Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

For Decades, Southern States Saw Thanksgiving as an Act of Northern Aggression

atlasobscura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 120 posts

Re: For Decades, Southern States Saw Thanksgiving as an Act of Northern Aggression

#21

Post by nvader »

mvexel wrote: post #20
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #4

The Fourth of July wasn’t strongly celebrated until the 90s (after Gulf War I) in the small southern town I was living in during the 80s/90s. Something about still being bitter about the Civil War (which we were taught was not about slavery, but states rights, ugh).

"States' rights" is actually one of the valid answers to question 74 on the naturalization civics test. ("Name one problem that led to the Civil War.") Now I wonder what process led to these 100 questions, and their valid answers. (I just took the test a few weeks ago, and becoming a U.S. citizen on Monday.) The full list of questions and valid answers is here: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Office%2…

Congratulations!

Re: For Decades, Southern States Saw Thanksgiving as an Act of Northern Aggression

#22

Post by buu700 »

krapp wrote: post #11
callinyouin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The states rights thing is pervasive. I was taught the same thing in a public school all the way up North in Michigan. (late 90s, early 2000s)

It's just true enough to not be an outright lie, while being enough of a lie of omission to serve its purpose as propaganda. Yes, the Civil War was about states' rights. Yes, the South was fighting for independence from what it saw as Northern political bias and Federal overreach. But all of those ancillary issues were about defending slavery as an economic and cultural institution.

Well said. The meme of "it wasn't at all about states' rights and if you think it was you're a (racist|revisionist|CSA apologist)" is more confusing than persuasive.

And that's my perspective as someone who grew up with "war about slavery" as the default interpretation, only learning about contemporary states' rights arguments in later history classes at my (public Virginia) high school. (And then only learning from HN/reddit that "Northern aggression" / "states' rights" propaganda was even still a thing.)

I expect someone raised on that propaganda would be even more confused, likely enough to conclude that the speaker is lying or misinformed.

Re: For Decades, Southern States Saw Thanksgiving as an Act of Northern Aggression

#23

Post by int_19h »

krapp wrote: post #11
callinyouin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The states rights thing is pervasive. I was taught the same thing in a public school all the way up North in Michigan. (late 90s, early 2000s)

It's just true enough to not be an outright lie, while being enough of a lie of omission to serve its purpose as propaganda. Yes, the Civil War was about states' rights. Yes, the South was fighting for independence from what it saw as Northern political bias and Federal overreach. But all of those ancillary issues were about defending slavery as an economic and cultural institution.

It's misleading even then, when you look at the actual complaints of the states (as expressed in their declarations of independence). For example, most of them complained about the free states' pushback to the Fugitive Slave Act, which was also a states' rights issue - but the one where interests of the slaveholders aligned with a stronger federal government strong-arming states; and they didn't have any qualms about that.

Similarly, in the Confederate constitution, there were some provisions added that specifically restricted the ability of the states to handle slavery in their jurisdiction - e.g. the "right of transit and sojourn" (which essentially meant that free states were forced to respect the "property right" of any slave-owning citizen of another state who comes to reside there) - this, of course, was in response to Dred Scott.

Re: For Decades, Southern States Saw Thanksgiving as an Act of Northern Aggression

#24

Post by paulddraper »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #17
paulddraper wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I've found that on the other hand, northern schools teach little about the non-slavery motivations for the Civil War. Many people don't realize that both the Confederacy and Union had slavery, or the the Emancipation Proclamation specifically exempted the Union's slaves (as it had to). This triggers a lack of balanced historical perspective and understanding. E.g. many of the naive arguments for razing Confeder…

It would be more correct to say that there were slave states that didn't succede from the USA. The president couldn't free slaves within the USA by executive order because they were not at war with the USA (enemy territory being where the president could use their power as commander-in-chief)...that instead required the 13th amendment. I went to school in the North as well, and in my opinion, they simply didn't dwell…

> It would be more correct to say that there were slave states that didn't succeded from the USA.

Absolutely. Succession (being part of issue of "states' rights") was a huge part of the Civil War.

> The president couldn't free slaves within the USA by executive order

Indeed; I pointed that fact out myself. There's no question that the man Abraham Lincoln was anti-slavery but could not himself end it. There's also no question that the man Robert E. Lee opposed Virginia's succession but not himself stop it.

The fact remains that as a whole the Union still had slaves, and that didn't change for the entirety of the Civil War. In fact, assuming you believe the Union's authority was legitimate, slavery was outlaws in the South years before it was in the North.

My point is there's obviously things going on here other than just a war to end slavery, and it's important not to downplay that either.

---

FWIW, I'd call Seattle "the West".

Re: For Decades, Southern States Saw Thanksgiving as an Act of Northern Aggression

#25

Post by faitswulff »

geggam wrote: post #14
faitswulff wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think they quit being vocal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline_protest...

lost cause ?

I'm just saying that Native Americans are still around and still vocal. Native Americans are still politically active and the first Native American women were even voted into office this year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Native_Americans_in_th...

Re: For Decades, Southern States Saw Thanksgiving as an Act of Northern Aggression

#26

Post by thanosnose »

paulddraper wrote: post #15
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #4

The Fourth of July wasn’t strongly celebrated until the 90s (after Gulf War I) in the small southern town I was living in during the 80s/90s. Something about still being bitter about the Civil War (which we were taught was not about slavery, but states rights, ugh).

FWIW, I've found that on the other hand, northern schools teach little about the non-slavery motivations for the Civil War. Many people don't realize that both the Confederacy and Union had slavery, or the the Emancipation Proclamation specifically exempted the Union's slaves (as it had to). This triggers a lack of balanced historical perspective and understanding. E.g. many of the naive arguments for razing Confeder…

> E.g. many of the naive arguments for razing Confederate history can be applied to American history, Native American history, etc. Without nuance, the conversation becomes "we are good and our history is good vs they are bad and their history is bad".

Don't forget the american revolution. It had nothing to do with liberty or freedom and everything to do with greed and the desire for native territory.

History is propaganda and everyone has their version of history.

Growing up in the northeast, we are taught propaganda about how we fought to end slavery. Lincoln is portrayed as the great emancipator. But closer examination of the civil war shows that's a blatant lie. We know the north didn't fight to end slavery. I don't know what they teach down south but I'm sure they have their own form of propaganda.

The civil war, like all wars, was about wealth. "States' rights", "slavery", "freedom", etc are just propaganda to hide the ugly truth.

Re: For Decades, Southern States Saw Thanksgiving as an Act of Northern Aggression

#28

Post by oculusthrift »

mvexel wrote: post #20
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #4

The Fourth of July wasn’t strongly celebrated until the 90s (after Gulf War I) in the small southern town I was living in during the 80s/90s. Something about still being bitter about the Civil War (which we were taught was not about slavery, but states rights, ugh).

"States' rights" is actually one of the valid answers to question 74 on the naturalization civics test. ("Name one problem that led to the Civil War.") Now I wonder what process led to these 100 questions, and their valid answers. (I just took the test a few weeks ago, and becoming a U.S. citizen on Monday.) The full list of questions and valid answers is here: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Office%2…

yep. states rights to make their own laws about slavery superseding the national law

Re: For Decades, Southern States Saw Thanksgiving as an Act of Northern Aggression

#29

Post by geggam »

faitswulff wrote: post #25
geggam wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lost cause ?

I'm just saying that Native Americans are still around and still vocal. Native Americans are still politically active and the first Native American women were even voted into office this year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Native_Americans_in_th...

As part Meskwaki and living in AZ next to several reservations I am aware.

Still a lost cause

Re: For Decades, Southern States Saw Thanksgiving as an Act of Northern Aggression

#30

Post by wavefunction »

This is an interesting subject. The 4th of July is not celebrated in Utah as it is in other states: instead that same energy and celebration goes into Utah's "Pioneer Days." This divergence from the rest of the nation provides some insight into the history of Utah and the people who settled it, and their relationship to the greater United States. Personally, I don't think it reflects positively but that's just my opinion on another interesting divergence in national tradition.
Post reply on HN