What is the Story Behind "Sweet Home Alabama"?

[FirstMeasure]

I don't get it at all. To me it's a painful reminder of a very dark period in our nation's history and a symbol of treason. Not sure why half this nation cannot let it go.

Realizing this isn't music or topic related, and trying to look at it completely objectively. I'd say the North didn't kick the South's *** hard enough. They beat them, then let them be. They should have taken away their entire civilization, as they knew it. They should have made them get rid of thier flags, accents, clothing styles, food choices, education system, and remade that lost land using New York and Massachusetts as a model.

 

That's the way war used to be fought and won, letting the losers return to their way of life and rebuild what they lost is kinda stupid from the winners perspective.

[cookieman15061]

Realizing this isn't music or topic related, and trying to look at it completely objectively. I'd say the North didn't kick the South's *** hard enough. They beat them, then let them be. They should have taken away their entire civilization, as they knew it. They should have made them get rid of thier flags, accents, clothing styles, food choices, education system, and remade that lost land using New York and Massachusetts as a model.

 

That's the way war used to be fought and won, letting the losers return to their way of life and rebuild what they lost is kinda stupid from the winners perspective.

 

 

Yeah like Japan in WWII...............

[FirstMeasure]

Yeah like Japan in WWII...............

Seems to me that one fits the strange end to modern wars. War is supposed to be horrible, that way we try to avoid it.

[Riffster]

I don't get it at all. To me it's a painful reminder of a very dark period in our nation's history and a symbol of treason. Not sure why half this nation cannot let it go.

 

In general this is what I think but living here you can see how folks revere the flag that some of their ancestors fought and died for whether they were right or wrong. Some people see the rebel flag as heritage others use it as a menacing symbol and others as a conformist quiet way to be a rebel.

 

The thing with this particular conflict is that families and brothers fought against each other.

 

And yea, a lot, lot of people here cannot let it go. If you are in the South don't ever say something like "Hey, who won this time?" at a Civil War re-enactment.

[Bender 4 Life]

Realizing this isn't music or topic related, and trying to look at it completely objectively. I'd say the North didn't kick the South's *** hard enough. They beat them, then let them be. They should have taken away their entire civilization, as they knew it. They should have made them get rid of thier flags, accents, clothing styles, food choices, education system, and remade that lost land using New York and Massachusetts as a model.

 

That's the way war used to be fought and won, letting the losers return to their way of life and rebuild what they lost is kinda stupid from the winners perspective.

 

so JUST killing our women, children, livestock, and burning our homes, workplaces, and churches weren't enough?

this concept of "total warfare" was an absolute atrocity in the time, and would be called "war crimes" by todays standards.

but it was the only way the federals could beat the outnumbered by 4-1 Confederates.

the southerners didn't fight this way, they fought with honor, and were often treated better in northern towns, than northern soldiers were.

as far as "letting us be" i guess you've not read of the 20 years of "reconstruction" during which time federal forces oversaw & dominated every aspect of life in the south.

 

maybe Southerners are still bitter because we were beaten by cheaters, taxed nearly into oblivion, and were still starving after the "benevolent oversight" of the reconstruction period......

 

but then I digress.

[btoth76]

so JUST killing our women, children, livestock, and burning our homes, workplaces, and churches weren't enough?

this concept of "total warfare" was an absolute atrocity in the time, and would be called "war crimes" by todays standards.

but it was the only way the federals could beat the outnumbered by 4-1 Confederates.

the southerners didn't fight this way, they fought with honor, and were often treated better in northern towns, than northern soldiers were.

as far as "letting us be" i guess you've not read of the 20 years of "reconstruction" during which time federal forces oversaw & dominated every aspect of life in the south.

 

maybe Southerners are still bitter because we were beaten by cheaters, taxed nearly into oblivion, and were still starving after the "benevolent oversight" of the reconstruction period......

 

but then I digress.

 

Hello! Not being American, I don't really want to dig into Your issues. But as a Hungarian I completely understand the thoughts above. We were beaten to dust in the WWII, then under the following Soviet occupation we were forced to live within political, social frames that were completely strange to us. Those who resisted were tortured to death in prisons of the regime - backed by the Soviets. These were the times of terror and horror for our nation - something that we never did to others and never encountered before.

If You've won the war, that should be the end of the fight. Why humiliate or "reshape" the defeated ones? That never worked and will never work. It's only a source for future tensions and hate.

[AXE®]

I just sneezed so hard I farted a little.

[btoth76]

Hello! That's another topic worth discussing AXE. Cheers... Bence

[gdecantoo]

I just sneezed so hard I farted a little.

I'm glad i had my smellavision turned off!

[bluzhammer]

Allow me, first off the Constitution of these united States of America is and was a contract drawn among the States for the collective assurances of individual rights and the establishment of a form of governance. The Confederate States had full legal grounds and right to withdraw from the contractual Constitution , this was affirmed in a World Court hearing held in the 1990's.

The Union was given full and proper notice and asked to withdraw all forces from Confederacy lands and refused. So, being a now occupying army, they were fired upon. Thus beginning the War of Northern Aggression. Even today the Federal government is actively engaged in war against it's Citizens, not in full fledged battles but an even more subtle and divisive manner. Not all positions of the Confederacy were moral or correct, but the underlying tone of States rights, unencumbered of an oppressive Federal government were essentially right.

 

I am a Southerner and I approve this message.

[Daryl M]

Allow me, first off the Constitution of these united States of America is and was a contract drawn among the States for the collective assurances of individual rights and the establishment of a form of governance. The Confederate States had full legal grounds and right to withdraw from the contractual Constitution , this was affirmed in a World Court hearing held in the 1990's.

The Union was given full and proper notice and asked to withdraw all forces from Confederacy lands and refused. So, being a now occupying army, they were fired upon. Thus beginning the War of Northern Aggression. Even today the Federal government is actively engaged in war against it's Citizens, not in full fledged battles but an even more subtle and divisive manner. Not all positions of the Confederacy were moral or correct, but the underlying tone of States rights, unencumbered of an oppressive Federal government were essentially right.

 

I am a Southerner and I approve this message.

 

 

100% correct. I was a history major and the fact is, the succession of the Southern states was directly related to their frustration of the 'Federal' government asserting more and more power over the states. They believed that outside of certain things -like national defense where there is needed strength in numbers, the states should be able to govern themselves. I still agree. Although we are a union of states, the cultures, traditions, and core values of most people in Boston will differ greatly from those in Beverly Hills or Birmingham. In my humble opinion, the democratic process in each state would do a MUCH better job at satisfying the needs of its people than Big Brother in Washington ever will. But with each passing year, the states have less and less voice on the laws in their own states.

[EVOL!]

The Confederate States had full legal grounds and right to withdraw from the contractual Constitution , this was affirmed in a World Court hearing held in the 1990's.

 

Not calling shenanigans here, but I just did an internet search for this and did not find it. Can you provide a link, please?

[EVOL!]

100% correct. I was a history major and the fact is, the succession of the Southern states was directly related to their frustration of the 'Federal' government asserting more and more power over the states. They believed that outside of certain things -like national defense where there is needed strength in numbers, the states should be able to govern themselves. I still agree. Although we are a union of states, the cultures, traditions, and core values of most people in Boston will differ greatly from those in Beverly Hills or Birmingham. In my humble opinion, the democratic process in each state would do a MUCH better job at satisfying the needs of its people than Big Brother in Washington ever will. But with each passing year, the states have less and less voice on the laws in their own states.

 

I hate to argue for States rights, but the States are the laboratories of democracy. We are going to have marriage equality, legalization (or at least decriminalization) of marijuana, and a few other good things because the States stepped up and made it happen.

 

On the other hand, if the federal government hadn't exercised its authority we'd still have segregation in some places and sodomy would still be illegal in Texas.

[Searcy]

True and well said. It's a balancing act and not an easy one.

[rct]

...Not all positions of the Confederacy were moral or correct, but the underlying tone of States rights, unencumbered of an oppressive Federal government were essentially right...

 

I'm not sure about the constitutional issues and all, and I don't agree or disagree with any of that, but this part is the fundamental problem Lincoln and others in government had at that time. You can't oppress a single group of people as an important part of your economy, as the south did, while bucking at the yoke of horrible federal oppression. It is probably a truth, one theory contends that this war was going to be fought, either by the federal government on behalf of all states, or by the actual uprising that would occur as the economy of this country was about to change.

 

I have a Les Paul.

 

rct

[pippy]

...and sodomy would still be illegal in Texas...

And wouldn't THAT be a complete pain in the arse?

 

P.

[Searcy]

HA!

[EVOL!]

And wouldn't THAT be a complete pain in the arse?

 

P.

 

 

As a person of Greek descent, I can attest to validity (and humor) of that statement.

[milod]

Bence...

 

The most talented fencer I ever touched blades with was a Hungarian refugee following the 1956 revolution. In spite of losing the tendons in his right wrist, his footwork and eye made me feel like a three-year-old child fencing with an adult.

 

All...

 

First, I was privileged to interview George Wallace Sr (Jr, too, for all of that) with emphasis on the boxing he did in his younger years for a combat sport piece I was doing. By then he was in constant pain in a wheelchair, but George Jr. was also an elected state official working toward a martial arts black belt.

 

In terms of cultural differences, it struck me as quite interesting that he had been elected governor in his final term(s?) by a majority that included support from the black population of his state - yet I was criticized for even quoting and including him in a magazine article by some Califorians and Northeast U.S. city folk.

 

After living eight years in the south I'll say that some aspects of the culture were exceptionally difficult for a Northern Plains-raised person to comprehend, such as what appeared to me to be parallel black and white aristocracies who could do no wrong and hardworking people of both races without a family history of money and leadership were at best, second rate in the general society.

 

As something of a history nut in terms of what I call the second American Civil War - the first being in the 1770s - I think you can find plenty of both "good" and "bad" incidents on both sides during such circumstances. Passions in wartime seldom match the perspective of folks in times of peace.

 

In the US, few people however recognize that the "reconstruction" period in the south is only one of the interesting political and economic consequences of the war that had - and still have - reverberations into every facet of American life.

 

One commonality among many in northern plains ranch country and many in the south, however, is a belief that it probably ain't good when somebody in a suit shows up and proclaims, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you..."

 

m

[zigzag]

The funny thing about symbols is that they mean whatever the user and observer want them to mean.

[FirstMeasure]

so JUST killing our women, children, livestock, and burning our homes, workplaces, and churches weren't enough?

this concept of "total warfare" was an absolute atrocity in the time, and would be called "war crimes" by todays standards.

but it was the only way the federals could beat the outnumbered by 4-1 Confederates.

the southerners didn't fight this way, they fought with honor, and were often treated better in northern towns, than northern soldiers were.

as far as "letting us be" i guess you've not read of the 20 years of "reconstruction" during which time federal forces oversaw & dominated every aspect of life in the south.

 

maybe Southerners are still bitter because we were beaten by cheaters, taxed nearly into oblivion, and were still starving after the "benevolent oversight" of the reconstruction period......

 

but then I digress.

Like I said, I was being objective. Not looking at it form a "who deserved to win" perspective, but rather "what a winner and looser in war should be".

 

Does it make sense to leave the loser of a war to rebuild and try again later? You still say "We" like you belong to the Confederate States of America when you are a citizen of the United States of America.

 

When the Catholics wiped out the Druids they wiped them out, knowing full well that they had to eliminate the entire civilization or face retaliation in the future, even if that future is hundreds of years away. It's not a question of whether that was right or not, it's simply the way war used to be fought, with the winner dictating civics and history. Ever since America got into it, we treat war like it's a punishment, not a resolution. The very concept of "War Crimes" is absurd. It's civilizes the most uncivil action we could take.

