"TMP and the Myth of the Lost Cause" Topic

link

"Camp Bragg was established in 1918 as an artillery training ground. The Chief of Field Artillery, General William J. Snow, was seeking an area having suitable terrain, adequate water, rail facilities and a climate for year-round training, and he decided that the area now known as Fort Bragg met all of the desired criteria.[4] Camp Bragg was named to honor a native North Carolinian, Braxton Bragg, who commanded Confederate States Army forces in the Civil War."

Well in that case I stand corrected. So add that to my list, of Ft. Lee, Ft. A.P. Hill and Ft. Bragg … And I'm sure there are probably others …

Fort Benning as well.

Legion 4 seems to sum it all up. In reference to bases, there is a little post next door called Fort Hood.

Apropos of not much, there is a Fort Bragg in Northern
California, tho' it is not a military installation but
a small town.

As to the monument issue, I agree with Robert Edward
Lee on that subject.

BTW, Christ Episcopal Church in Alexandria Virginia
is removing plaques which honored Lee – and George
Washington…

Korvessa- Thank you for posting the modern version of "The Lost Cause". That is, that it was not about slavery because Lincoln was willing (initially) to do just about anything to preserve the Union. Your argument conveniently ignores why the South seceded (as is easily seen in their declarations of Secession), and that it was they who started the shooting.

If anything, Lincoln's attitudes show how wrong the South was about Lincoln, and how war could have been averted if they only asked to talk to him.

I didn't say it wasn't about slavery – I said it was more complicated than that.

Is it me, or is this Thread becoming a self fulfilling prophecy?

I didn't say it wasn't about slavery – I said it was more complicated than that.

Give it up. I never considered myself a Lost Cause type. Politically I certainly do not fit the old or the newer Lost Cause mold. I had ancestors who fought on both sides. It has always been clear to me that for the nation and the world it was better that the U.S. won. However because I refuse to condemn the South, and because I have been intellectually rebutting the arguments of those "Academic historians" for over 40 years, I am routinely labeled a Lost Cause type. I have come to accept that this argument is an emotional one rather an intellectual one. That applies to both sides.

On emotionally charged issues there isn't much sense trying to argue things are more nuanced than right and wrong. This is why I have tried to stay out of the Confederate statues debate. Fortunately with the ACW there is a great deal that even people who are on different sides can discuss: Uniforms, strategy and tactics, views about how effective different commanders were, different battlefields we have visited or wish to visit and the potential for the conflict for wargaming.

138SquadronRAF,

I think you are wrong about TMP. If anything I find it the opposite. There are way more members and non-members who trash the lost cause myth. The minority at times are very loud and make a scene. But I find the majority are NOT supportive of anything Confederate.

I didn't say it wasn't about slavery – I said it was more complicated than that

Yes, it was more complicated than just slavery, but it was slavery the central issue that informed every other dispute between Northern and Southern states.

If you pull out slavery from the equation, every other issue become moot. Western expansion and the opening of new territories to statehood wouldn't be a problem; no need to think about balance of power in Congress and Senate between Slave and non-Slave states; no issues about contraband being illegally protected by Northern officials; no issues about State rights being violated by anti-Slavery laws passed by Federal institutions; finally, no fear that a President elected in an anti-slavery ticket would hold office.

It is correct that many Northern volunteers didn't take weapons in order to end slavery, but to preserve the Union. Nonetheless, you can't forget that the Union wouldn't have been put in jeopardy in the first place without the slavery issue poisoning the relations between Northern and Southern states.

It is also true that a significant part of Southern volunteers did fight for loyalty to their State and neighbours rather than to protect slavery. However, and as in the case of the Union soldiers, none of them would have been forced to chose between their State and the US without the slavery.

It doesn't matter how you put it, but slavery WAS what the war was about.

Excellently put. Everything spins round the Slavery issue at some point.

