holzman_tweed: (Default)
[personal profile] holzman_tweed
So Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina thought there might be an appropriate way for a United States Senator to state that their state hadn't "gotten over Lincoln", presumably for putting down the slaver's uprising of the 1860s.

You can bet your bottom dollar he doesn't understand why Blacks weren't over slavery in 1866, though.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-03-08 06:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] aliza250.livejournal.com
What, you mean you still believe the elementary-school myth that the Civil War was fought over slavery? Slavery was legal in the Union all throughout the Civil War...

(no subject)

Date: 2005-03-08 12:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] holzman.livejournal.com
What, you mean you still believe the elementary-school myth that the Civil War was fought over slavery?

The Civil War was fought over whether or not states could decide to seceede from the Union. The Confederate States of America chose to seceede from the Union over slavery -- just like they'd threatened to do every time they had trouble getting their way since the Constitution was written.

The rubric was "state's rights," but the "right" under contention was the "right" to own slaves not only in the south but in as many states that entered the union as could be gotten away with.

Slavery was legal in the Union all throughout the Civil War...

Except in the states that had banned it, of course.

Finally found it!

Date: 2005-03-11 12:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] salsuginous.livejournal.com
I read an interesting website about slavery in the Union awhile back and couldn't remember the website. Interesting stuff, if you are interested in that sorta thing:

http://www.slavenorth.com

(no subject)

Date: 2005-03-08 08:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] salsuginous.livejournal.com
When I read the article, I read it as him poking fun at the constituents in his state (although most likely the white constituents) and their lovely Confederate pride (which doesn't seem to always be racist from the people I've encountered...but maybe I'm just not getting it.)

I wish I could remember where I saw it, but there is some group that wants to move 1000s of Christians to South Carolina because they believe that our current national government has thrown aside the Constitution and states Constiutional rights (and of course their moral, God-fearing roots) and South Carolina is the place they want to set up house and try to seceed.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-03-08 12:36 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] cheshyre
I did see a comment (by a black blogger, if that makes any difference) that:
Graham, who isn't known for playing the race card, is being unfairly attacked. He's not talking about slavery, but the burning of the state capital, Columbia, in 1865. Without context, it sounds horribly racist, but what people don't widely realize is that Sherman's march to the Sea didn't end at Savannah, but continued well into the Carolinas and ended at New Bern, NC in April, 1865. In fact, Sherman's Army of the Tennessee destroyed far more in South Carolina than Georgia. And this is what Graham is talking about. Not some longing for slaves.
More at http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/03/hard-feelings-still.html

(no subject)

Date: 2005-03-08 12:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] holzman.livejournal.com
That would certainly place his comments in a different context.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-03-08 01:50 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] cheshyre
I will note that I haven't followed the story or controversy, but Steve Gilliard is probably among my top-ten newsbloggers to read, and is generally pretty accurate and insightful.

I don't *know* that his interpretation is the correct one, but he's earned a certain benefit of the doubt from me.

FWIW.

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags