Was Cobb really as people perceive him???

[mattsey9]

Oh come on. Essentially all? Give me a break. Many Southerners were no more racist than Northerners in that era. Read some books about Northern soldiers and their attitudes toward African Americans. Most went to war not to free the slaves but to reunite the country and put down the rebellion. Plus don't forget that over 95% of Confederate soldiers never owned a single slave nor did their families. This was the Second War of Independence for many Southerners whose grandfathers fought in the Revolutionary War.

Yes, essentially all Southerners were racists. So were most Northerners, Northern industrialists reaped large profits off of Southern goods produced by slave labor. Nobody had clean hands on this issue in this era.

But...

To submit that for a second that the Civil War was motivated by reasons other than slavery, The Lost Cause Myth, is a dangerous position to take. Honoring CSA soldiers as fallen heroes allowed the continued subjugation of freedmen and their descendants for the next century. I'm not sure what history books you are referring to, but the Lost Cause argument associated with the Dunning School hasn't been advanced by a non-racist organization in decades. Modern scholarship acknowledges that the North was a racist environment, but that the South was the one that fought to preserve slavery.[/QUOTE]

[gabrinus]

I love the "right side of history" argument. Genghis Khan must have been on the right side of history......he controlled more territory than anyone and everybody knows what a sweetheart he was. Mike, you are right.....the South seceded because they were afraid Lincoln was going to eventually ban slavery. I don't think anyone on here would justify slavery. Lincoln made reference to slavery many times in his campaign speeches. That being said, the North invaded the South after Fort Sumpter. My home town church was burned by Union troops because it was being used as a hospital. My great-grandfather had to eat recycled horsefeed to survive in northern Georgia during the Reconstruction because Northern troops laid waste to his family's crops. I do feel that men who fought for their homes and families were heroes. I know this......Southern troops did not rape Northern women and pillage Northern towns. The one trip north to Gettysburg resulted in a catastrophic loss. The treatment of blacks in the South was reprehensible. I also think the way Patrick Ewing as a high school player was treated in Boston was too. I think the point Bob was making is that none of us should be too proud about those things.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mattsey9

To submit that for a second that the Civil War was motivated by reasons other than slavery, The Lost Cause Myth, is a dangerous position to take.

As is suggesting that it was motivated by issues other than preserving the Union. I own original letters written by Northern soldiers 1-2 months after the Emancipation Proclamation and one of them emphatically states that the author is fighting for Union and is firmly against Lincoln's proclamation. When you go to war, potentially to lose your life, your reasons are generally important to you. Many of these soldiers went to war for Union and were very upset that Lincoln was confusing the issue with slavery. If you are also confused about this, and honestly think that it was only about slavery, as Hollywood portrays, then pick up a book; e.g-'For Cause and Comrades', and get the facts. More letters were written during the Civil War than any other war - there is no shortage of first-hand accounts of what the soldiers believed.

[mattsey9]

Originally Posted by Runscott

As is suggesting that it was motivated by issues other than preserving the Union. I own original letters written by Northern soldiers 1-2 months after the Emancipation Proclamation and one of them emphatically states that the author is fighting for Union and is firmly against Lincoln's proclamation. When you go to war, potentially to lose your life, your reasons are generally important to you. Many of these soldiers went to war for Union and were very upset that Lincoln was confusing the issue with slavery. If you are also confused about this, and honestly think that it was only about slavery, as Hollywood portrays, then pick up a book; e.g-'For Cause and Comrades', and get the facts. More letters were written during the Civil War than any other war - there is no shortage of first-hand accounts of what the soldiers believed.

I don't get my history from Hollywood. I hold a MA in American History and defended a final paper dealing with Progressive Era New South. While it's not my exact era of study, I've read more than I care to remember about the Civil War.

The war wasn't fought because of what individual soldiers believed in. The war was fought because state leaders in the South realized that Lincoln was serious about abolishing slavery. Their articles of secession are quite clear about this. Did many soldiers fight for other reasons? Most assuredly. But the underlying theme was the slave issue. Any other reason pales in comparison. The governments on both sides realized this and didn't try to hide it at the time.

There were racists on both sides. I've read passages from Jane Addams about blacks getting the right to vote before women that would make your blood boil. The northern industrialists even helped foster the post-Reconstruction New South that ushered in Jim Crow in an attempt to reconcile the country through capitalism.

On topic: Of course Cobb was a racist when he played. That puts him on the same level as the nearly unanimous majority of white Americans in his era.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mattsey9

I don't get my history from Hollywood. I hold a MA in American History and defended a final paper dealing with Progressive Era New South. While it's not my exact era of study, I've read more than I care to remember about the Civil War.

The war wasn't fought because of what individual soldiers believed in. The war was fought because state leaders in the South realized that Lincoln was serious about abolishing slavery. Their articles of secession are quite clear about this. Did many soldiers fight for other reasons? Most assuredly. But the underlying theme was the slave issue. Any other reason pales in comparison. The governments on both sides realized this and didn't try to hide it at the time.

There were racists on both sides. I've read passages from Jane Addams about blacks getting the right to vote before women that would make your blood boil. The northern industrialists even helped foster the post-Reconstruction New South that ushered in Jim Crow in an attempt to reconcile the country through capitalism.

On topic: Of course Cobb was a racist when he played. That puts him on the same level as the nearly unanimous majority of white Americans in his era.

Not that you are one, but plenty of ignorant people hold MA's - using a degree to defend your position, as opposed to facts, is worthless in my opinion. I gave examples of individual soldiers' opinions because I wanted you to know that I'm not pulling this out of my *ss. I also gave the exact title of a book that you could read if you are not firmly entrenched in your opinions. But, I know - you have an MA in History, so that ends the discussion.

[Runscott]

One additional comment and then I will bow out of this one: the Civil War is over. I've always been perplexed at the need for some people to continue to line up on one side or the other, 150 years later. I don't really need to express my opinions here on the reasons for the Civil War - many who have researched the topic much more than you or I, have written books specifically on that subject. If you need to vent over things that occurred 150 years ago, and it helps you, then do so. If you are interested in learning, read a book.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Not that you are one, but plenty of ignorant people hold MA's - using a degree to defend your position, as opposed to facts, is worthless in my opinion. I gave examples of individual soldiers' opinions because I wanted you to know that I'm not pulling this out of my *ss. I also gave the exact title of a book that you could read if you are not firmly entrenched in your opinions. But, I know - you have an MA in History, so that ends the discussion.

im pretty sure someone with an MA has opinion on books to read as well. Im sure there are books that take different positions on most subjects. Quoting one book does mean something but its the open course of discussion where there becomes a certain consensus on what the facts are when going through all information as people have to defend and listen to other positions....usually the discussion is between published scholars which later becomes the established consensus..there are always outliers

in any event, i not saying who is right...but just saying pointing to one book as dogma basically is just as bad or maybe worse as someone thinking since they have a degree they know it all too (not that someone did that)

[packs]

The South would spend the next century enacting Jim Crow laws to re-establish a white dominated society. They didn't spend the next century trying to preserve a stronger Union. That tells me the war was more about one thing than the other, even if individual soldiers didn't know it.

[thenavarro]

Ordered Ty Cobb: A Terrible Beauty today. Hope it's a good read