Protecting the Southern economy was mentioned but without Slavery there was no Southern economy, either in terms of capital value or output. That no one saw fit to alter this dependence in the previous 100 years was hardly the fault of the Northern States nor did it alter the fact that as a result Slavery was a non negotiable issue.

Why didn't Lincoln free the border states in his address if he was so opposed to slavery?

Two reasons: He had no constitutional authority to do so; and it would have lost him the support of the those states and pushed them into the Confederacy.

It's amazing how this question keeps popping up, when a little knowledge of history answers it.

Anyway, Lincoln didn't start the war, Jeff Davis did -- when he ordered Gen. Beauregard to fire on Fort Sumter and turned what had been a political crisis into a shooting war.

As for military bases named after traitors: How about Camp Breckinridge KY? I don't know if it's still there, but used to be, at least, outside Morganfield; named for a former Vice President of the United States who took up arms against his own country as a Confederate general despite the fact that his home state (Kentucky) never seceded from the Union (so he didn't even have that excuse).

To every complicated question there is a simple answer … and it is usually wrong.

This is one such occasion.

B

Been to Benning many, many times … Never been to Hood … would have liked to have served with the 1st Cav …

As an Australian with no connection to the ACW other than gaming it, over the years, my own view has evolved from 'It was all about slavery', to 'There were a lot of casual issues' and is currently set at 'There were a lot of issues, but somehow, it always comes back to slavery'.

In terms of what I've seen over here in 30 years of wargaming (ie, the tabletop decision of how someone chooses an army) there is occasionally a sentiment along the lines that the North has overwhelming advantages of population and industry yet a mystique is created by the South hanging on for so long until Gettysburg being so successful in the East.

There seems to be a sort of underdog attraction based on scruffy uniforms and good generals.

But that is about as far as it goes in my world.

If you look at the dynamic between the states before, during and after the Independence all the way to the Civil War it's very much a game of trying to get as much out of the system while trying to contribute as little as possible.

When it comes to state's rights, the southern states trampled over each other's just as much as they did over that of northern states.

The divisions among states became a political goldmine because they were useful leverage and a way to censor opposition by threatening them with a hot topic that could ruin their own political capital.

And when they did find common cause it became a kind of "let's milk the cow for all its worth." The threat that the slavery issue would blow up in people's faces was so big that anyone who got involved tried to get out by almost any means possible. It took a very tough person to make a clear stance in the early 1800's on the subject. And it became almost the expectation that whenever the ugly subject reared its head, the fallout would always be to the benefit of the south. They tried to institutionalize the south's position in US politics so that if anyone ever did cross the line they risked blowing up the political Jenga.

The real problem is that the south got cocky and started to believe that they could push the issue ahead of them forever or it would fade away sooner or later. Once they started to talk about "King Cotton" and started to believe their own aristocratic myths, combined with the economic reality that things were not going their way and their monopoly on cotton would vanish within a few decades anyway, they essentially sealed their own doom.

By trying to preempt any attempt to secure a majority that might start to push against their interests, they created the political instability that lead to their secession once the system to stall the issue began to stall itself.

I'm not accusing the southern states of deliberately starting the war as part of a clear strategy, it was just another tragic historical mistake. It was the inability of the US to deal with the issues, that created a vacuum that was picked up by various people in the south and grew into a political bomb. By trying to get a hold on Washington and trying to get to the political high ground and anchor their "way of life" and then deny everyone else anything else, they created a problem that only got worse as the geography, economy and demographics of the USA began to change, mostly to the detriment of the south. And because stepping up to try to resolve such issues became pure political suicide the issue finally exploded.

If there is one weakness to the USA is that the people who wrote the constitution tried to do too much and ended up doing too little. By framing certain issues the Constitution becomes both a shield and a sword. A shield to nix anything you don't wanna do and a sword to force others what you want them to do.

The Founding Fathers were aware that they needed to get it right, but they dramatically underestimated the ability of certain people to milk the system to insane levels. And this is exactly what happened. I'm not saying people set out to do a war or enslave the whole world, but it was in small steps and increments, trying to get a little bit of extra political pie, accumulating into a situation where when it came to the last slice, people were facing off with drawn revolvers …

And if you do want to accuse the south of anything, it's that even when they compounded their mistakes by firing at Fort Sumter only to end up at Appomattox, they pulled the old trick of refusing to learn anything and reprised their role of the bully pretending to be a victim they had tried to pull off before the war. They weren't angry because the north "took away" their slaves, they were angry because they had lost. For the first time in generations the problem hadn't been skirted and they could breathe easy until the next crisis. Now the game was up and they couldn't force the issue any more.

And this is where the myth is created. One often can hear of the extreme levels of gallantry between the soldiers fighting in the war, how there was this grudging respect and agreement to disagree, even when you were firing cannons at each other. So the south changed their tune, instead of "We have slaves, we deserve special treatment" it became "We lost the war, we deserve special treatment." The gallantry became the facade behind which people with a certain mindset and utter refusal to learn from any mistakes they made and blame it on everybody except themselves. They turned on their own, they created the myth almost like a religion of salvation that promised absolution and put the sin on the Yankee.

It's politically expedient, it's sexy, rewarding and allows you to feel better by absolving yourself. No wonder it worked so well and was embraced by so many. If humans are prone to weakness, this is the stuff that weakness was made for.

Exceedingly well stated, Patrick R.

If anyone is curious about the podcast that was linked in the original post, its official name is "Civil War Talk Radio." It's available via iTunes (for free), or you can go to impedimentsofwar.org and download episodes from there. It has a facebook page, also called "Impediments of War." The website where it is produced is link

The host of the show is rumored to hang out at TMP.

Great exposition, Patrick R. Very well explained.

In case anyone might want to look at the systematic construction of "The Lost Cause" you need not look further than the dear ladies of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Who were responsible for numerous statues and the whole "Gone With The Wind" ideal of gallant Southern Gentlemen and their Ladies, alongside happy smiling Negros, waiting table and singing in the fields.

The stated aims of the organization included "creating a social network, memorializing the war, maintaining a 'truthful record of the noble and chivalric achievements' of their veterans, and teaching the next generation 'a proper respect for and pride in the glorious war history'." Which included demanding textbooks for public schools that told the story of the war and the Confederacy from a definite southern point of view.

For the avoidance of doubt here is a link to "A measuring rod to test text books, and reference books in schools, colleges and libraries."

link

Published in conjunction with the United Confederate Veterans and written by Mildred Lewis Rutherford, a leading member of the Daughters and prolific writer of all things pro Confederacy.

Its influence on public school text books lasted for generations.

"Only firm forum moderation can keep such vocal but objectionable minorities in check, and "firm forum moderation" is the Lost Cause of TMP. ;)"

This one of the disturbing trends in modern American politics and 'education'. If you don't agree with someone they are wrong, backwards, or evil, and must be silenced.

One of the things I admire about Bill is his commitment to free speech and allowing people to generally speak their minds on this forum. It does tend to lead to some polls I consider kinda silly, but I'm willing to pay that price to allow people to be heardr.

And you deduce this, how? Seems a most unscientific observation.

All it takes is a few people accusing you of trying to "destroy history" because you're in favor of removal of statues of Confederate generals to leave a very negative impression.

I'd like to play wargames set in the ACW. I went out and bought a few hundred figures and started painting them. I've been reading various rules-sets to see which would work for me. But after reading some of the threads on this board I seriously question whether it is for me.

People of all political stripes play wargames,Scott,and that applies to ACW too; don't let it get in the way of your gaming enjoyment.

Trajanus--there's also the DAR. Back in the twenties,they strongly objected to a passage in a textbook written by a major historian. In describing the Battle of Bunker Hill, he'd written "Three times the British bravely marched up the hill". Outrageous. After a lot of back and forth, he finally offered to change it to "Three times the cowardly British marched up the hill".

