Live data from Hacker News

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

atlasobscura.com

91–100 of 120 posts

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

#91
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The answer is a bit more complicated than one might imagine, or the popular conceptions would suggest. Arguably, there are a couple different answers for the antebellum period, the initial days of the war, and then later on in the war. Michael P. Johnson's Towards a Patriarchical Republic: The Secession of Georgia [0] weighs the internal class conflict that helped precipitate secession. Keri Leigh Merritt's Masterles…

Thank you. I've got to get up early tomorrow for a flight, so I don't have time to properly respond at the moment, but this was by far the most thoughtful and useful response I've heard to this question, and I've read many books on the civil war, but most of what I've read is from the perspective of and about the educated elite (north or south) - most recently, I read Trudeau's "Like Men of War" and I think before that, Grant's memoirs. (come to think of it, I'm having a hard time remembering the last time I read a civil war book from a white southern perspective) - but while I was certainly aware of the fear of a slave revolution (a fear that seems rational, and was certainly universal among slave-owning societies, and that perhaps contributed to the fact that I only know of one long-term successful slave revolution, Hati)

I just bought 'masterless men' and I'll read it on my flight tomorrow. I'll evaluate the rest of the books you cite later.

But.. there needs to be something better than an upvote. Like an upvote you can give once a year or something. This was a really good, and really helpful comment.

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

#92
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The answer is a bit more complicated than one might imagine, or the popular conceptions would suggest. Arguably, there are a couple different answers for the antebellum period, the initial days of the war, and then later on in the war. Michael P. Johnson's Towards a Patriarchical Republic: The Secession of Georgia [0] weighs the internal class conflict that helped precipitate secession. Keri Leigh Merritt's Masterles…

This was a really great response, thanks so much!

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

#93
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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]? There are a lot of ways of looking at world war 1. There are those that view it as largely a war…

You have a lot of claims, but I want to say the germans did not have vastly inferior equipment but better tactics. they had pretty excellent equipment but no ability to mass produce it like others (us mostly). You seem to have a lot of indepth knowledge but that claim is so counter to my own knowledge of history.

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

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's make Monday atheist day, then we'll be set.

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

#95
post #66

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…

Southern whites who weren't slaveholders tended to be economically dependent on slaveholders for their livelihoods, in a much more direct way than northern whites were dependent upon capitalists. The Southern economy was pre-capitalist in nature, dominated by a de facto hereditary, landed aristocracy, many of whom were descended from actual aristocracy who migrated to colonial America.

Also, there's a natural human reaction to seeing invading armies occupying your home town, regardless of the rationale behind that action or one's previous or preexisting attitude towards their present ruling class. I mean, there's a spectrum of reactions, but a large chunk of that spectrum includes hostility.

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

#96
post #89
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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.

>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. The thing is, 'peasant armies' are largely a modern thing; Throughout history, arming your pesants without raising their station was... a little like giving slaves guns.[1] Most armies for most of history were composed of people…

This is literally the origin of the nobility. Many pre-modern cultures had class system consisting of clergy, warriors, and commoners; the warrior class eventually turned into a nobility class whose martial role eventually elevated to that of officers. Even today, members of the British Royal Family, of a certain age, are expected to perform military service; Prince Harry served in Afghanistan flying Apache attack helicopters, while Prince William flew search and rescue helicopters in the RAF. (Traditionally this was true only for men, but times change faster than you think; Queen Elizabeth II, before becoming Queen, was briefly a military lorry driver during the Second World War.) Similar things happened in i.e. Japan (where the samurai became a ruling class).

In retrospect, it's kind of obvious why the clergy and warrior classes would gain power: clergy, by dint of education and spiritual authority, and warriors, by dint of being well-armed and good at killing people, both have a natural degree of power over others.

Another important point is that this tended to occur only in settled civilizations (which, admittedly, was most of the world by the 18th century or so.) Settled civilizations prior to the Industrial Revolution needed an educated clerical class and also large numbers of farm workers (because agriculture was labor-intensive) meaning only a few people could devote themselves to being really good at fighting, or alternatively wearing ridiculous clothes, throwing lavish parties, and marrying their cousins for political reasons, as the case may be. In contrast, hunter-gatherer societies tended to have the entire male population not only more physically fit than even most knights and nobles, but far more practiced at hunting and warfare, with enough overlap in the relevant techniques (e.g. horsemanship, use of weapons, etc.). Many settled civilizations were dominated by nearby hunter-gatherers--the Greek city-states by Alexander's Macedonian Greeks, the Chinese by the Mongols--because there's really no way for a pre-industrial civilization to hold their own against hunter-gatherers. Hell, even as late as the 1870's, large amounts of the United States and Mexico were effectively off-limits to white settlers because of the power of the Comanche, who only fell because (a) like many fallen American Indian peoples, they had plenty of enemies who were more than willing to help the whites defeat them and (b) the United States at that point was just barely no longer a pre-industrial civilization. Oh, yeah--and, as of the American Civil War (to bring this full circle!), it was now possible to enlist large numbers of common people and send them to war instead of risking a smaller ruling class of nobles.

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

#97
post #89
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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.

>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. The thing is, 'peasant armies' are largely a modern thing; Throughout history, arming your pesants without raising their station was... a little like giving slaves guns.[1] Most armies for most of history were composed of people…

> (In a way, this is an amazing thing about modern democracies. The army, in many cases, remains subservient to the civilian state, even when it sure looks like it has a decisive choice in the matter... But, historically, this is the exception, not the rule.)

For Europe. For China, this was the rule. It did lead to some military disasters -- I understand that the Qing conquest of China relied on northern Chinese generals betraying their country -- but soldiers and the military were held in very low esteem and got not much in the way of power or authority. New dynasties were established by force and in that context generals became emperors, but that happened about every 200 years, and it didn't lead to an improvement in the prestige allocated to the military (except under the Mongols, who didn't really buy in to the Chinese system).

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

#98
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sh…

This argument always trots out Mississippi's declaration. Show me evidence from the CSA leadership as a whole, and I'd let the point stand without contention.

The GP quote is supported by the CSA constitution [1]. Search “slave” and read every mention. The institution of slavery was such a big deal that it needed to be ensured by their constitution. Why would they do that?

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

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

#99
post #68
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.

> 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 i…

Apparently the idea of giving field workers freedom of self determination and wages didn’t even occur to them.

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

#100
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Considering the trillions of dollars in land stolen from them I wouldnt call this any sort of compensation
Post reply on HN