is this mascot offensive?

[Froward69]

it is the old mascot of my HS.

the new mascot is
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/photos/2009/feb/19/128282/

it depicts the gargoyle on top of the school named "Girdie" by students generations ago.
I Take pride in the old mascot. as well as all my Black friends from HS and mulatto siblings are not offended by it either.
yet the school board saw fit to change it.

[mmonk]

1. The confederacy was and is offensive to many.

[Froward69]

4. Granted

but a school mascot depicting the common soldier should not be offensive.

[mmonk]

7. If someone had a mascot that was a common soldier

from Nazi Germany, I don't think the fact the mascot was a common soldier would matter. Why should it in this case?

[Occam Bandage]

30. I had a similar thought upon reading that post.

"Would a member of the Waffen-SS, then, be an appropriate mascot?"

[Belial]

2. someone is bound to be offended by everything at some point

[LanternWaste]

6. But much fewer are the instances...

But much fewer are the instances (and hence, much greater validity illustrated) when an entire demographic or groups of demographics are offended by a symbol or piece of imagery.

[kirby]

3. Dude...

If this was my new mascot



I would be pissed too! Looks like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after his arrest!

[MADem]

9. KSM has more of a party on top with his 'do, though! nt

[frylock]

72. i would move to the district that used carl for a mascot..

that would be FREAKIN AWESOME!!!

[Deja Q]

76. Give that dude a bottle of Nair.

:hide:

[MADem]

5. it looks like Abe Lincoln in a confederate uniform.

I'd say it's more "ironic" than anything else....

After all, Abe, as he iterated in speeches, was willing to embrace the vanquished, reform the union, though that goofy hat doesn't look too swift on him.

The new mascot? I say rename the team "The Angry Birds!"

[Froward69]

11. the new one

is the gargoyle on the top of the school. her name is Girdie. so essentially those who forgot history are willing to have a HS nickname the "Girdles".

besides Lincoln is the face. in a B/W depiction that was the trade off the last time this PC BS came around.

the style of hat was both Union and Confederate. the only difference was the color. Grey and Blue.

[MADem]

15. Hell, if you want to keep the REBEL name, make your mascot an image of James Dean.

The old REBEL Without a Cause....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Denver has a rich heritage of fighting for the Confederacy.

:eyes:

The mascot dates to 1924, when the KKK, white supremacy, and Confederate apologia were sweeping the country. Denver included.

[Froward69]

14. True

the other DPS mascots are all generic. like say lancers... I ask what the hell did Lincoln ever have to do with a lancer?

or East Angels, colors red and white... what of the atheists? or East clearly depicts an association to the hells Angels?

At South the school colors are Purple and white... yet offensive?

[enlightenment]

16. My high school, in Aurora,

was almost sued by the International Olympic Committee for copyright infringement . . . I remember the girl who won the design contest for the logo when the school opened. The suit came up a few years after I graduated (a looonnngg time ago!) I've always rather appreciated that we managed to piss off the IOC.

[Hawkeye-X]

98. Our mascot was the Jolly Green Giant..

and the face is a footprint. Green and White. Go Patriots!

And I don't mean New England.

Hawkeye-X

[NeedleCast]

10. I don't think it's offensive

[Liberal_in_LA]

12. Yeah. get rid of it.

[Captain Hilts]

13. THIS one sure is:

[mmonk]

17. Maybe if it were thought up by decendents of British Protestants

instead of Irish Catholics.

[iamthebandfanman]

110. bah, distasteful is distasteful....

so if that monkey cartoon had been made by a person with dark skin it would have been okay?

[Captain Hilts]

118. How many Irish attend and run Notre Dame? Make it Fightin' Catholics instead. nt

[Liberal_in_LA]

90. that's offensive to bald men, short people, Irish, people who wear green.

[rvablue]

18. You actually refer to your siblings as "mulatto"?!?!?!?!?! Oh. My. No wonder you're not offended.

[geardaddy]

24. My thoughts exactly. n/t

[uppityperson]

19. I can see changing it. "mulatto siblings"? Wtf?

The new one is pretty cool, much more current. If you have "mulatto siblings" I can see why you may be fine with it.

[noamnety]

20. Obviously people found it offensive.

Apparently what you want us to decide is whether it's enough that you have some black friends who aren't offended by it.

"I know some black people who aren't offended" isn't any kind of standard. I know some black kids who shrugged and weren't offended when a white kid wore black face to school as a halloween costume ... but it was still (unintentionally? ignorantly?) racist - offensively so.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

21. "Mulatto?"

No wonder you don't see anything wrong with it.

[JVS]

83. lol

[GreenPartyVoter]

128. Ayuh

[Uncle Joe]

22. I view it as divisive, but not offensive, although I understand why some people

do view it as offensive.

[crikkett]

23. It's time to change anyway. Since you ask, yes, an Armed Insurgent is

an offensive mascot.