Dn Jackson--

his commitment to free speech and allowing members to generally speak their minds

Really?

TMP link

Oh the DAR! God I'd forgotten them. Right up there with the John Birch Society, in my youth memory!

No offense to any DAR ladies, or their associated males (or females) in making that connection. Probably has something to do with the length of my hair at the time.

Thanks for that TMP link Hafen, haven't laughed that much in weeks!

When we say that slavery was the root cause of the Civil War, we do not mean "the North started the war so it could free the slaves"! We mean that (some) Southern states seceded in order to maintain slavery, and then when many of the other slave states failed to follow suit the Confederate government (i.e. Jeff Davis) started a shooting war to force those other slaves states to choose sides. So, ultimately, slavery was the root cause.

I agree with Patrick R.'s well-written analysis.

When we say that slavery was the root cause of the Civil War, we do not mean "the North started the war so it could free the slaves"!

Plenty of folks still think that and slavery being the cause of the war are the same thing.

They really should be made to read some Union soldiers views on that matter. Crusading abolitionists they weren't!

Going to stick me neck out and with less than Idea preparation and research here….
I keep seeing the word "traitors" used here for the commanders especially and believe it maybe incorrect to the situation.

trai·tor
ˈtrādər/Submit
noun
a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.
"they see me as a traitor, a sellout to the enemy"

IIRC states have a right to succeed, it is part of the Constitutional system/checks and balance between states and federal system.
SO one having to choose which country or "birth of a country ( "the Confederacy" even though deemed misguided in the case of ACW with Slavery perhaps the "fuel for the fire") would not be technically a traitor per say.
Our forefathers, to the constitution, were technically traitors though, in the eyes of the crown (and thank goodness worked out for the best) that the colonies had not such rights, thus being the big difference here.

or another way to put it, in regards to 1860s in the Continental US….
A general of a southern state, who is forced to make a choice to stay… so not to betraying his friends, now is fighting for his new country, and perhaps now also fighting for the resident principle ( though not so good, clearly seen from a 21st century eyes and education… as ours)
MG

Even though certain issues loom over the Civil War, I would hate for these topics to affect gaming the war itself. Outside of a number of actions, events and issues the war is far too interesting to avoid gaming.

Battles like Gettysburg or Antietam are almost completely out of the scope of any controversy. Even if you do have a problem with things like raiders and bushwackers or Sherman's March to the Sea, there are hundreds of battles without any major political issues.

It is however one of the first modern wars, fought with new weapons, technology, and led by men from all backgrounds and some did amazing things. Some of the battles are highly interesting case studies in 19th century warfare and should not be ignore because the underlying cause is bad. Quite a few people did see it as a crusade to right the wrongs that plagued the nation. They knew it was more than an issue about states rights, slavery or their place in a changing world. These people believed they were fighting for the soul of a nation, to better it on all levels, not just freeing the slaves, but also find a better understanding between the states and strengthen the Union.

We dabble with toy soldiers, it behooves us to pause for a moment at what happened in reality, but at the end of the battle the soldiers get up again and live to fight again.

So let's enjoy the games, debate the history and maybe learn a few interesting things and enrich our understanding.

IIRC states have a right to succeed, it is part of the Constitutional system/checks and balance between states and federal system.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that says states have a right to secede.

ScottS,

You might want to take another look at the Preamble of the Constitution! Any reference to, or the word "State" does not appear in it anywhere.

While the actual concept of secession has never been tested in the courts the idea has been debated in such prestigious forums at Harvard Law School as well as Oxford. In those forums it was determined that the implied consent under the phrase which begins with "We the people . . ." would suggest that the people, or any sub-group there of could leave (secede) from such a Union if they decided, or voted if you will, to do so.

