I'm not KKK, I just want to preserve my heritage...

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Indeed. In many of the back hollows of Appalachia, strangers are often viewed with a great deal of apprehension and suspicion. The worst part of Appalachia in this regard is southwestern West Virginia and southeastern Kentucky. I've spent considerable time there consulting on flood protection projects and it can be a tad hostile at times.

Where you ever in Grundy, Va.?

http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/grundy3.htm

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

That's was definitely the reason for Southern leaders and plantation owners and they succeeded in getting poor Scots-Irish hillbillies to fight their battles, just as Trump is using them for his own purposes now. Just ask Steve Bannon (who recently admitted as much).

Maybe that was the communications that channeled in the cities and towns where the rich plantation owners mingled. I doubt that rhetoric resonated much with the "poor Scots-Irish hillbillies".

And there you go again....

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

I made no comparison between the frequency or severity of the treatment of black Americans of any particular period of time dickweed. That belongs to you. But since you brought it up...in the main, the treatment of black Americans by white Americans right now in this country is despicable. I leave it to ridiculous nazi pigs like you and whell to attempt to minimize it.

That's right. Nazi Pig, anything to shut down the conversation if it drifts towards any variable in the equation that is not racism.

That's cool. Have a few more generations of government subsidized poverty from your liberal progressive leaders.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

That's right. Nazi Pig, anything to shut down the conversation if it drifts towards any variable in the equation that is not racism.

That's cool. Have a few more generations of government subsidized poverty from your liberal progressive leaders.

As monumentally flaccid an argument as I've eve read.

[donquixote99]

s

Originally Posted by whell

Now, think about how this 'hospitality" might have been 150 years ago, and how it might have influenced the mindset of Southerners when thinking about Northerners and the Union Army. Then try to tell me that the "only thing on their minds was preserving the institution of slavery", when most of them likely didn't own slaves.

Like people everywhere, these southern folk that made up the rank and file followed leaders. The leaders said, 'They're a comin' we gotta fight 'em,' so they lined up. This is instinctive.

In the North, the leaders said, 'They're rebels, we gotta go get 'em,' and folks lined up on that side. This also is instinctive.

This triggering was all set up by 10 years of increasing outrage in the North over bloody Kansas and the like, and the horrid insults from the sadistic slaverunners. And likewise in the South, increasing outrage over John Brown, and the horrid insults of the crazy abolitionists.

And the leaders on both sides were playing the usual leader economic and power and ego games, while also being whipped themselves by the same emotions that whipped the masses.

But without slavery, no one would have gotten whipped up enough to get all hateful like they did, and have a big war.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Maybe that was the communications that channeled in the cities and towns where the rich plantation owners mingled. I doubt that rhetoric resonated much with the "poor Scots-Irish hillbillies".



And there you go again....

Are you disputing that Southern planters and leaders got poor, rural whites to fight their battle over maintaining the institution of slavery?

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

s

Like people everywhere, these southern folk that made up the rank and file followed leaders. The leaders said, 'They're a comin' we gotta fight 'em,' so they lined up. This is instinctive.

In the North, the leaders said, 'They're rebels, we gotta go get 'em,' and folks lined up on that side. This also is instinctive.

This triggering was all set up by 10 years of increasing outrage in the North over bloody Kansas and the like, and the horrid insults from the sadistic slaverunners. And likewise in the South, increasing outrage over John Brown, and the horrid insults of the crazy abolitionists.

And the leaders on both sides were playing the usual leader economic and power and ego games, while also being whipped themselves by the same emotions that whipped the masses.

But without slavery, no one would have gotten whipped up enough to get all hateful like they did, and have a big war.

I think its instructive to read books like "For Cause and Comrades", which is a historical analysis of the letters home and diaries of the soldiers who fought the war on both sides. It was written by John McPherson, who has earned a number of awards for his scholarly work, including the Pulitzer for History. He reviewed something like 25,000 letters from soldiers and hundreds of diary entries.

What did he conclude?

The soldiers of the Civil War remained powerfully convinced of the ideals for which they fought throughout the conflict. Motivated by duty and honor, and often by religious faith. The soldiers wrote often of their firm belief in the cause for which they fought: the principles of liberty, freedom, justice, and patriotism.

Soldiers on both sides of the Civil War harkened back to the Founding Fathers, and the ideals of the American Revolution. They fought to defend their country, either the Union--"the best Government ever made"--or the Confederate states, where their very homes and families were under siege. And they fought to defend their honor and manhood.

Interesting in how, from the soldiers point of view, their cause was more similar than it was different.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Are you disputing that Southern planters and leaders got poor, rural whites to fight their battle over maintaining the institution of slavery?

They certainly were urged to fight. I disagree with your apparent view that their intrinsic motivation can best be described in monolithic terms.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

I think its instructive to read books like "For Cause and Comrades", which is a historical analysis of the letters home and diaries of the soldiers who fought the war on both sides. It was written by John McPherson, who has earned a number of awards for his scholarly work, including the Pulitzer for History. He reviewed something like 25,000 letters from soldiers and hundreds of diary entries.

What did he conclude?

The soldiers of the Civil War remained powerfully convinced of the ideals for which they fought throughout the conflict. Motivated by duty and honor, and often by religious faith. The soldiers wrote often of their firm belief in the cause for which they fought: the principles of liberty, freedom, justice, and patriotism.

Soldiers on both sides of the Civil War harkened back to the Founding Fathers, and the ideals of the American Revolution. They fought to defend their country, either the Union--"the best Government ever made"--or the Confederate states, where their very homes and families were under siege. And they fought to defend their honor and manhood.

Interesting in how, from the soldiers point of view, their cause was more similar than it was different.

The causes were completely similar. Following their leaders, the men set out to fight the dangerous enemy of their tribe. All the rest is story and happenstance. Because the conflict in this case was a cultural schism, they shared some of the same stories.

What the leaders were up to is somewhat more complex, but they too, as was mentioned in the case of Jefferson Davis, were to a large degree carried along by events, not in control of them.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by finnbow

That's was definitely the reason for Southern leaders and plantation owners and they succeeded in getting poor Scots-Irish hillbillies to fight their battles, just as Trump is using them for his own purposes now. Just ask Steve Bannon (who recently admitted as much).

What's the difference between the poor disenfranchised white dupes of 1861 and the poor disenfranchised white dupes of 2016? The poor disenfranchised white dupes of 1861 died in their 20's...gut shot.