Hooray that your school board decided to stop glorifying a struggle to keep people in slavery.

Black History Month is a great time to do it, too.

[Kalyke]

25. I have more important things to be offended by, frankly.

[fishwax]

26. they should have changed it years ago

[LibertyLover]

27. I have to confess that the old mascot does not bother me

too much. I think it's because the battle flag of the Confederacy is not in evidence and because my husband does Civil War re-enacting as a CSA soldier (who doesn't have the battle flag anywhere on his uniform - the Louisiana state flag yes, but not the Confederate battle flag). But I understand why people may have been upset. However, the new mascot rocks! I love gargoyles and have one on my front step and several around the house. Way cooler than a Civil War CSA soldier's head to my way of thinking. Only thing is I would have changed the team name to The Gargoyles. But that is just my two copper coins' worth of opinion and you may take it or leave it at your pleasure.

[Zomby Woof]

113. Your husband's uniform is correct

The so-called "Confederate battle flag" was the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, which Louisiana was not a part of. That would be the Army of the Trans-Mississippi, which did not adopt any single battle standard - often relying on state flags or such.

The only reason people are upset is because the quality of their education is lacking. If Lincoln had made emancipation the objective of the war from the outset, Union soldiers would have deserted in droves. Abolition was not a mainstream movement, nor the motivation of northern soldiers who took the objective of "preserving the union" at its word.

[Thothmes]

119. Actually in 1864, the Confederate Army adopted

the ANV flag design for the entire army. War ended before all of the units could shift over to the new regimental colors. Some Louisiana Regts fought in the Army of Northern Virginia. The three regiments in Starks Brigade were from Louisiana.

[Occam Bandage]

28. The Confederacy was a nation founded on the right to own people as slaves,

for fear that right would be taken away from them by the incoming President Lincoln. Any other claim is bald historical revisionism. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died in the ensuing war.

[Kalyke]

31. Hmmm... considering most people who fought in that war

from the South did NOT own slaves, I think the revisionism is yours.

Was slavery a part of states rights? Yep. But it wasn't the only part.

I would even accept that the wealthy who wanted to own slaves ginned up larger stories about states rights to sell to the little people, but those people bought it - in much the same way so many bought Bush's lies regarding the War on Terror. But the fact is that many fighting in and supporting the WOT do not believe it's about oil. Just like so many Southerners truly believed they were fighting for states rights.

Not defending slavery, mind you, but stating that "any other claim is bald historical revisionism" is, well, bald historical revisionism.

[EFerrari]

33. Just because the sheeple didn't know they were defending slavery

doesn't mean they weren't defending slavery. That's how it always goes, the poor are sent to die for the rich and their way of life.

[Kalyke]

37. But, in their minds, they weren't defending slavery.

Most didn't own them, couldn't afford to own them and would never afford to own them. They honestly believed they were fighting to give more rights to the states and less to the federal government.

States rights is still a much larger issue than slavery. Heck, even the abortion proponents push states rights in hopes of allowing the banning of abortion in certain more conservative states. Is states rights only about abortion? No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights

It's generally used as a scapegoat for issues ranging from slavery (1861) to abortion (present day), but it's more than just about "pet" items for the rich or religious.

[Occam Bandage]

40. That is an absolute crock.

When South Carolina seceded, claiming the "tyranny" of the North, it was not afraid of tax distribution, nor of import tariffs. Every single event leading up to the war was about slavery. Every. Single. One. The Missouri Compromise. The 1850 Compromise. Kansas-Nebraska. Bleeding Kansas. Dred Scott. Harper's Ferry. Lincoln's election. Even the 1830 Nullification Crisis, which was specifically about tariffs and states' rights regarding them, was seen by the Southern public primarily as a first step towards Northern abolition of Southern slavery.

The claims of the noble struggle for States' Rights as an abstract ideal are a modern fabrication dating from the 1920s and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and Confederate apologism. When a Southern fighting man said "States' Rights," he knew what he meant.

[DevonRex]

44. Absolutely right. By the way, my teachers NEVER spelled out what OTHER

states' rights they meant when they said it was over states' rights. Never. Not once. And I was a straight A student. Graduated at the top of my class. I'd know if those other "states' rights" had been enumerated. They weren't.

[Kalyke]

70. And history is taught from the point of view of the war winner.

No surprise there.

You have Google. Look it up.

I'm leaving this thread now.

Honestly, though - there are so many other things happening NOW to be offended about. Things that actually threaten peoples' lives NOW.

[Kalyke]

45. Crock yourself.

I'm so tired of holier-than-thou DUers who simply want to Southern bash Every. Single. Time. It's tiring, it's stupid and it serves no fucking purpose but to find an excuse to call Southerns stupid - even though we know from personal writings what our ancestors thought - on both sides (mine did).

Personally, I think arguing about the Civil War is providence of Northerners, because Southerners never talk about it. Rebels and Union soldier depictions do not offend us either way. We could care less.

[fishwax]

57. "southern bash"?

Is it southern bashing to point out that the Civil War was about slavery?

[DevonRex]

60. No it is not. And I was born and raised in the south. It was about slavery. nt

[Fire1]

73. Well, not ALL about slavery.

[Occam Bandage]

66. It's not Southern-bashing.

I'm the direct (entirely matrilineal line, quirky enough) descendant of a Maryland plantation owner who was an officer (of absolutely no renown or note whatsoever) in the Confederate army. I have no idea what his thoughts were; if he ever wrote or said anything it's lost. I think the South is a lovely place, full of lovely people, and certainly do not think anyone today is to blame for what their ancestors did. The sins of the father are not on the child; that goes far more so for the sins of the great-great-great grandfather, and still more so considering the evolution of cultural beliefs regarding race and society.

That doesn't change the fact that the Confederacy was a nation built on the right to own people.

[Zomby Woof]

115. To quote George Carlin

"The United States was founded by slaveowners who wanted to be free." Note the country there. United States.

What cracks me up is the same DUers who pat themselves on the back reassuring themselves what fine and perfect liberals they are, because they can all agree the Confederacy was this, that, or the other as traitors and bad guys, can go into another thread, and bitch about how the U.S. in recent years has been betraying the principles of a document written by slaveowner Thomas Jefferson, and a constitution drafted and ratified by large numbers of slaveowners.

Slavery was an American problem - and had been more or less global (sadly, still is) for millenia - Ancient Egypt, Rome, etc. The slave trade in Anglo-America started in Massachusetts (gasp! a NORTHERN STATE!) during colonial times, and never let go as it quickly took hold in the agrarian south. It's a shared history we have as Americans - not a southern history or a northern history or a black history or a white history - or a Native American history. A shared, common history full of tragedy and hopeful redemption.

[Thothmes]

120. The first slaves sold in the United State

were sold in Hampton Virginia

[Occam Bandage]

124. I think there is a difference between

a nation with slaveowners being founded, and a nation founded purely on the right to own slaves, nor do I think that holding that difference excuses either.

[marksmithfield]

74. We southerners are scum ya know

Just on general principles alone.

[fascisthunter]

80. oh brother

[Hugabear]

101. Oh grow the hell up, will you?

Pointing out that the Confederacy embraced slavery, that the war was primarily about slavery, is NOT "Southern bashing".

That's like saying that pointing out the evils of Hitler and his Nazi government is "German bashing".

[Arugula Latte]

88. Oh please ... The "it was actually about states' rights, not slavery" argument

is so old and so predictable and so rightwing and also so false.

[RandomKoolzip]

129. Southerners never talk about the Civil War?! Are you shitting me, Pyle?

When i lived in Nashville, TWO of my landlords were actors in Civil War re-enactments. "The South Will Rise Again" was a popular bumper sticker down there. The goddamned confederate flag hung from many a porch window.

Than again, maybe you're right; i never actually HEARD anyone from the South talking about a SPECIFIC event called the "Civil War." They always talked about the "War of Northern Aggression" and sometimes the "War Between the States." I guess those were different wars. :eyes:

[Hugabear]

99. Thank you very much. These Confederate apologists can't seem to understand that.

They want us to believe that for decades leading up to the Civil War, every single dispute between the South and North dealt with the issue of slavery, and somehow it was TARIFFS that caused the Civil War?

Oh, sure, it was about states rights. The Southern states' rights to keep slaves!

[fishwax]

41. sure they were

They were fighting to "defend the southern way of life," to which the institution of slavery was central. Whether or not they owned slaves isn't really relevant.

[DevonRex]

46. I'll agree with you that many had no idea it was only about slavery.

Most fought out of loyalty to where they lived. And because their ministers told them it was God's work. And because the rich landowners got the politicians to whip the common man up into a frenzy of hatred toward the North.

But there is no doubt that the war was fought over slavery.

[EFerrari]

48. Baloney. First, unless you're Miss Clio, you don't know what was in their minds.

Second, no one is going to defend their Glorious Cause by claiming they support enslaving human beings. And third, don't you mean choice advocates, not "abortion proponents"? :)

[Kalyke]

Or unless I can read their diaries.

:crazy:

(Pssstt... they did write back then. We had pens and paper down here. :eyes:)

[EFerrari]

53. You're defending against an attack I didn't make. What's up with that?

:)

[marksmithfield]

75. Kind of hard to write

because according to most DU'ers we all have seven fingers on each hand and are far to busy screwing our sister (who is also our aunt) to have learnt to write.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

59. Well, actually, the Declarations of Secession straight up give "slavery" as their reason.

Georgia:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic

Mississippi:

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 should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

South Carolina:

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

[EFerrari]

64. Thank you. I didn't know any of that.

:hi:

[DevonRex]

67. And there's the state in which I was born - Mississippi. Short and

definitely not sweet. It was about slavery. Straight up. No bones about it. Funny how my teachers never taught those declarations to us, isn't it?

They are still in denial. They are STILL lying after all these years.

[treestar]

58. But what were they going to get out of it?

There would have to be some reason states' rights would be of benefit to them.

If the way of life was not good for them, they'd have fought for the Union.

Maybe like the blue collar freepers, they believed they could own slaves one day if they worked hard enough.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

65. In the south, people feared violence from freed slaves. In several southern states, the populations

of would-be-free african americans came close or outnumbered the populations of white southerners. Northerners and Southerners both shared another fear. They feared that free african americans would take "white" jobs.

[DevonRex]

34. Southerners have been taught that it was over states' rights. But that is a lie.

It was over slavery. Period. Preachers also told their flocks back then that slavery was a good thing according to the Bible. That was a lie, too.

I grew up in the south. I know what I was taught. Now I know better, thank goodness.

[Kalyke]

39. I grew up in the South, too.

And, I still know better - you, however, have been had.

Did any of your ancestors fight in that war? Mine did. Did they own slaves? Nope. They weren't fighting for that. They were fighting for independence from the federal government.

I'm not agreeing that it was a just fight and I'm very happy the South lost - I'm just arguing that a large majority of Southerners wanted states rights and weren't fighting about slavery. What their elected representatives said and did are two different things.

Oh - and slavery is in the Bible, but so is a host of other horrid things.

[DevonRex]

42. Just because they believed the lie doesn't mean it wasn't about slavery.

And just because slavery is in the Bible doesn't mean it's a good thing. This is Logic 101 here.

[Kalyke]

47. I just called it a horrid thing, but I guess you missed that.

Oh - and thanks for calling my ancestors - who never owned any slaves - liars.

I appreciate it.

[DevonRex]

52. Um, the people who believed the lie weren't the liars. So, unless your ancestors

were the ones who lied about the reason for the war, I didn't call them liars.

[LanternWaste]

55. Might I suggest you read each of the particular state's articles of secession

Might I suggest you read each of the particular state's articles of secession? The only commonality each has with the others are the points regarding the north's attitude towards slavery.

"Oh - and slavery is in the history books, but so is (sic) a host of other horrid things."
(Six of one, half a dozen of the other...)

[Radical Activist]

35. So you're saying it wasn't about slavery

because thousands of Southern troops were duped into thinking it wasn't about slavery? No, the war was about slavery and Iraq is about oil and what soldiers are duped into believing doesn't change that fact.

And there was no polling at that time so one can only speculate about what most soldiers believed.

[Kalyke]

43. Polling?! LMAO!!!!!

How about the fact that most of the fighters were dirt farmers with no hope of every owning any slaves. It wasn't about that to them.

And, what I'm saying is that to the VAST MAJORITY OF SOUTHERNERS it wasn't about slavery because it wasn't. Thinly disguised or not, it simply wasn't about slavery to most of the people who actually fought and/or died in the war, like, oh, Robert E. Lee, for example (who didn't die in the war).

Northerners use this as an excuse to accuse Southerners, to this day, of holding the most racist opinions, when, in actuality, more people of color live in the South and our relations are better than those lily-white Northern states which seem to have far more racial problems in this day and age than we do here.

[Occam Bandage]

54. No, it was not about personally owning slaves. Obviously not.

It was rather about preserving the South. Slavery was the fundamental institution of the South; it was what made the South, well, Southern. Southern society, from the elite to the poor, revolved around the peculiar institution. Slavery was not incidental to Southern culture, it was the foundation of, the center of, and the most striking feature of Southern culture.

You cry States' Rights in the war? Look at the buildup to the war. The South did not shudder in fear when Lincoln said "this nation cannot remain half disrespectful of Federal import tariff regulations and half respectful." Thousands of Southern and Northern proto-guerrillas did not fight a bloody, protracted war of skirmishes in Kansas Territory over whether farmers would be living in a government that had the capability to override taxation and conscription requirements or one that did not. John Brown did not become a nightmare figure because he threatened a rebellion of postal service workers reporting to a Federal bureau and not a state bureau.

It was all slavery. It was always slavery. And it was only slavery.

[Radical Activist]

104. You get it.

And many people in the South who didn't own slaves were still convinced that slavery was the central institution of Southern culture and existence. Any argument that differed from that view was censored in various ways.

[LanternWaste]

61. However, wars are never predicated or fought...

"I'm saying is that to the VAST MAJORITY OF SOUTHERNERS it wasn't about slavery because it wasn't..."

However, wars are never predicated or fought on the principle's of the common man. They are in fact, predicated on what those in power either want or want to maintain.

They are in fact fought regarldess of what the common man may or may not think the war is about.


