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

61–70 of 120 posts

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

#61

Post by dragonwriter »

gizmo686 wrote: post #40
krapp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Saying it was about slavery is also misleading (although less so than just saying states rights). At the time the civil war started, the North was willing to compromise on the issue of slavery [0]. The North did not fight to abolish slavery. Had the South surrendered earlier (or never seceded at all), they would have been able to keep their slaves [1]. The reason the North fought was to preserve the union (apparently…

> Like it or not "states rights" is an American interpretation of the Civil war, even if it is one that is not historically accurate.

More accurately, “states rights” was, at the time of the Civil War, a code word for protecting slavery that was revived during the Jim Crow era as a broader code for protecting segregation and systematic discrimination, and the faction which uses it that way has always been strong enough to play a major role in shaping the national mythology.

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

#62

Post by nkurz »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #51
Delmania wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also wrong. The Civil War was about slavery. There's a speech in which a defining characteristic of the confederacy is slavery. Keep playing revisionist history.

> The Civil War was about slavery I believe the "Civil War was about states' rights" line began in the 19th century [1], around the same time as "the number of Confederate memorial installations peaking around 1910 — 50 years after the end of the Civil War and at the height of Jim Crow" [2]. In reality, "Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Con…

Unless you have a very subtle point that I'm missing, I think you got tripped up with the numbering of the centuries. The "19th century" started in 1801 and ended in 1900 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century) putting the Civil War itself in the late-middle of the 19th century.

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

#63

Post by AnimalMuppet »

emilsedgh wrote: post #44
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More: The Mormons were intending to leave the United States and start their own country. When they came to Utah (1847), much of it was still Mexican territory. They celebrate the day that commemorates them trying to leave the US as hard as they celebrate the 4th of July. Note well: This does not make Utah Mormons less patriotic... just a bit historically schizophrenic.

As an Iranian Jewish-born atheist who grew up in Iran and now lives in the U.S, I celebrate Hannuklah, Nowrooz (Iranian new year), Rosh Hashanah, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and any other fun holiday you would throw at us. I think we live in a world that nobody gives a fuck about reasons and true meanings behind things. Fuck history I wanna party!

Well, for what it's worth, I think the west needs more Muslims. I mean, why do we have weekends? It's basically Saturday because of the Jews, and Sunday because of the Christians. Well, the Muslims' holy day is Friday. Three day weekend every week? Yeah, sign me up.

This is not an endorsement of Islam as a theology. But culturally, I'm down.

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

#64

Post by dang »

tropo wrote: post #38

Another obscure Thanksgiving fact: Thanksgiving is commonly known as a celebration of a good harvest, but the reason why the harvest was good is seldom remembered. Plymouth Colony was originally communal. Marx was far from the first to think that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" might be a good idea. Such thinking dates back to Plato at least, and in 1620 the colony actually tried…

Please don't take this or any HN thread into ideological flamewar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#65

Post by brennebeck »

nkurz wrote: post #62
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Civil War was about slavery I believe the "Civil War was about states' rights" line began in the 19th century [1], around the same time as "the number of Confederate memorial installations peaking around 1910 — 50 years after the end of the Civil War and at the height of Jim Crow" [2]. In reality, "Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Con…

Unless you have a very subtle point that I'm missing, I think you got tripped up with the numbering of the centuries. The "19th century" started in 1801 and ended in 1900 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century ) putting the Civil War itself in the late-middle of the 19th century.

Pretty sure the gp meant the 20th.

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

#66

Post by lsc »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54
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).

> 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 Vacationed in Charleston a few months ago. Dropped into the Old Slave Mart Museum [1]. I learned something, there, that for the first time made the Civil War make sense (from the Southern perspective). Imagine a Southern plantation owner's balance sheet. What do you think woul…

Sure, that explains why the elites fought; what I still don't get was why the average white southern enlisted man fought.

I mean, sure, it's clear why the elites wanted the war. But for the average white southern laborer, slavery did nothing but push down wages; It's hard to ask for a raise if the boss can just buy someone to do what you do.

The explanations I've heard were nonsensical (that the average white southern man fought because it was in the interests of the elite southern man) or assume the southerner was just... evil (the average white southern man fought so that there would at least be something below him.)

I find both of those explanations really unsatisfactory, because they assume that non-elite white southerners are either stupid or evil to the point where they will start an extremely brutal war who's explicit aims are to preserve the wealth of the elite at the cost of everyone else. This seems... unlikely.

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

#67

Post by ceejayoz »

lsc wrote: post #66
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Vacationed in Charleston a few months ago. Dropped into the Old Slave Mart Museum [1]. I learned something, there, that for the first time made the Civil War make sense (from the Southern perspective). Imagine a Southern plantation owner's balance sheet. What do you think woul…

Sure, that explains why the elites fought; what I still don't get was why the average white southern enlisted man fought. I mean, sure, it's clear why the elites wanted the war. But for the average white southern laborer, slavery did nothing but push down wages; It's hard to ask for a raise if the boss can just buy someone to do what you do. The explanations I've heard were nonsensical (that the average white souther…

There's a quote (attributed without evidence to half a dozen prominent historical figures) that probably applies here:

> Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

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

#68

Post by pulisse »

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.

> But all of those ancillary issues were about defending slavery as an economic and cultural institution.

It's insane how often this is disputed when the Confederate states explicitly asserted this in their various declarations of secession. Mississippi's, for example, begins[1]:

> In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.

[1] http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp

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

#69

Post by maxxxxx »

lsc wrote: post #66
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Vacationed in Charleston a few months ago. Dropped into the Old Slave Mart Museum [1]. I learned something, there, that for the first time made the Civil War make sense (from the Southern perspective). Imagine a Southern plantation owner's balance sheet. What do you think woul…

Sure, that explains why the elites fought; what I still don't get was why the average white southern enlisted man fought. I mean, sure, it's clear why the elites wanted the war. But for the average white southern laborer, slavery did nothing but push down wages; It's hard to ask for a raise if the boss can just buy someone to do what you do. The explanations I've heard were nonsensical (that the average white souther…

" Sure, that explains why the elites fought; what I still don't get was why the average white southern enlisted man fought."

Wars were always fought by average people for the benefit of the elites.

I can't find the exact quote but there is one that pretty much says when a peasant goes to war the best he can hope for is to come back to the same life whereas for the king it's a huge win.

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

#70

Post by bryanrasmussen »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54
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).

> 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 Vacationed in Charleston a few months ago. Dropped into the Old Slave Mart Museum [1]. I learned something, there, that for the first time made the Civil War make sense (from the Southern perspective). Imagine a Southern plantation owner's balance sheet. What do you think woul…

Yeah, well the problem there is that the slaves were not freed until long after the war was started. Hence Lincoln's letter to Greeley http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley... wherein he writes 'If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.'

The South went to war not because the slaves were going to be freed, but because Lincoln did not agree with Slavery as a moral good.

As per the Cooper Union address: http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/cooper.... where he said 'what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them.'

Post reply on HN