In current history there are States, and even parts of States that have, or are currently considering seceding from the Union in total, or from their current State. None have tried it since 1865, but it appears there are some legal legs to stand on if they choose to follow such a course of action! It would fall upon the Courts at that point, and if favor is found in such action there would be little remedy short of the use of force to over turn or reverse the action.

The word "States" appears twice in the Preamble. The preamble says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So, yes, the word "State" appears twice as part of "United States."

The people form a Union made up of States. "United States." This does not somehow empower states to secede.

While the actual concept of secession has never been tested in the courts

This is also factually incorrect. In 1869 the Supreme Court addressed this directly in Texas v. White and ruled that secession, specifically that of Texas, was illegal as when Texas joined the US it became part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states."

A dictionary definition of "treason" is pointless when we have a perfectly good constitutional definition.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Let's go over the checklist.
1. levying War against (the United States). Yup. Check that one off.
2. Testimony of two witnesses. I'm sure that would have been no problem.

I've always thought the States have the right to try and leave the Union. The 10th Amendment of the constitution states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I don't recall anywhere in the Constitution where it says a State cannot leave, therefore, the right to leave is reserved by the State.

I can see why the Federal Government would oppose that. But unless you can point to a section of the US Constitution as it existed in 1861 that says specifically that States cannot leave, they had every legal right to do so.

A war was fought and lost, and in 1869 the Supreme Court made a ruling. But what was the law in 1861?

I am not romanticizing the conflict. The war was fought over states rights, with the number one state right (listed right up front in most of the articles of succession) being slavery. We can all agree now that is wrong. But just because its wrong doesn't mean those states didn't have the state-reserved right to drop from the Union.

SECESSION!!!!!
Not "succession".
Blame autocorrect. I always do.

But what was the law in 1861?

There wasn't settled law; whether States could legally secede was hotly debated at the time. And, to keep the record straight, the fact is that there were times when Northern States had threatened to secede.

But – well, is it worth wading into this debate? I'll admit I've fallen for it. I've logged into this board and commented on threads about the removal of Confederate statues or the legality of secession. I know I won't change anyone's mind; these are issues that have been fought over for a century and a half and no one seems to be giving up any ground. And these arguments are present outside in the real world; they aren't limited to wargame forums.

And here's the thing – I don't get this with the other eras I wargame. I don't see, let alone get pulled into, heated arguments that are recapitulated on the news over which of Alexander's generals had the best claim on his empire. No one is really fighting over the 10th article of the Treaty of Amiens and the disposition of Malta, and I don't see fights over this in the real world. No one wants to hold up a wargame to argue over whether the USSR should have attacked West Germany in the 80s.

But the Civil War? Pull out a bunch of figures painted in blue and grey and everyone with an opinion about State's Rights or Secession or Slavery instantly explodes with opinions – and yes, I'm guilty of this myself.

Frankly, I wonder whether it is worth it.

@ Winston Smith
That is the definition as to a person or group.
In the case of 1860, I do think this so (and it would be good that someone with the qualification can clarify) to that since:
1) The states voted per the due process to secede.
2) Had seceeded.
3) Were now a confederecy to become a new nation ( and thank goodness failed).
4) Then went to war with the US when resolution was not possible ( right or wrong reasons)
5) and did not go to court and were concluded to be traitors per the conclusion of the US courts.
Therefore changes things a bit and perhaps makes the statement "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." not to directly apply here so the use of "traitor" to those that were living in and fighting for the South, during the ACW, as an accurate descriptor.
If so, there should have been a whole lot of folks going to court and being in prison ed or shot, which IIRC did not occur.

Just to be clear I am not for secession but such a process for checks and balance seems to be present/in place and helps ( or has helped) the USA governing body to continue to be a positive system.

@SeattleGamer- thanks
MG

Scott --you think this is bad? Check out the Napoleonics board!

Maybe I'm lucky, but when I see arguments about the Napoleonic era they tend to be over things like "column vs. line," or "what color was Marat's favorite sabretache in 1809," or "how high do cannon balls bounce?"