"But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in a battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all `We died at such a place;' some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon their children rawly left. . . . Now if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it......"
William Shakespeare, Henry V

[fishwax]

68. the fact that many soldiers didn't own slaves doesn't really prove anything

:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

93. Slavery was about a way of life, many argued then.

Soldiers who didn't own slaves were absolutely convinced that it was worth fighting for. So once again, the fact that most soldiers didn't own slaves proves nothing.
And yes, it's funny to laugh about polling just as it's funny for you to pretend to know why most soldiers fought. No one does. There's no more than anecdotal evidence that indicates even soldiers who didn't own slaves believed the war to be about slavery.

[Radical Activist]

100. Oh, and you sound like 1950's white segregationists

who said this exact same thing during the civil rights struggles.

"more people of color live in the South and our relations are better than those lily-white Northern states which seem to have far more racial problems in this day and age than we do here."


The often repeated sentiment in the 1950's went something like,
"Yep, us Southerners know how to handle the coloreds better than you northerners. They were happy and stayed in their place until you outside agitators came in."

[Hugabear]

102. Those "dirt farmers" are not the ones who voted to secede.

The ones who voted to secede, and therefore caused the Civil War, were 100% about protecting slavery. Scroll up a few posts, to #59 - the articles of secession even mention slavery as their main cause!

[fishwax]

107. funny you should use Robert E. Lee as an example, since he owned slaves and all

You've been saying that since most soldiers didn't own slaves, then it couldn't possibly be about slavery to them. Apparently, even if they had all owned slaves, like Rob Lee did, that still wouldn't prove that it was about slavery.

[GA_ArmyVet]

81. I believe your both wrong..The civil war was not about slavery

or abouts states rights in the strictest sense of issue. It was over the same thing all wars have ultimately been fought over ..MONEY and power which are synonomous...Economic Prosperity in the South was based on Slavery (cheap labor= high profit), which the North could never hope to compete with having to pay labor costs.

Most northerner did not want to free the slaves because of some belief of equality or some other moral reason. There were exceptions such as the Abolitionist but they were funded by Industrialist who stood to benefit with the demise of slavery adding thousands of workers to the labor market thus reducing the cost of labor (Again Pre-Union so labor cost fluctuated based on availability)

Southerners wanting to maintain their way of life wanted slavery maintained in order to maintain the status quo of prosperity.

The war was over money in the end. The north did not care about freeing the slaves or ending slavery except as a means to improve their profit and the south did not want slavery to end in order to maintain high profits.

Slavery was a tipping point in the power balance between the industrialized north struggling with a labor shortage, and the surging cotton economy in the southern states. With money came political power and that threatened northern states power structure. The threat of removal of slavery threatened the southern states power base. In the end, the Rich on both sides fought a war using mostly poor and uneducated soldiers on both sides for nothing more than money. The consequence of the war, freeing the slaves, and shifting power away from states to a strong central (federal) government was the political result. The economic result was just a dramatic, the south's agriculture based economy was unsustainable with paid field hands, and the industrialized north gained cheap labor and an industrial boom soon followed.

The mistake is for anyone to believe that all southerner believed in slavery, or that the northern troops were fighting the good fight in order to end it, when that is just not reality. The northern troops were just as racist as the southern. Black people were not accepted as equals whether slave or free in either society for a long time (some would say even now) as is demonstrated by the Northern States insistence that Slaves only be counted as 3/5ths of person for determining population of the southern states. To count the as full people would have given the south an overwhelming number of representatives in the Congress.

[Occam Bandage]

86. So the civil war came because the South was much more prosperous than the North,

and the North was jealous that the economic structure of the nation was favoring the South.

This is a good theory, except for the fact that it is completely and totally ass-backwards.

[GA_ArmyVet]

89. Cotton was king at the time and was the source of

much of the Nations GDP. Our industrial was just beginning at the time.
The northern industrialist were not poor, but were they did not have the amount or wealth that flowed through the Southern Elite.
Lincoln fought the civil war to preserve the nation. And it was a vastly unpopular war. There were antiwar riots in the NY, and Baltimore protesting the war.

Lincoln himself stated if he could end the war by freeing the slaves he would do that, if he could end by not freeing the slaves he would do that. He simply was stating that the he wished to preserve the Union at any cost. The idea that he freed the slaves at of some moral or just cause is just simply false.

His decision to free the slaves with the emancipation proclamation was tactical decision. One of the souths biggest fears was slave revolt. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the number of slaves was huge, although exact numbers are unknown, it is believe by many that black slaves outnumbered whites in many places. Freeing the slaves in states that were in rebellion opened the door to a possible revolt. Lincoln proclamation was a brilliant tactical move as the south had to keep troops ready to suppress any uprising. The revolt never occurred, at least not in number to be significant. A little know fact with is that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all of the slaves only in the slave states in rebellion to the Union, which left Maryland, a slave state, but which did not secede from the Union, as one of the last area with legal slavery in the US.

