re: Will there ever be a successful push to drop Ole Miss/Rebels?

I think a lot of you are missing the boat here. Saying that the Civil War was caused by a single thing or event is either the product of ignornace, or an attempt at the justification of personal beliefs. The fact is that, like any major historical event, the Civil War was caused by many issues that were tightly interconnected, and set in motion by people in power who had their own agendas and interests at heart. For someone to attempt to argue that States Rights and the practice of slavery are somhow separate and distinct is just illogical.

If you want to boil the causes for the war down to an essence, it would be the same as the causes for 90% of the wars in human history: economics and power. Before the war, somewhere between 75-90% of the nation's wealth (depending on which historians are doing the talking) was centered around the Mississippi River, and was generated in large part by slave labor. The mainline Northern Reepublicans, including Lincoln, weren't seeking to abolish slavery, but they did want to stop its spread and let it wither on the vine in the South. The political and economic elite of the South obviously saw this as a threat, and fought vigorously against it. The North had power in their greater population numbers and steadily gained the upper hand in the political struggle because of it.

However, for all their population and manufacturing advantages, the South had what the North saw as disproportionate amount of power due to their money. The politicians in the North knew they needed the economic engine of the South, which is where the 30 years of political compromises over slavery came from, but they were seeking more ways of getting their hands on more and more of that Southern wealth for themselves. Also, there were many powerful Northern business men who saw slavery as an unfair advantage for the South that they couldn't exploit. States Rights. Slavery. Tarrifs. They're all here, but none of them was the single, core issue. They were just pieces of the bigger picture.

As for the war itself, Lincoln took a hardline position to appeal to his Northern base during his campaign, which if given time after his election, he probably would have retreted from, as most politicians do. However, it's pretty obviious that he underestimated just how determined the South had become to stop giving political and economic ground. His talk of rebellion after the formation of the Confederacy was just that: political rhetoric. The North couldn't afford to lose the agricultural economy of the South, so he had to go to war. It was his only option, given the situation he found himself in.

As for the role of slavery in all of this, maybe Lincoln had some kind of real change of heart on the issue during the years of the war, but even if he did, that certainly wasn't his only reason for freeing the slaves. His feelings toward people of color were pretty clear in his writings. He didn't see them as equals, even after he freed them. He did it primarily to galvanize support to finish the war. Before his proclamation and the Northern victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, both sides were actively involved in peace talks, and there was a growing tide of dissatisfaction over the protracted war in the North.

Here is the point where the Southern revisionism (yes, this most CERTAINLY exists) misses the boat. With all of that money and power centered in the hands of a small number of people, and a relatively small middle-class in the South at the time, does anyone really believe that there wasn't also a massive propaganda campaign at work in the South? The cry of State's Rights was part of it. If you don't believe this is true, then you must not pay any attention to politics today. This is what happens. This is how the "common man" is stirred up into carring about an issue, and it always has been.

The reason that I am aware of this is that both sides of my immediate family came from poorer areas of the South where very few people owned slaves, and where I found out that support for the war was FAR from unwavering. My grandmother's family was from Lee County, VA, a small area near the Cumberland Gap in the mountains of southern VA. Because of the mountainous terrain and poor soil, plantations didn't exist there.

Out of all the family members that I have researched, only one out of the 50 or so owned slaves. He and his sons fought for the Confederacy. However, a younger brother of his and two of his cousins went north and fought for the Union. I also researched a little further, and beyond West VA breaking away before the war, there was a LOT of negative sentiment against the war throughout the Appalacians. In fact, Southern army divisions from these areas had the highest rates of desertion during the war.

Why is this? The same reasons for the cause of the war: power and economics. However, in this case, it is the lack thereof. A very popular phrase among poorer Southerners of that time sums it up nicely. "Rich man's war. Poor man's fight." Say what you want about Northern aggression and State's Rights. This is the reality that my Southern family lived through. They were just as divided as the rest of the country.

So, just because you've read a few books or websites doesn't mean that you are an expert on ALL of Southern history. It's a hell of a lot more complex than most people give it credit for. As for myself, I have a fairly negative view of the glorification of EITHER side. Neither was truly interested in freedom, equality, justice, or liberation. Few wars are fought over these things. I wholeheartedly believe that the American Revolution and WWII are both noteable exceptions, but not the Civil War. For those on both sides that brought it about, it was just another war about power and money.

I thought this thread was going to be about dropping Ole Miss from the SEC. Shouldn't it be a requirement to win the conference once in 50 years?

The truth about old Col Reb getting dropped is as follows. Ole Miss Athletics sucked. There was a contingent of PCers pointing at the battle Flag and Col Reb and dixie as being racist symbols. Those in power and responsible for producing this bad athletic product grabbed hold of these people's message and transformed it into an excuse. Alumni - weary of watching losing football, losing basketball and being associated with a sucky sports program year after year latched on to this excuse. Col Reb got the ax and the Black Bear was born.

Do you really believe these changes would have ocurred if Ole Miss had the winning tradition of Alabama? Tradition is only meaningful if it is associated with success.

quote:

---

If the war was about slavery, why didn't lincoln abolish slavery in the emancipation proclamation?

---

The war was about the preservation of the Union. The Union was threatened by the secession of the South. The South seceded because Lincoln was elected on the platform of not allowing slavery to expand westward.

So slavery was certainly a central issue. Don't downplay that.

quote:

---

ummm 30% of every able-bodied male in the south lost their life in the Civil War.

---

Is not doing what it takes to win. It is called cannon fodder.

Sherman using Georgia as his on personal Smores fire was.

I can't believe this stupid thread is still alive

quote:

---

It's so much more than sports. I'm tired of having this fricking discussion. It's not just about recruits and football. It's about distancing the university from a divisive history in order to make it more inclusive. It's about recruiting a diverse student body and hiring better faculty, stuff which Ole Miss has made tremendous strides in since the 1990's when these efforts began. It's about the UNIVERSITY and not the goddamned football team.

---

So with this in mind, do you think there will ever be an outcry or strong push to drop either Ole Miss or Rebels?

quote:

---

Is not doing what it takes to win. It is called cannon fodder.


Sherman using Georgia as his on personal Smores fire was.

---

Go frick yourself