quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

The idea of American national identity was still very much associated with the typical white Anglo-Saxon Protestant

Say 20 or 30 years ago, the dominant thinking in England was that the Anglo-Saxons displaced the Romano/Ancient Britons, becoming the predominant people of England.

Recent studies suggest that line of argument is nonsense, supported by genetics suggesting that the people of Britain and Ireland share pretty much the same DNA, which is not derived from Northern Europe at all: we share ancestry with Iberia apparently. Which, in turn, would suggest the Anglo-Saxons didn't displace anyone, nor settle here in large enough numbers.

So, it seems these 'Anglo-Saxon Protestants' in the United States were wide of the mark in that largely they didn't really exist as a predominant people in England, and it just goes to show how misplaced it is to see value in genetics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR

What does any of this Nationalism discussion have to do with the American Civil War?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

The idea of American national identity was still very much associated with the typical white Anglo-Saxon Protestant

Say 20 or 30 years ago, the dominant thinking in England was that the Anglo-Saxons displaced the Romano/Ancient Britons, becoming the predominant people of England.

Recent studies suggest that line of argument is nonsense, supported by genetics suggesting that the people of Britain and Ireland share pretty much the same DNA, which is not derived from Northern Europe at all: we share ancestry with Iberia apparently. Which, in turn, would suggest the Anglo-Saxons didn't displace anyone, nor settle here in large enough numbers.

So, it seems these 'Anglo-Saxon Protestants' in the United States were wide of the mark in that largely they didn't really exist as a predominant people in England, and it just goes to show how misplaced it is to see value in genetics.

I agree, the identity itself was a contrivance which persisted for generations, but since we've been trying to move away from that, we're finding that our true "national identity" is quite a bit more complicated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

The "identity" discussion brings to mind a favorite exchange from 1776:

John Adams: That little paper there deals with freedom for Americans!
Edward Rutledge: Oh, really. Mr. Adams is now calling our black slaves "Americans!" Are they, now?
John Adams: Yes, they are. They are people, and they are here. If there's any other requirement, I haven't heard it.

quote:

He argues that the United States needs the Civil War to be about slavery

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

He argues that the United States needs the Civil War to be about slavery

It needs to be about slavery because it is the truth...Slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy... there was no other reason for the succession. Those that think state rights had anything to do with it are wrong and just hiding from the truth. All they need to do is read Alexander Stephens speech... All led from slavery and the slave driven economy with state rights as an excuse to justify their enslavement of humans for profit.

I do believe many of the young men who fought and died for the Confederacy were just fighting for home and pride but the war was started because of slavery and greed.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

He argues that the United States needs the Civil War to be about slavery

It needs to be about slavery because it is the truth...Slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy... there was no other reason for the succession. Those that think state rights had anything to do with it are wrong and just hiding from the truth. All they need to do is read Alexander Stephens speech... All led from slavery and the slave driven economy with state rights as an excuse to justify their enslavement of humans for profit.

I do believe many of the young men who fought and died for the Confederacy were just fighting for home and pride but the war was started because of slavery and greed.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

He argues that the United States needs the Civil War to be about slavery

It needs to be about slavery because it is the truth...Slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy... there was no other reason for the succession. Those that think state rights had anything to do with it are wrong and just hiding from the truth. All they need to do is read Alexander Stephens speech... All led from slavery and the slave driven economy with state rights as an excuse to justify their enslavement of humans for profit.

I do believe many of the young men who fought and died for the Confederacy were just fighting for home and pride but the war was started because of slavery and greed.

Butch

Well, from what I've read, admittedly only a couple of books, Lincoln feared that including black Americans in the army would cause the border states to secede; and so black Americans were able to enlist in 1862.

So, what does this tell you? That at the outset of the war maintaining the union was the most important issue for Lincoln? And, that not only in Southern states was there segregation?

Black soldiers did not receive equal pay or equal treatment in the Union Army, and their captains didn't bother training them in some instances as they had no faith in them.

That doesn't sound like a sudden redemption in one part of the country to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

He argues that the United States needs the Civil War to be about slavery

It needs to be about slavery because it is the truth...Slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy... there was no other reason for the succession. Those that think state rights had anything to do with it are wrong and just hiding from the truth. All they need to do is read Alexander Stephens speech... All led from slavery and the slave driven economy with state rights as an excuse to justify their enslavement of humans for profit.

I do believe many of the young men who fought and died for the Confederacy were just fighting for home and pride but the war was started because of slavery and greed.

Butch

Well, from what I've read, admittedly only a couple of books, Lincoln feared that including black Americans in the army would cause the border states to secede; and so black Americans were able to enlist in 1862.

So, what does this tell you? That at the outset of the war maintaining the union was the most important issue for Lincoln? And, that not only in Southern states was there segregation?

Black soldiers did not receive equal pay or equal treatment in the Union Army, and their captains didn't bother training them in some instances as they had no faith in them.

That doesn't sound like a sudden redemption in one part of the country to me.

They only went to using blacks in large numbers when the volunteers dried up.
Why?
Because while the Irish in particular volunteered in droves to protect the Union, they weren't going to fight to help blacks compete with them at the bottom of the economic ladder. Remember this was a time when "Irish need not apply" was a common statement at the bottom of help wanted signs. It is virtually unknown that Meade could not pursue Lee after Gettysburg because he had to take his army to New York to put down the "draft riots" which was basically Irishmen lynching every black they could get their hands on. Worst outbreak of racial violence in the nations history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

The idea of American national identity was still very much associated with the typical white Anglo-Saxon Protestant

Say 20 or 30 years ago, the dominant thinking in England was that the Anglo-Saxons displaced the Romano/Ancient Britons, becoming the predominant people of England.