I have studied the Civil War, causes and effects and that is my opinion based on the known facts of the era. The problem with all of this is we are all drawing conclusions based on our own perceptions.

The facts are plain

There was a war.
There was slavery before the war.
There was no slavery after the war.
Prior to the war the states wielded more authority than the Federal government
After the war, the Federal Government wielded supreme authority.

Beyond that you have to make a lot of educated guesses or have the ability to read minds.

Many things led to this conflict, not the least of which was a struggle for control and power. During the war the Souths biggest problem was a lack of industry for weapons production. They had money though, and plenty of it. Lincoln blockade the port cities for precisely that reason, to prevent further sale or trade of cotton for weapons and supplies.

By the end of the war the CSA was broke, unable to produce cotton, or sell it.

And to the betterment of all lost the war.

[Occam Bandage]

130. The North held between 75% and 90% of the nation's wealth, depending on the metric.

The South was far more prosperous than it would have been without slavery, yes, but it was even then poorer than the North. It is true that American industry was nothing like it would be yet, but it was certainly not anything to trifle with. And during the war, the Northern dollar fell to 1/3 of its value against gold, while the Southern dollar fell to 1/12th and lower, so I'm not sure where "they had money and plenty of it" comes from. The South didn't manage to rack up many debts, true, but that's because they had neither trade nor industry, so there wasn't much opportunity to trade in debt. All the wealth they had was in the form of cotton, and frankly "King Cotton" didn't turn out to be much of a monarch. Neither Britain nor France nor Russia could be bribed with that stockpile for fear of losing their more valuable trade with the Union, and for fear of angering their public by backing a nation founded on slavery.

The Emancipation Proclamation was indeed a tactical decision, though not for the reasons you cited. The size of Southern garrisons didn't really change as a result of the Proclamation, and I can't think of a Southern general who ever halted an advance for fear of a slave rebellion. I mean, if Lee had retreated after Anteitam because of that, or Bragg after Murfreesboro, then I think there'd be a point, but both retreated because of tactical considerations, not because of strategic fear of slave revolts. However, the Emancipation Proclamation did galvanize a great deal of support for Lincoln among his own party, did suck all the wind out of the British confederate sympathizers, who nearly achieved recognition for the South beforehand, and did provide political cover for generals to (as they had been long requesting the authority to do) emancipate slaves in held areas, thus depriving the South of their productivity and asset value.

(Oh, and DE, MO, WV, and KY were also Union slave states)

[DevonRex]

123. That was taught at my post-integration, all-white private school in MS.

Many kids are still taught those lies to this day. Is it any wonder that many southerners still hate the north, still display the Confederate flag? They believe what they're saying because they were actually taught those things in school.

[Radical Activist]

94. Owning slaves was about

money and power. They were property. Claiming the war was about money and power doesn't in any way imply the war wasn't about slavery. Slavery was the form of money and power at issue in this case.

Enough northerners cared about slavery to vote for an anti-slavery President. Maybe there were some industrialists who had selfish reasons for wanting to end slavery but its unbelievable to argue that's why a majority of the public opposed it. Slavery was never publicly argued as a northern economic issue. Public opposition to it was always based on moral grounds.

National opinion was swayed by Uncle Tom's Cabin showing the cruelty of slavery, not some argument that the north would get richer if it ended.

[Occam Bandage]

38. Slavery as an institution went far beyond the slaveowners themselves.

It was the foundation of an entire society; it was the "peculiar institution," with 'peculiar' at that point meaning significant of the entire quality. Slavery was not just one of the things that made the South fundamentally Southern, it was the thing.

Now, it is true that the average greyback slogging along in the Army of Northern Virginia did not own slaves. He was not fighting for slavery in particular. He was fighting, rather, to keep the South Southern--and that specifically meant to keep the South slave-owning. By your comparison with oil and the War on Terror, you suggest that slavery was the true cause, and that States' Rights were the line fed to distract from the true cause. Nothing could be further from the truth, at least in the Confederacy (the Union was a different matter top to bottom). Slavery and States' Rights / Southern Rights were the same cause by different names, and all knew it.

When Lincoln came to office, the average Southerner did not panic because he feared the ambiguous concept of States' Rights would be violated by the ambiguous concept of Federalism--for Lincoln had comparatively little to say on the topic--he feared that Lincoln would mean the end of slavery. And after the battle of Sharpsburg/Antietam, the cry of anger throughout Dixie was not that Lee had been driven back, but rather that Lincoln had announced he would be emancipating all slaves in rebel territory, which many papers shrieked was a declaration that Lincoln intended the utter destruction of Southern society. Confederacy, States' Rights, Southernness, and Slavery: all were one, and to pretend otherwise is to give in to the temptation to cast a blind eye towards the evil that drove the heroics of the Confederate army.