These arguments are not relevant to current events; no one is marching in the streets of my country with a fleur-de-lis flag demanding the restoration of the Bourbons – but there are people flying Confederate flags out there these days. And at the same time, the questions about formations, tactics, and uniforms do directly relate to what happens on my table.

But the ACW arguments I see are ones that come from the world outside. Things like civil rights, the display of Confederate flags, or the tricky balances of free speech versus public order are all extremely sensitive issues these days. But arguments over Confederate statues or the legality of secession or the like have nothing to do with, and no bearing on, a wargame.

I have enough of politics in my daily life. I'm sick and tired of it. When I spend time painting models and playing games the last thing I want is to hear about real-world problems; instead, I want to focus on things relevant to the game. I don't seem to get that out of ACW these days.

Maybe you are looking in the wrong places. I've been on the ACW boards for 12 years and found people on them courteous and informative.

The occasional instances of things getting bent out of shape are pretty much always caused by some question about the cause of the War (often by someone who really doesn't know) or sideways reference to it and maybe who lost!

The majority of posts are game or history related outside of that area.

Unfortunately, recent real world events regarding flags, statues and the removal of such has thrown a firecracker under individual opinions and raised issues among those who feel some things should not go unchallenged on a public forum.

Hence we are where we are.

As mentioned some of the discourse I have seen on the Naps Boards are pretty cringe worthy too and a lot more dismissive.

If you find the political angle of some threads a pain dont touch them, there's plenty of others.

I've gamed ACW for more years than care to think about and as you may have noticed have a firm set of views on the non military aspects, that's never prevented me enjoying it.

Detachment is required in other periods too. I haven't spent hours painting camouflage smocks on my Waffen SS Panzer Grenadiers because I'm a closet Nazi and think Germany should have won.

Shying away from any period because actual history is full of people you wouldn't want to have a beer with would leave you better suited to railroad modelling as an available alternative.

Oh, and before any of you hobby fascists get going, there's nothing wrong with railroad modelling, making plastic planes, stamp collecting, rasing chickens etc etc etc (Apparently)

Any hobby has its schismatics and heretics. And none are lacking adherents ready and able to call each other out.
Try the Game Design board. "Simulation" anyone?

Trajanus: +1

I haven't spent hours painting camouflage smocks on my Waffen SS Panzer Grenadiers because I'm a closet Nazi and think Germany should have won.

Very much Agree …

As I said earlier on this thread. I've run across this here on TMP before. It is another TMP/internet phenomena(?) AFAIK. In some cases if you don't state you are not a Nazi, etc. before you mention anything about Nazis, etc., you must be a supporter …

Some people just enjoy ruffling other people's feathers. It's a pity, but what can you do? (other than avoid them)

The main thing to remember about ACW gaming is: IT'S A GAME!

Some people just enjoy ruffling other people's feathers. It's a pity, but what can you do? (other than avoid them)

Very true, it seems there are some like that even here on TMP. But at least here one can hit the stifle/ignore option.

I appreciate that, Trajanus.

Maybe I should just say "damn the torpedoes," as it were, and get back to work on my ACW figures.

A very appropriate ACW quote, if I may say so! ;o)

My ancestral family fought for the North. The Southern Generals and soldiers tried to kill them. I'm not going to forgive them for that. And, I'm not going to shed one tear when they finally take down the monument to Captain Wirz in Andersonville, Georgia. A damned war criminal, who in their right mind would think that's appropriate?

ScottS: In the immortal words of Ricky Nelson, "You can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself."

Scott --you think this is bad? Check out the Napoleonics board!

Maybe it's to do with being an English speaking board where many members are Americans or familiar w American political controversies.

A Russian language board discussing World War Two could get interesting. Throw in a few Estonian and Ukrainian board members. Add an unreconstructed Stalinist or two. Might get pretty explosive.