Recent studies suggest that line of argument is nonsense, supported by genetics suggesting that the people of Britain and Ireland share pretty much the same DNA, which is not derived from Northern Europe at all: we share ancestry with Iberia apparently. Which, in turn, would suggest the Anglo-Saxons didn't displace anyone, nor settle here in large enough numbers.

So, it seems these 'Anglo-Saxon Protestants' in the United States were wide of the mark in that largely they didn't really exist as a predominant people in England, and it just goes to show how misplaced it is to see value in genetics.

I agree, the identity itself was a contrivance which persisted for generations, but since we've been trying to move away from that, we're finding that our true "national identity" is quite a bit more complicated.

That's interesting. From a long distance I would have thought there is something that is clearly American - related to culture and values. What would be complicated about it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

The idea of American national identity was still very much associated with the typical white Anglo-Saxon Protestant

Say 20 or 30 years ago, the dominant thinking in England was that the Anglo-Saxons displaced the Romano/Ancient Britons, becoming the predominant people of England.

Recent studies suggest that line of argument is nonsense, supported by genetics suggesting that the people of Britain and Ireland share pretty much the same DNA, which is not derived from Northern Europe at all: we share ancestry with Iberia apparently. Which, in turn, would suggest the Anglo-Saxons didn't displace anyone, nor settle here in large enough numbers.

So, it seems these 'Anglo-Saxon Protestants' in the United States were wide of the mark in that largely they didn't really exist as a predominant people in England, and it just goes to show how misplaced it is to see value in genetics.

I agree, the identity itself was a contrivance which persisted for generations, but since we've been trying to move away from that, we're finding that our true "national identity" is quite a bit more complicated.

That's interesting. From a long distance I would have thought there is something that is clearly American - related to culture and values. What would be complicated about it?

Well, as you can see from this and other threads, there's sharp disagreement over the causes of the Civil War, what the flag means (Confederate or otherwise), so it's not quite so cut-and-dried as far as what is "clearly American." A lot of people also argue over what is "un-American," as if there's one twue way of being an American and anyone who doesn't fall into those parameters is "not a real American." Then there was all that hullabaloo over Obama's birth certificate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

He argues that the United States needs the Civil War to be about slavery

It needs to be about slavery because it is the truth...Slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy... there was no other reason for the succession. Those that think state rights had anything to do with it are wrong and just hiding from the truth. All they need to do is read Alexander Stephens speech... All led from slavery and the slave driven economy with state rights as an excuse to justify their enslavement of humans for profit.

I do believe many of the young men who fought and died for the Confederacy were just fighting for home and pride but the war was started because of slavery and greed.

Butch

Well, from what I've read, admittedly only a couple of books, Lincoln feared that including black Americans in the army would cause the border states to secede; and so black Americans were able to enlist in 1862.

So, what does this tell you? That at the outset of the war maintaining the union was the most important issue for Lincoln? And, that not only in Southern states was there segregation?

Black soldiers did not receive equal pay or equal treatment in the Union Army, and their captains didn't bother training them in some instances as they had no faith in them.

That doesn't sound like a sudden redemption in one part of the country to me.

They only went to using blacks in large numbers when the volunteers dried up.
Why?
Because while the Irish in particular volunteered in droves to protect the Union, they weren't going to fight to help blacks compete with them at the bottom of the economic ladder. Remember this was a time when "Irish need not apply" was a common statement at the bottom of help wanted signs. It is virtually unknown that Meade could not pursue Lee after Gettysburg because he had to take his army to New York to put down the "draft riots" which was basically Irishmen lynching every black they could get their hands on. Worst outbreak of racial violence in the nations history.

Yes, and in London mid to late 19th century, Irishmen gave the arriving Eastern Europeans a hard time. Just as East Enders had given the Irish a hard time. Over jobs. Where I live there was a massive influx of Irish and you can still hear the phrase from the older generation when things seem untidy: "it's like Paddy's Alley in here". Seems to me that when people, all people, feel their livelihood threatened all reason goes out of the window.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Redemption …sure their was… but that was not the direction of my post. There is only one reason for the civil war and that is the south’s fear of losing its slaves… period.

The north’s response was a mixed bag of reasons but just as today, if Texas decided to secede from the union, their would be a military response.

The redemption was in the first steps in removing the yoke of slavery whether it started out that way makes no difference in the end.

The final result… no matter the motivations of individual politicians and citizens was the preservation of the union and the first steps toward the freedom of an enslaved race of people. Nothing else but death and destruction came from this tragedy.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Redemption …sure their was… but that was not the direction of my post. There is only one reason for the civil war and that is the south’s fear of losing its slaves… period.

The north’s response was a mixed bag of reasons but just as today, if Texas decided to secede from the union, their would be a military response.

The redemption was in the first steps in removing the yoke of slavery whether it started out that way makes no difference in the end.

The final result… no matter the motivations of individual politicians and citizens was the preservation of the union and the first steps toward the freedom of an enslaved race of people. Nothing else but death and destruction came from this tragedy.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

By declaring themselves above Federal law sanctuary cities have in effect seceded, where is the military response?