[fishwax]

49. the analogy to the WOT is not a good one

I would even accept that the wealthy who wanted to own slaves ginned up larger stories about states rights to sell to the little people, but those people bought it - in much the same way so many bought Bush's lies regarding the War on Terror.

The state's rights crap wasn't used primarily to convince average southerners to support the war effort. The emphasis on states rights is more a product of the "Lost Cause" era after the war.

[Kalyke]

51. Uh ... no.

1798
1832
1857


All big events regarding states rights and all before 1861.

[fishwax]

62. I never said the concept of states rights was invented after the war

I said the emphasis on states rights (as a justification for the war) was more a product of the Lost Causers than a recruiting tool.

[Hugabear]

95. Give me a break. Slavery was the ONLY issue.

Every thing else - tariffs, states rights, etc - was just window dressing. Any damned fool can see that it was slavery that bonded the Southern states together, that slavery was the issue that was driving a huge wedge between the North and South over the decades leading up to the Civil War. Don't insult our intelligence with this revisionist bullshit.

[Zomby Woof]

114. The Morrill Tariff was of chief importance

A chronic problem which first reared its head during the Jackson regime. The south was basically an economic colony of the north, and you didn't see northern textile mills in New England calling for a boycott of southern cotton all those years, did you? Slavery may have been predominant in the south, but it was an American disgrace, fully endorsed by the federal constitution. The Tenth Amendment was a pretext for the southern cause, to be sure, but the north had blood on its hands as surely as the south. It was not a war of purity versus sin. The truth is always a bit... messier.

[Fearless]

29. When it comes to mascots... I say...

It's about if it's meant to be offensive today. If yes, then change it, if not then leave it.

[elfin]

32. I don't think either is a gargoyle

Gargoyles were creatures affixed to roofs to release rain water through their open mouths. The same word root for our word "gargle".

Nevertheless -- keep "rebels" and find a different graphic. I like the James Dean suggestion.

[Radical Activist]

36. A traitor to America

who fought to enslave others. Yeah, I'd say it's offensive to glorify that.

[marksmithfield]

78. Wrong

He was not a traitor to his America, He was defending his home, traditions and values which he felt were good. This whole idea of accusing the confederates of being racist using today's standards is ridiculous. Their way of life was being challenged and the fought that change. Right or wrong, they were fighting for their heritage.
If for some reason PETA for example took control of the government, and outlawed the ownership of cattle. A lot of western states would loose money and the cowboys, country western singers, and wanna be cowboys would see it as an affront to their livelihood and way of life. As would a lot of peripheral business owners.
Of course these states in our little story would succeed from the union and fight a long bloody war loosing badly.
So 100 years from now on the glroknet on faction of Democratic Underground will be calling the others "steak eating monsters" because they defend a high schools use of a caricature of Waylon Jennings as a mascot.
(This prediction is fictitious and not that of the poster)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. Yeah, yeah, and the Nazis were fighting for their pure Aryan heritage.

Most of the Wehrmacht didn't actually gas Jews.

No big deal, right?

[Occam Bandage]

87. "He was defending his traditions and values."

That is to say, slavery. But it's okay that a lot of Southerners thought it was fine to own black people, because a lot of other Southerners thought it was fine to own black people. You don't see anything wrong with this statement?

[marksmithfield]

91. At that point in time it was an accepted

norm. That didn't make it right, it just means the majority of the confederacy was defending their livelihood, traditions and values.

[Occam Bandage]

125. And in 1943 Germany, rounding up Jews and sending them to camps was an accepted norm.

So fucking what?

[Radical Activist]

97. that's fucking insane.

Supporting slavery is racist by using the standards OF ANY ERA including 1860's America. Yeah, I can understand that racism was more prevalent then but there's no excuse of supporting slavery in that time. People knew it was wrong. What a fucking ridiculously offensive argument. Yes, they fought for their values. Values like enslaving other human beings who belong to another race, which is a pretty damned offensive value and way of life.

And what do you mean by "wrong?" What's your definition of a traitor? How is someone who takes up arms against their government to destroy the Constitution not a traitor?

[Hugabear]

103. Did somebody here on DU actually compare AFRICAN AMERICANS to CATTLE?

QUOTE: If for some reason PETA for example took control of the government, and outlawed the ownership of cattle. A lot of western states would loose money...

[marksmithfield]

122. Oh come on

If you read that as comparing AA's to cattle, you need to bolt some ski bindings to the floor in front of your desk. Maybe that will keep those knees from jerking so much.

[Zomby Woof]

109. The federal constitution legitmized slavery

Your recklessly oversimplified, incorrect, and knee-jerk response has been noted.

[Radical Activist]

116. Could you point out the clause

in the constitution that legitimized secession and firing against American soldiers instead of accepting the results of a legitimate election? The South did fire the first shot. What the constitution says about slavery is irrelevant to the fact that acts of treason were committed because some states sought to overturn an election by acts of violence.
You should at least make a halfway logical point if you're going to accuse someone else of making a "recklessly oversimplified, incorrect, and knee jerk response." Sounding simultaneously arrogant and foolish is supposed to be Bush's trick.

