave ignorantly. Lots of those folks exist in every group.

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Did Mass secede because they were told not to have slaves anymore, or did they comply with the law?

Sure, but they continued to profit from slavery, they just out-sourced it to the tobacco and cotton centric agrarian states of the south (including Maryland). It's a convenient position...90%+ of slave owners were below the Mason Dixon line in 1790 but the north and the federal government still collected taxes and trade tariffs produced by slave owners. Slave ships came into northern ports where slaves were transferred and shipped off to southern ports - AFTER slavery was outlawed in the north.

The nation as a whole, was complacent. To sit in the ivory tower of the north and speak disparagingly about the south's slavery problem is willfully ignorant. At least, that's my opinion. Slavery was and is F'ed up and indefensible. No denying that.