1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Let's Run an Agenda

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ShinyTop, Dec 22, 2002.

  1. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    This story reports that the US Park Service is changing their focus at Civil War parks around the country. They were recently criticized for making the south look too good. The will now focus on slavery as the cause of the war and its evil.

    Now I find no fault with naming slavery as a major cause of the war, although it is debatable, but I object to taking a park dedicated to a battle and changing the focus from the battle to causes of the war. Mention the causes, don't ignore them, but as a major fan of Civil War battle sites I go there to learn about the battle. That slavery was evil and may have been the reason many southerners fought, it should not take away from the history of the battles or from the valor shown by southern soldiers. For the record I grew up in Yankee country. I just deeply resent PC rewriting history.

    Edit: I erred. I promised long ago to give up the term PC as lazy writing. My rewrite of the last sentence should read: I deeply resent rewriting history to please special interest groups in order to get more money for your department. Anybody smell the Rainbow Coalition?
     
  2. IamZed

    IamZed ...

    Lets rewrite the Gettysburg address while were at it!
     
  3. Misu

    Misu Hey, I saw that.

    <i>Nowhere is the project more striking than at Gettysburg, site of the largest battle ever fought on American soil, where plans are going ahead to build a new visitors center and museum at a cost of <b>$95 million</b> that will completely change the way the conflict is presented to visitors. </i>

    I think this is the real reason why they're changing the focus of Gettysburg - since when does it cost 95 MILLION DOLLARS to build a visitors center and a museum?!? And you know it's not really going to be 95 million - that's just the projected budget for it. The end product will cost about 50% more. Can we say inflated gubment spending?
     
  4. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    Shiny I agree with you.

    I made the mistake of clicking on your link and reading the editorial and propaganda article masquerading as a news story.

    For Pete's sake they even tossed in an editorial comment about Trent Lott!

    I am not surprised to see the story was from Reuters. They are the only major newswire that is worse than AP in bias and inaccuracy.

    Slavery was a major factor in fighting and sustaining of the the Civil War but it was not in any way the cause of it. At best it help sustain the motivation and morale of the Northern populace during the war, especially through 1863.
     
  5. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Lincoln (who was not anti-slavery), in a letter to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase stated, "The original proclamation has no...legal justification, except as a military measure." Another statement by Secretary of State William Seward said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free. " This was in reference to the fact that the proclamation only applied to states in rebellion and not to states and territories that hadn't seceeded.

    As Lincoln stated in his letter to Horace Greeley, he was very much about preserving the Union by any and all means possible. To think that the actual issue of slavery was a substantive issue in regards to fighting the War Between the States is largely naive.
     
  6. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    Now Coot if you are going to honest and forthright about history you will never get that history professorship at any University that you crave so much!

    By the way the thread and article that started on it refer to Gettysburg battle. I am about to do something I seldom do and of good reason, that is recommend a Hollywood movie to really learn about a battle and to a lesser extent the civil war.

    See the 4 1/2 hour movie "Gettysburg" made by Turner. Even the video cassette is in widescreen version.

    The movie is literally like living the battle. All the characters and events are real. The movie is filmed on location and thousands of civil war recreation guys are used in the movies. Also the real words of the character are used as often as possible. One remarkable thing is that during the civil war soldiers wrote so much and many wrote so well that we have in their words what happen and what was said.

    A very powerful and moving film.
     
  7. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

    Naive as in unread, or naive as in so prejudiced that one cannot see the truth.....
    Apparently the breast beating has come to the point where no one may analyse Dred Scott as a case at bar, but must begin by saying that all people living before our own supremely enlightened time were evil racists, and child fuckers.
    I recall the night my daughter proclaimed that Jefferson was a racist pederast. Seriously. She did not sleep until she understood that there are sensitive men who fall in love, and that there is nothing obscene or ugly about his fathering the child he did, nor, by keeping slaves, was he inherently approving of the institution.
    How small our minds have become.
    Did not Emerson say that a foolish consistency is the hobgobblin of little minds?
    No, our own guilt drives us to rewrite what we refuse to see as a continuum of history.
    Would I keep a slave? In a three room flat in NY with two kids, dog, rabbit, hamster even, I doubt it were practical even if lawful. Have a child with a fourteen year old? To say that I could not conceive of falling in love with someone, irrespective of modern culture, is to admit I have become as heartless as the world around me.
    No, like most wars, the war between the states(funny, I do not see the bit in the Constitution about never leaving the union....must be my inability to understand law or language) was about money and culture. We are a secular society, Iran hates us. No more, no less. People kill because people hate. A whole bunch of people is a country, sort of. War is a country killing.
    "The Union inseparable" may have been deeply felt, likewise the moral repugnance for slavery, but to allow for such a simple minded presentation of the war is puerile.
    As to the battles, they need be presented as they were, history alive through her details. Those who bled mostly neither owned slaves nor had read the constitution. Have we no longer any fascination with our past? Are we so afraid of what we were, because of what we could become, we cannot face it?

    All good wishes,
    Yazdzik
     

Share This Page