 

We kill and maim and take land, then say "That's what you get for being bad, no play nice" and give it back. That doesn't make for a horrible enough war. People can get over the death of people, it's the loss of statues and holidays that really hit them.

[milod]

The concept of "war crimes" is awfully new. Frankly, IMHO, until the second half of the 20th century one of the worst aspects of warfare and everyday life was infection of wounds as minor as an infected toenail.

 

War never has been nice, either for the civilian populations affected - which has always been more than just those groups doing the warfighting - or for the combatants.

 

The reason for some of the destruction of property and food campaigns in the south was purely strategic, as was the strategic bombing of WWII on both sides. At no point was that per se considered a "war crime," btw. Firebombing both in Europe and Japan were aimed specifically at civilian targets as in Dresden and Tokyo. In two days, 16 square miles of Tokyo, for example, were basically flattened by firebombing; perhaps 100,000 people lost their lives in one night there - functionally more devastation than from either of those two early nuclear weapons.

 

IMHO the whole concept of "war crime" arose due to some specifically nasty aspects of combatants in WWII and were, of course, both determined and dictated by the winners. That's a very harsh way to put it, but...

 

"War" also always has had either written or unwritten "rules" at various times in history, depending on the willingness of the combatants to follow them. Generally the lesser cultural commonality, the more harsh the overall warfare.

 

It's an interesting study that is very "political" regardless of time of history from Alexander to today, and the same political strategic objectives should be considered.

 

There's little question that in the US, the "radical Republicans" forcing some pretty harsh post 1860s "civil war" political and economic measures have led to some significant residual hard feelings. That and some other factors are obviously felt today beyond denial.

 

In fact, forget "the south," the political reverberations of the unpleasantness of that 1860s conflict remain everywhere in the US, and in ways, in the rest of the world. "We" Americans tend to think of it as our own thing, but that's certainly a short-sighted and inward-looking perspective. The rapid changes in technology alone, from rails and medical to communications, aerial warfare and general manufacturing, literally changed the entire world both by example and by imports to meet wartime needs.

 

m

[FirstMeasure]

well put, Milo.

 

The point I was trying to make was, "The more civilized we make war the more willing we are to make war". War must be horrible so we tolerate differences in an effort to avoid it. If it's used as a punishment as opposed to an end, there will be no end.

[cookieman15061]

I think the second solo is just fine.

[stein]

Actually, I don't believe you can make definite statements about HOW a war should be fought, or what the objectives should be.

 

2 extremes: WW2 and Hitler, the European conflict were a continuation of WW1 in a sense. The sense being, it was the oppression of the winning side that caused the losing side to want to come back and win "the war". The oppression of the losing side caused the desire for war. It was definitely not a result of failing to destroy them completely, or bring it to conclusion.

 

On the other extreme, the war (or conflict) between the Isrealites and the Palistinians. The stated objective claimed by both sides being Isreal's right to exist. To spite actually WINNING the wars, none were ever brought or allowed to come to a conclusion, and therefore, unless the claims are withdrawn OR the war allowed to be fought to a conclusion, "oppression" is an unavoidable result regardless of who is on the winning side oppressing the other.

 

Generally, "all out" means everything at your disposal to obtain an objective, not nessesarily determining what that objective is. The objective could mean gaining a surrender, or elimination one's ability to fight, or taking back/gaining land, or genocide, either total or partial. Or whatever.

 

I think, regardless of what is written, and regardless of culture, what constitutes the concept of a war crime is whether or not what a side is doing has an effect or chance on reaching the objective. If it is nessesary for an objective, or an attempt. Granted, it is the winning side that gets to determine that. But mainly, if it is felt to be a lie, the losing side doesn't accept it. The concept of a 'court' to determine that might be nothing more than an effort to convince of a perception.