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

71–80 of 120 posts

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

#71

Post by cm2012 »

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…

>> or assume the southerner was just... evil (the average white southern man fought so that there would at least be something below him.)

You have a very idealistic view of human nature if you don't think this banal evil is more common historically than not.

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

#72

Post by hammock »

gizmo686 wrote: post #53
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 North was willing to let the South keep slaves. Why then did the South feel it necessary to secede? A major grievance of the South was the North's failure to honor the fugitive slave act. Had the Northern states not exercised this right (weather they legally had it or not), we might not have had a civil war. Granted, I doubt this is what the South has in mind when citing State's rights as a justification.

>The North was willing to let the South keep slaves

Source?

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

#73

Post by stevenwoo »

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…

Historically in the US, it has been those in power pitting group against group like poor whites against slaves in this case (or one ethnic group versus another in other struggles with labor in the North during the same time period and afterwards), for the purpose of keeping those at the bottom occupied with an easily identified other, versus those with a lot more power and harder to reach. There were likely some familial ties from the average southern white laborer with some who owned slaves or were in the system as overseers. I also don't see how evil is unlikely, the daily brutality of slavery required a large standing militia to suppress the constant threat of active rebellion of the slaves against the owners, and it's likely the average white adult male would have been a part of said militia. It seems to me that living with that one has to make the moral choice to accept it - for the alternative there was only one John Brown and family and maybe one Free State of Jones situation, for almost everyone else, they either did not see it as evil we see it today and commonplace (so not perhaps evil in their own eyes) or not willing to make the ultimate commitment against it. On the other hand, the United States being probably the last country to outlaw slavery does not speak too well of our country. The poor did not start the war, only serve as foot soldiers and there was a draft on both sides - the elite class served as officers, this notion that the war was initiated by the average person seems counterfactual, most of the time it's elites who want to start war and waging a propaganda campaign to get the populace behind starting a war.

Even today there's no popular campaign today to go to war against Iran or North Korea, but it sure is popular in some conservative think tanks and with our current NSA, John Bolton, it's been his obsession for the last 20 years it feels like.

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

#74

Post by jonathankoren »

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…

I’m not sure why you find this unlikely. There’s explicit racism by the whites, which could be termed “loss of status”. In-group/out-group has been a long historic motivator.

As far as as why the poor would die for the elites, well that’s also existed from the beginning of time. Pretty much every war is like that.

The War Of The Roses was a family feud that lasted 32 years, and cost lives of somewhere between 35,000 and 50,000, all to decide which inbred guy gets to sit on a chair and boss everyone else around. Almost no one that died in that war, had anything to gain, or lose.

Do you really think anyone on the street really had anything to gain or lose from World War I, a war that cost between 8 and 21 million lives, all because of some piece of paper after some idiot born into a “special” family took a wrong turn and couldn’t escape perhaps the most incompetent assination squad in history[0]?

People go off an die determine which religious bureaucracy will collect a monetary tax from a group. There’s no benefit or harm to any individual about this.

[0] http://amp.kansascity.com/news/local/article592199.html

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

#75

Post by stevenwoo »

geggam wrote: post #6
aylmao wrote: post #3

tldr; Thanksgiving was traditionally celebrated in the north, with "northern" food, and after it was made a national holiday by Lincoln the confederate states refused to acknowledge it. I'm curious about Native Americans though. A lot of their culture and resistance has been lost today, but back around the birth of the holiday I can imagine them finding it offensive and being vocal about it, if not due to politics an…

Native Americans are still one of the most ignored groups, I think they quit being vocal due to the fact it's a lost cause.

Um, not yet. The Cherokee are claiming half of Oklahoma https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/.../576238... The Sioux have refused to accept what has turned into about a billion dollar fee offered by the US federal government in exchange for the Black Hills of South Dakota and since the Sioux have not accepted it, the tribe claim that they still own it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hills_Land_Claim

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

#76

Post by omegaworks »

cma wrote: post #58
alexpw wrote: post #9

"Modern Thanksgiving was first officially called for in all states in 1863 by a presidential proclamation of Abraham Lincoln. [...]Lincoln proclaimed a national Thanksgiving on the final Thursday in November, explicitly in celebration of the bounties that had continued to fall on the Union and for the military successes in the war." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving It's easy to see why the "Southern State…

In the actual words he seems to say notwithstanding the loss of life from war: >Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. Freedom only decreased if you saw black slaves as non-huma…

>It was only many years later that there were large migrations, after the reconstruction promises passed them over, "vagrancy" was heavily outlawed, and they effectively lost the vote.

That's a really careful glossing over of the coordinated white supremacist terror campaigns that drove newly emancipated black Americans from their homes in the South. Olivia Hooker, the last eyewitness to the only bombs dropped on continental America, passed just last Wednesday at the age of 103.

Her story is an incredible reminder of the sheer capacity for hate that remains unaccounted for in America still today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/opinion/olivia-hooker-tul...

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

#77

Post by skybrian »

gizmo686 wrote: post #53
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 North was willing to let the South keep slaves. Why then did the South feel it necessary to secede? A major grievance of the South was the North's failure to honor the fugitive slave act. Had the Northern states not exercised this right (weather they legally had it or not), we might not have had a civil war. Granted, I doubt this is what the South has in mind when citing State's rights as a justification.

Furthermore, the Fugitive Slave Act would have been more honestly named the Kidnap Northerners Whenever We Feel Like It Act. No proof was required that the people abducted in this way were, in fact, escaped slaves. The threat to black northerners should be obvious.

So, this would be an example of the South using the power of federal government to impose its will on the North. It was only after it looked like they had lost the power to do that anymore, that they started a war.

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

#78

Post by balibebas »

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…

Take the money and run.

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

#79

Post by enkid »

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…

Secession was starting the war. You can't declare independence and expect a country not to respond. The southern states knew that secession was illegal and would bring about war. The Confederacy started the war in every important way, claiming anything else is revisionism.

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

#80

Post by mturmon »

tropo wrote: post #34
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).

There is just as much "ugh" in saying that it was about slavery instead of state's rights. Either way, you're leaving out important things. This misleads by oversimplification. You'd be better off saying it was about geography! There is a band of soil running along today's black belt that is unusually good for growing certain labor-intensive crops, particularly cotton. That lead to a non-industrial economy. Meanwhile…

Instead of after-the-fact musings on the role of geography, it would be smart to read what the Confederate states themselves said their reasons were for seceding.

For instance, Mississippi [1]. The first two sentences of the Mississippi secession document read:

"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."

[1] http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

Post reply on HN