Why the Confederacy Lives

Politico Magazine ^ | April 08, 2015 | EUAN HAGUE

[lqcincinnatus]

One hundred-fifty years after Appomattox, many Southerners still won’t give up.

One hundred fifty years ago, on April 9th, 1865, Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House and the Union triumphed in the Civil War. Yet the passage of a century and a half has not dimmed the passion for the Confederacy among many Americans. Just three weeks ago, the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) appeared before the Supreme Court arguing for the right to put a Confederate flag on vanity license plates in Texas. Just why would someone in 2015 want a Confederate flag on their license plate? The answer is likely not a desire to overtly display one’s genealogical research skills; nor can it be simplistically understood solely as an exhibition of racism, although the power of the Confederate flag to convey white supremacist beliefs cannot be discounted.

Rather, displaying the Confederate flag in 2015 is an indicator of a complex and reactionary politics that is very much alive in America today. It is a politics that harks back to the South’s proud stand in the Civil War as a way of rallying opinion against the federal government—and against the country’s changing demographic, economic, and moral character, of which Washington is often seen as the malign author. Today’s understanding of the Confederacy by its supporters is thus neither nostalgia, nor mere heritage; rather Confederate sympathy in 2015 is a well-funded and active political movement (which, in turn, supports a lucrative Confederate memorabilia industry).

[Tzfat]

Nope. It is a historical fact. The “victor” rewrites the history, but that little fact slipped through, so some claim that Sec Seward was not authorized to make the promise not to resupply - but the fact remains, both Buchanan and Lincoln lied about resupply.

[rockrr]

The “victor” rewrites the history

And the losers write the fiction.

If it was a "historical fact" there should be some mention of it in textbooks. Why isn't there any?

[Tzfat]

It is mentioned lots of places. Perhaps you can’t read? Cross-reference Buchanan and Sec Seward, and you will find it.

See ya Yankee.

[Tzfat]

It fell into bitterness and poverty like nothing the country had suffered up until then. Just read the short stories of Thomas Wolfe where he recounts his family’s suffering during Reconstruction! Shocking, to say the least.

True, but we would have just as soon Yankees had not come and stayed with their carpetbags. We still want Yankees to just leave us along (and leave).

[Rebelbase]

“It fell into bitterness and poverty like nothing the country had suffered up until then. Just read the short stories of Thomas Wolfe where he recounts his family’s suffering during Reconstruction! Shocking, to say the least.”

In my mind that explains why the poverty mindset is so prevalent in the rural south as compared to the rural north.

Down here there extended pockets where he pride of ownership is not considered. Up north for a greater part people keep up their property.

The defeat and occupation was the root cause of 150 years of generational poverty.

[rockrr]

Then it should be easy for you to provide evidence.

[Pelham]

“Washington freed his slaves”

He freed the ones that he brought into his marriage. Martha had more slaves than George and these slaves were not freed.

“Jefferson (mascot of the RATs) RAPED his. “

I’m sure that the Bill Clinton spin machine will be pleased to see how effective their campaign turned out to be. Recycling James Callender’s ancient smear in order to make Bill’s philandering look normal. Actually you’ve managed to exceed Callender since his version didn’t claim rape.

[miss marmelstein]

Yes, I realize that what you’re saying is true. In Maine, where I often go, we also have pockets of poverty where people’s houses are falling down.

[miss marmelstein]

The South has always been a bulwark against creeping leftism. Just because liberal northerners have moved into southern states and changed the voting patterns is no reason to denigrate what the south has done in keeping conservatism alive. The Midwest has always been more liberal in its history (that book “What Happened to Kansas?” - I think that’s the title) explains it all very well.

I must say we Union types are the biggest sore winners on the planet.

[RFEngineer]

We’re all Americans. We’re all Confederates.

Like it or not, that’s the way it is.

I’m amused at those who claim “We beat you” or some such other nonsense in reference to the Civil War, or those who try to claim great Americans like Robert E. Lee are some how not Americans because someone 150 years later thinks they know better.

No fancy-pants Politico writer will ever understand what it means to be an American today - much less 150 years ago.

[DoodleDawg]

The defeat and occupation was the root cause of 150 years of generational poverty.

Do you real just how much you sound like those boobs who are blaming all the problems in the black community on centuries of slavery? Do you want reparations, too?