[Occam Bandage]

126. And the South was terrified that the incoming, apparently Radical Republican President

was going to be stripping that sacred right from them. Rather than accept the results of a fair election, they turned traitor.

[mitchum]

50. A confederate general (Wade Hampton), not an enlisted man, was my school mascot...

yes, it's offensive

[treestar]

56. Yes, no one can expect AA people not to be offended by the

confederacy and anything referring to it. And the rest of us, too. Even Southerners can be offended by it, IMO, since it's been long enough and there are plenty of Southerners who do not abide by the racist and confederate crap.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. American education is woefully deficient in Math & Science. Your new mascot should be a rhombus.

Or maybe Einstein.

The Fightin' Einsteins!

I'm only, like, half kidding.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

69. There's a school near me whose mascot is a "senator"

But not a Roman senator, an American one. He a pudgy old man that carries an umbrella and a briefcase.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. See, but if they made Werner Heisenberg your hockey team mascot, the other team's goalie would have

a hell of a time.

Hard to block a puck that you can know the position OR velocity of, but not both.

[daleo]

79. Technically, that is true of a puck.

Just being pendantic.

[baldguy]

77. Is this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites

[voc]

111. Fightin' Whities pic.....

No, not offensive at all baldguy. Shows America at it's finest,lol.

[JVS]

82. Keep the logo, rename it treasonous fuckwads

[Radical Activist]

105. yes!

Problem solved.

[Gabi Hayes]

84. have a drink of Chink:

''I graduated from Pekin Community High School in 1960. I was also voted by the student body to be the mascot "Chink". It was a great honor and still is to me today. Another girl in my class was voted "Chinklette." We wore Chinese costumes and greeted cheerleaders from the opposing team in the middle of the basketball floor before each home game. It was a gesture of a welcome and good sportmanship. I'm still upset today that the school buckled under and changed the name to Dragons in 1981. It was the result of pointy headed pablum sucking liberals who run the polictical correctness gestopo in this country. I do detest them so much. I am attending my 45th high school class reunion this weekend in God's little acre called Pekin, IL and I will proudly wear my PEKIN CHINKS shirt. Liberal and their pathetic ilk can go to Hell!!
CHINKS FOREVER''

1960 Chink, Bob Brown

http://www.riotpoof.com/archives/000026.php

from another link:

''The Pekin Chinks mascot really needs to be seen to be believed. I was looking online for a picture of it, without success (it was a caricatured Chinese worker with a toothy grin, slanted eyes, and a coolie hat).''

[Bluebear]

131. "Liberal and their pathetic ilk can go to Hell!! CHINKS FOREVER''

Oh my.

[cherokeeprogressive]

92. No more offensive than this:

[EFerrari]

112. My high school mascot was a generic "Indian" in a large head dress in profile.

"On July 1, 1996, after much controversy, the Fremont Union School Board did away with the original Indian mascot at the request of American Indians, replacing it with the current Firebirds mascot."

Of course, they named the damn school after FREMONT, so, how surprising could that be. When I went to that school, it was segregated. When they closed the high school on the "east" side of town and all those brown kids came to Fremont, up went the chain link fences and the armed security guards. Oh, Sunnyvale, the very white heart of Silicon Valley. Rah!

[Hawkeye-X]

96. Heh. I remember South High School

Just off University Blvd and Louisiana Ave.

I went to GWHS, a year ahead of Chauncey Billups.

Hawkeye-X

[blogslut]

106. Yes

And it was offensive when my high school changed its mascot, close to 40 years ago. He was called "General Reb". Our school flag was once the stars and bars and our school song was Dixie.

Yet somehow, we all got over the change, grew up and moved on. I suggest you do the same.

[Zomby Woof]

108. No, because it's an American veteran

Confederate veterans, since 1913, have been recognized by federal law as full American veterans, with all of the status and privileges of American veterans - burial rites and so forth. It was an act of reconciliation (what Lincoln wanted, right?), and a simple recognition of the fact that they were (and at the time, many were still living) Americans, who fought and died on American soil. Comparisons to Nazis and the like are offensive. Many of these soldiers fought for reasons as basic and direct as just defending their homes. The reasons were as varied as the soldiers. Most of us here disagreed with the objectives, tactics, and aims of the Vietnam War, but do we disparage the Vietnam veteran around here? Well, some of you do, but this post is directed at thinking people, wherever you may be.

[Thothmes]

121. Well Stated.

[Bluebear]

117. You didn't just say "mulatto" did you? What graduating class were you, 1952?

[surrealAmerican]

127. Offensive or not, it's a terrible mascot.

The "rebels" lost. Most schools want a mascot that can be associated with winning.