"Why do people believe myths about the Confederacy?" Topic

…Because our textbooks and monuments are wrong.

"History is the polemics of the victor, William F. Buckley once said. Not so in the United States, at least not regarding the Civil War. As soon as the Confederates laid down their arms, some picked up their pens and began to distort what they had done and why. The resulting mythology took hold of the nation a generation later and persists — which is why a presidential candidate can suggest, as Michele Bachmann did in 2011, that slavery was somehow pro-family and why the public, per the Pew Research Center, believes that the war was fought mainly over states' rights…"
Main page

link

Armand

Larry Elder suggested that reparations were owed to slave OWNERS.
He's, uhh… Black. And he had a shot at being Republican Governor of California.

So, yes. There's a whole lot of Lost Cause lunatics running around.

Still living in Western Georgia (I'm a transplanted yankee from Michigan, stayed here when I got out of the army) I heard a lot of it in the nineties, but it gradually died down as the older generations died off…

…to be replaced by a modern mythology that makes that of HP Lovecraft look downright plausible to the point of dull by comparison.

Yeah, an article by the Washington Post is pretty suspect to begin with. Them requiring you to set-up an account to read this makes it even more shady. I'll pass thanks.

As for southern lunacy- there's plenty of that going around in the North too, they are just nuts about other topics (Kennedy assassination anyone?). Feel free to pick your loony tunes.

Chinese historians in a hundred years will wonder why these once great peoples believed they had to destroy themselves in woke myths.
Really with all the sources, the kept places, the writings etc. How can you not have an honest true history of the Acw without any pseudo politics sneaking in. Is it so impossible for nowadays "academics" to be honest and bear a spine?
No wonder there was a good deal of fantasy in the South after the 1870s too, a long time ago.

Many people still alive in the south had relatives, that they personally knew, that lived, fought in the war and/or survived Reconstruction. Much of the ill will towards the North and Washington comes from the Reconstruction era. As these people die off, their stories go with them. Also, there has been a great movement of people to the South that carry no similar family history with them. The author of the article plays very loose with their preconceived notions inspired by their woke leanings.

Without AMERICANS like Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee and all their Confederate brothers there would have been no epic Civil War battles that forged the American character in battle. America and Americans would be different people than they were in the 20th Century, when they were the greatest people and civilisation on Earth. I think Jackson and Lee would turn in their graves seeing some of the Commie try hards around today in power in America.

Because people will believe myths about _anything_.

Okay. So, Jackson and Lee violated the oath they took to support and defend the Constitution. Though at least they resigned their commissions first (Jackson of course earlier than the ACW). Resigning commission does not remove the oath. Same applies to almost all southern generals. And then, after the United States won the war, the one(s) that was(were) still alive was(were) not executed for treason. Certainly could have been very different. And the north did re-assimilate the south. Yes, there were bad things that happened in reconstruction – and then much worse things that happened after reconstruction by CSA sympathizers and revisionists. But imagine some other countries and how they would have treated the southern states – could have been hundreds of times worse than it was. I think the northern states were extraordinarily lenient given what the ACW did to this country.

The 'vaunted' abilities of southern generals was really just the reality of changing technology. Attacking against rifled muskets in Napoleonic line was suicidal. Yes, both generals had some good moments – but just how much of their post war positive press was written by southerners?

I contend the confederacy was a list ditch effort to support the very much feudal lifestyle that still perpetuated in the southern states with the addition of the horrors of chattel slavery. And a huge portion of people in those states did not support the CSA. How many Union regiments came out of East Tennessee was it again?

Time to give up on the myths, folks. The United States won the war. And deservedly so by all reasonable measures of history and decency.

Given the last very few veterans of the Civil War died over sixty years ago, I doubt very many people have much first hand knowledge from family/friends who lived through the actual war. And not too much different for those who lived through reconstruction. And if there are few around, they are likely into their eighties and nineties – when memory becomes suspect and nostalgia overtakes reality.

One of the biggest myths about the Confederacy was the horrors of Reconstruction.
Land o'Goshen!
The slaves….THE SLAVES! They were trying to actually act like they had RIGHTS!!!! The nerve of those ungrateful uppity people!
Luckily when Hayes won the election and pulled the army out, White people were put back in charge, and God's Natural Order was re-established.

+1 John the OFM

+1 John

I love the myths of Reconstruction.

link

Except that you guys' morality play is a myth too.

Well, speaking as someone whose great-grandpa served under Grant and was shot in the leg for his trouble at Iuka, I always wondered as a kid why the US Army would name a bunch of bases after traitors to the Republic – but what would I know?

Does bring to mind an interesting conversation I had with a very nice little old lady in Atlanta some years ago – after a bit of a chat she asked me if I knew the difference between a Yankee and a damn Yankee – which she explained as,

"Yankee – someone from the North"

"Damn Yankee – someone from the North who move down here"

Yet no one was prosecuted for treason. Davis expected to be and prepared his defense. Which the US Government declined to test. So calling names (treason) is ahistorical.

I don't know, doc. "Waging war against the United States" seems pretty clear cut to me.
Declining to prosecute means only that the USA declined to prosecute. Vengeance would have been fine with me, but keeping the peace was probably best in the long run. Who would have served on the jury? Why make a fool of yourself trying a case that no jury would convict? Not unless Davis was tried in Boston.
Better to leave him as a pathetic excuse of a man, whining and writing his memoirs.
Although the man did need hanging.

A question, what percentage of the modern American population have ancestors who were involved? As that percentage lessons, so the strength of those myths decreases….

They have to create myths because trying to support a slaver rebellion in indefensible. The attempts to rehabilitate the Confederacy align strongly with opposition to Civil Rights.

Unfortunately, true Reconstruction never really happened because white supremacy was thoroughly entrenched and those in power in the South were largely able to hold their power and continue to oppress black Americans. White terrorism exploded, with those in power (police, judges, politicians) openly supporting groups like the KKK. Those same struggles echo to this day and attempts to gloss over white violence continue and a refusal to acknowledge how much policy is driven by racial animus. You can draw a direct line from slavery to the Civil War to modern white nationalism. Heck, a recent ex-president even lamented that we would have been better served if Lee were in charge of Afghanistan operations!

The unfortunate truth is that slavery is a cancer that was built into this nation from the beginning and despite a bloody war to rip it out, it has penetrated so deeply that it's malignancy will likely never be truly gone. Worse, rather than actively examine the situation and try to halt the spread and fix the damage, many are all too happy to ignore it and accuse those who point out the rot as the real problem. It is hard to separate it from modern politics as it laid the foundation for the modern situation.

The country never really came back together- the ex Confederacy became resentful and reactionary, resisting national progress and deeply distrustful of the federal government. Racial animosity, though perhaps less open, remains a tremendous political motivator and is not restricted to the old South as even the North never contemplated racial equality. Old symbols of a traitor cause became cultural identifiers of those supporting white supremacy. It is no coincidence that in the 1960s sentimentalized celebrations of Confederate "history" and the Civil War overlapped with the Civil Rights movement.

History is the polemics of the victor, William F. Buckley once said. Not so in the United States, at least not regarding the Civil War.

Incorrect. This misses who actually won- the white supremacists beat the slavers on the battlefield, but weren't interested in completely eliminating the underlying problem. They just knocked out private slavery. Indeed, industrialists and business would soon discover that playing on racial animosity was a great way to suppress wages and prevent solidarity among the working classes (some would go on to use de facto slavery, but Americans didn't really care too much because it was overseas/foreign labor).

Also, Buckley was wrong about alot of things, and was a jerk who said that it was "a fact" that AIDS is "the special curse of the homosexual", so probably shouldn't be quoted by anyone who isn't to the right of Nixon (seriously, he got angry with Nixon for being too soft towards Communists).

Just an aside, but while last night watching a portion of the documentary about Muhammed Ali, there was a segment with the governor of Georgia with the confederate battle flag in his office – in the 1960s!

For all the progress that has been made against racism, the last several years have revealed how little that progress is against what needs to be done. And I pity the poor Afghans who are coming to this country – those who legitimately supported the United States. The racists will have a field day with them regardless of their contributions. In the minds of the willfully ignorant, they will all be labelled as terrorists. Probably better for them if they settle in some other country. That is very sad.

Imagine a country with people from every culture and race living in and believing so deeply in the United States that they would place the US over their homeland. We could have the best spy service in the history of spy services – even better than Mossad. Alas, our racists will never allow that situation to become reality. Sigh.

Reading some of this is like watching a never ending car wreck in slow motion….

Armand plays the tune and y'all dance to it….

Blasted Brains, there are so many racists and racist policies that people from all over the world are entering the county illegally to benefit from them. So strange…..

Armand plays the tune and y'all dance to it….

He knows his role.

But everyone knows that after a civil war the right thing to do is to CRUSH the spirit of the losers, denying them any pride or security. Hmmm, that sort of smacks of English treason law, doesn't it?

Sorry, guys, rightly or wrongly (or some of each) the north considered reconciliation of the white south immensely more important than the welfare of the freedmen. Slavery was confined to the south but racism was as strong in the north, which had its own "undesirables" to deal with from the new immigration.

Resigning commission does not remove the oath.

Very questionable statement, legally. And certainly not one proposed in many other circumstances. Like naturalized citizens, for example.

But everyone knows that after a civil war the right thing to do is to CRUSH the spirit of the losers, denying them any pride or security. Hmmm, that sort of smacks of English treason law, doesn't it?

Like after Culloden?
The "right" thing to do?
Let's all go and watch "The Birth of a Nation", endorsed by that fine American President Woodrow Wilson. Perhaps the most racist President ever. No, not even close. He did what some only dreamed of doing.

Many times the myths about a civil war feed directly into education, especially in primary and / or secondary school … it is the safest way to transmit certain "truths" … the distortion of the history of a country that had a civil war is much deeper than that of those who did not suffer it …

In my country this "crack" continues to be suffered despite the passing of centuries … it seems like a wound that never closes …

Only those countries with a very high intellectual level can put this problem aside.

Armand

Racism was not as strong in the north because Northerners did not openly sell and buy people and force them to work. There were many more anti slavery people in the North. I think this is pretty obvious. There was racism. But not comparable to the South.

"A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." -- Paul Simon

Btw, are you sure the "Confederate battle flag" was not the state flag of Georgia at the time? 1956-2001 Not too surprising the governor might have the state flag in his office.

Tort, no. There is a clear distinction between slavery and racism. Surely you've watched GLORY, which gives a great deal of attention to northern racism. In fact, the north was MORE conscious of ethnic distinction other than white/black. We've discussed it before, for example, that both Roman Catholics and Jews were far more accepted into southern society than in the north. The south put everyone into one of two buckets, white and black. The north had dozens of buckets for Irish and Germans and Jews, etc. Just the way it was.

John, I agree Wilson was probably our most racist president. Was that in spite of his Progressivism or because of it? I'm going to go with "because of."

Oh, and Tort, there were more anti-slavery societies in the SOUTH than in the North, prior to Nat Turner. See, e.g.,

link

Not surprising that those closest to the evil saw it more clearly and opposed it.

Gentlemen, the reason that states rights are still discussed today is because the Civil War did not settle the issue.

Correct, not as long as both sides want different sorts of "sanctuary" cities and states. It is built in to federalism.

Armand, thank you for this reminder that other nations carry scars like these. It is indeed a wound that never closes, and I think no nation is advanced enough in intellectual and emotional understanding to put it aside.

No mention my friend…

A sadly truth….

I must add that politicians also make use of it … only for their benefit … I insist that a well-educated people do not fall into their trap so easily …

The last week election in my country has shown me that …

Armand

Larry Elder suggested that reparations were owed to slave OWNERS.

Britain did this in the 1830's. The debt wasn't fully paid off until 2015. Given the size comparison with the number of US Slave owners, the idea is even more of a joke than paying Slaveholders in the first place!

Lincoln offered compensated emancipation to the slave states still in the Union, but they wouldn't go for it.

The answer to this is easy.
Myths convey truth.
Some are able to perceive that truth.

Joe Collins

Joe is correct. Myths have great power; see Hollywood. There is surely some element of wish-fulfillment: this is the way it SHOULD have been. Asperations are true, even though they are seldom fully met.

"Myths" convey whatever their creators wish them to. Whether that might be a timeless truth, a shameless lie or something in between is immaterial.

B

Blut, perhaps, for myths that are deliberately created. But mythologies often represent the values of an entire culture and develop over a long period of time. Who "created" Zeus and his gang? I'd suggest that myths embody things like heroism and cautionary tales and the great paradoxes of human existence. Like history, they are a branch of literature, but with rather different rules. Is THE ILIAD "true"? Who cares.

I absolutely take your point, doc. I do wish that all our myths were as worthy and virtuous as Jason, Aeneas, Krishna, Buddha and our indigenous tribal cultures. Are such stories really true? Well …. Troy was considered ""a myth" until Doctor Schliemann revealed it to the world. I believe that there is more truth to these ancient stories than many are willing to accept.

Sadly, the propagandists of the modern era seem to have found other uses for the tradition of mythology.

p.s. – Having attended Boston Latin School, I was obliged to study Latin for six years and translate the Iliad (and some Ovid) in my last year. One of my teachers/masters (Bartholomew "Black Bart" Cleary – holder of a doctorate in Roman and Greek studies and teacher of Latin and ancient Greek) took great pride in pointing out the exact locations of the six "spondaic lines" (the Latin equivalent of an elision in English) contained in the original Latin text of the Iliad. I don't remember any of it at all, except for "Sic bucellatum frangitur" ("That's the way the cookie crumbles.").

B

Because people whose ancestors fought for the Confederacy have been raised on their heroism and don't want to admit that they did anything wrong and fought for an unworthy cause.

Well, Cleburne ….. I must concede that you appear to dispense your opinions from a very lofty perch of certitude. I do envy you.

That having been said, my commentary on the role and place and misuse of myths and mythology really was not meant to reference any historical moment in particular. But I can understand how you may have taken it in that manner. Sorry 'bout that.

B

Yet no one was prosecuted for treason. Davis expected to be and prepared his defense. Which the US Government declined to test. So calling names (treason) is ahistorical.

Lincoln did not want any prosecutions; neither did Grant or Sherman. All three wanted to rebuild the country.

And just because there were no prosecutions does not make the crime of treason less evident of valid.

And making the comment is not ahistorical.

Troy was considered ""a myth" until Doctor Schliemann revealed it to the world.

Well, he dug up a city where he thought Troy should be, but there was nothing to prove that the city he dug up was the Troy Homer wrote about. There are various theories about where Troy REALLY was.

Go here – link

Secession was not a treasonous act under the configuration of the United States Constitution on the day the South left the Union.

B

doc, I disagree. Here is my take. There were southern abolitionists, but their first ammmendment rights were restricted by state laws, they could not even print or mail any material. There were more in the north, they spoke freely, and general sentiment was at least agreeable. Ask the Quakers, or the German farmers in PA and elsewhere, most of New England, etc. there was racism, but not to the degree of its worst expression as slavery

I believe slavery and racism in the USA were uniquely bound by practice and in law. This seems so obvious we don't even think about it. There are outlier examples for everything, and the northerners were no saints, but the big picture is what it is.

As for states rights, the south used the Feds to go after northern states who tried to pass laws affecting southern slave catchers. Fugitive Slave law? States rights was about the right to keep and expand slavery. This is only my opinion, many will stridently differ.

There was racism in the north, yes. Not like in the south though.

For me, this is not by way of attacking one side or the other. It's just history, not politics. It is what it is. If you read the various articles of succession, read Stevens Cornerstone speech, you can learn a lot. Myths can make for great propaganda, thus the Lost Cause narrative. Human nature to come up with something to ease the pain.

I think the light of day was bound to come, but we need to see it as history for all, not a way to push political agendas. Stop blamer culture and come to terms with who we were. Did we learn anything? Who is better off today? What next?

Secession may not have been a treasonous act by itself but levying of war against the USA was considered a treasonous act by both Lincoln and Congress. Because of this, Lincoln felt the need to propose a contingent amnesty plan for most confederates.

In 1868, partially because the individual applications for amnesty were overwhelming him, Johnson made a wholesale Amnesty Proclamation. Generally, you dont need amnesties if treason wasn't committed. Indeed, large numbers of former confederates engaged in these applications for amnesty, a tacit agreement that treason took place. The ones who disagreed seem to have fled the country as fugitives.

Further, although bilateral secession might have been permissible, unilateral secession was unconstitutional.