[rockrr]

Nope. Sorry (not). I’m not a “yankee” but I’m definitely not a confederate. I’m an American. I accept my country as-is, warts and all. Some days I’m just as frustrated with the direction it appears to be headed, but I’m not the type to turn tail and run when things don’t go my way. I don’t have a tantrum when I find myself on the short end of the stick.

And I take the proposition of raising arms against my fellow countrymen seriously and as an absolute LAST resort - not first opportunity.

[RFEngineer]

I’m not sure what you are saying, or what you think I was saying.

I can’t find a rational way to accept you view that the Civil War was a “tantrum”, though.

Those “Confederates” that you try to distance yourself from are your own countrymen. I think that’s what bothers folks like you, that those who would have seceded but failed in doing so have every bit as strong a claim on America as you do.

I’d suggest that you engage in a little humble introspection, such as that great American hero Robert E. Lee would have done.

Yes, be more like Lee, less like the lost person you appear to be in denying a big part the very essence of your legacy that makes us all Americans.

[DiogenesLamp]

There has been no short-shrift to the record, no omission of the facts and details, and with southern partisans contributing, no one-sided narrative.

The history of the war has been deliberately and dishonestly re framed to imply that the North Fought the war to end slavery.

The unmitigated truth is that the North fought the war to stop the Southern states from gaining independence, and was perfectly willing to leave slavery intact. That slavery was abolished at all had more to do with anger and revenge than anything else.

[rockrr]

You’re the only one I see pushing that particular strawnan.

[DiogenesLamp]

The south engaged in a bloody and protracted rebellion that killed hundreds of thousands of people.

It was only bloody and protracted because the North wouldn't let them be. Had they the decency of George III and realize that these states no longer wanted to be part of their government, they could have stopped sending men into the meat grinder at any time.

The war was bloody? Well what do you expect when you invade someone's home?

And once they surrendered they attempted to keep the same people who led the rebellion in power and enacted laws meant to keep the newly freed slaves in a position as closely resembling slavery as possible.

And yet no criticism for the fact that the Union would have kept them in ACTUAL SLAVERY had the South just stopped fighting earlier?

You need to put your moral contempt on those people who thought the issue was negotiable. That Union was going to leave slavery intact. They didn't care about slavery, they cared about stopping Independence, and nothing else.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nope. It is a historical fact. The “victor” rewrites the history, but that little fact slipped through, so some claim that Sec Seward was not authorized to make the promise not to resupply - but the fact remains, both Buchanan and Lincoln lied about resupply.

I believe this link is relevant.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/house-divided/post/brag-bowling-by-resupplying-ft-sumter-did-lincoln-purposely-provoke-war/2011/04/07/AFFfoqLD_blog.html

[DiogenesLamp]

You’re the only one I see pushing that particular strawnan.

It isn't a straw man, it is the objective truth, and can be demonstrated by the facts. For example, when did the war start? Better yet, when did the first Union effort began?

Well that was the intended Invasion of Richmond Virginia that never got there, but was instead stopped at Bull-Run. This occurred June 21, 1861.

So when was the emancipation announced? It was January 1, 1863.

So let's see, That's about a year and six months after the first Union offensive.

If they were fighting to free slaves, don't you think the Emancipation Proclamation should have came first?

[rockrr]

I can’t find a rational way to accept you view that the Civil War was a “tantrum”, though.

Like a child who races out the door to "run away from home" because he didn't get what he wanted - only to find that, in his haste he forgot that it was the dead of winter and he didn't grab a coat. That kind of tantrum. A petulant knee-jerk response to not getting their way. That's what the south did - on a national scale.

They cut off their noses to spite their own faces. They were woefully unprepared for what they proposed but too prideful to stop and think for a moment the consequences of their actions.

Those “Confederates” that you try to distance yourself from are your own countrymen. I think that’s what bothers folks like you, that those who would have seceded but failed in doing so have every bit as strong a claim on America as you do.

The confeds are long in the grave. I think what you're talking about are the neo-confeds. The original confederates renounced America in favor of their make-believe nation. They do not have "every bit as strong a claim on America as you do" because they turned their backs away from, and turned their gun against the country of my forefathers.

My ancestors were forgiving and able to "bury the hatchet", and so am I, but there is a difference between forgiving and forgetting. And "Hell no I ain't fergittin" is a two-way street.

[rockrr]

It’s obvious that you are hidebound to your narrative but if you’re stop blathering on for a moment you’ll see that exactly ZERO “unionists” are “imply(ing) that the North Fought the war to end slavery”. That’s a strawman of your construction.