Posted on 10/13/2002 8:16:55 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
Yet that is precisely what historians are now saying, thanks in large part to Alan Nolan's earlier book. And it was what many a Confederate soldier suspected at the time. One can argue about it, but it's a change from the tired old mythology that went unquestioned for so long. Reading Nolan's and other recent books on Lee might have helped Clyde write a better article.
(Like those poor dupes of Southern apologetics, Churchill and Eisenhower, visiting with Douglas Southall Freeman to be misinformed and deceived?)
Eisenhower and Churchill are "bad guys" in the Rockwell mythology, so it's strange to see them invoked to defend Freeman's mythologizing. But really, were they above being taken in by appealing stories? Had they gone to hear Carl Sandburg's stories about Lincoln, surely Clyde would be less supportive.
The "Lost Cause Myth" is international and enduring, which is why Confederate battle flags appeared all over occupied Europe during the fall of the Soviet Empire.
Can we get some documentation on this? There may have been a few, but I doubt Eastern Europeans or Central Asians have very much invested in Confederate myths.
Mr. Nolan, I think, knows not enough about post-Reconstruction America. The "Lost Cause mythology" was but a part of an understanding reached by most Americans around the end of the 19th century. (I am aware this agreement excluded African-Americans, but that is another story. There was little North/South difference of opinion on that.)
That's true, but it's largely because North and South moved together that that the Black point of view was edged out. Had North and South remained at loggerheads the African-American viewpoint would have been more prominent.
That's not to say that Nolan's above criticism. A mellower, less strident view would be preferable to Alan Nolan's. As would a recognition that both sides have their myths. But Clyde slips into the tired old "our side versus your side" polemic, that simply shifts the pluses into minuses and vice versa. A wiser course would steer between Nolan's desire to debunk and Wilson's desire to defend almost everything Confederate.
But I must tell Mr. Nolan that there are in the civilized world today thousands of people who have carefully and seriously studied these things and have found Lee and Jackson to be truly inspiring examples of Christian faith in trying conditions.
But surely, the new and interesting thing is just how strange and uncanny Jackson was. There are some who've found Cromwell, a "truly inspiring example of Christian faith in trying conditions." But one can't stop at that.
Nobody on either side ever doubted that, like it or not, it was Northerners, not Southerners who were the Puritan side of that conflict.
Up to a point, but it's another old cliche that's lost any freshness or deeper truthfulness. To pass over the Puritan elements in the Confederate side, is to leave out one dimension of history. Clyde has a point against Alan Nolan: the things objected to in Jackson may also be found in Sherman. But it would be good to get beyond the old cliches rather than reasserting them.
Rather than pitting Sherman against Jackson and Forrest or vice versa, rather than feel compelled to defend one side and attack the other, we might acknowledge them all as particularly American examples with roots in the culture common to both regions. Recognizing how much the two sides had in common will help us to move beyond the war. I think that is what Joshua Chamberlain was saying. There were of course stark differences too. But Clyde is too respectful of one side's myths to take us very far.
Because there is a fool born every minute.
Walt
"How bout dem dawgs!".
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
FIGHT WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT!!!
FOR THE ORANGE AND WHITE!!!
Walt
Our neo-Confederate Freepers have no interest in moving beyond the war.
for a free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
We've been there and done that before, sw. This claim of the Civil War being a war to end slavery is wrong, has always been wrong, and none of the Northern leadership ever pretended that it was otherwise. The end of slavery was a happy outcome of the war and as the war progressed the importance of ending slavery grew, but it was first and foremost a war to preserve the Union in the face of the southern rebellion. For the south, on the other hand, it was a war of rebellion initiated to prevent what they saw as a threat to their institution of slavery. Hope that clears it up.
the poison ivy-draped halls of academia's "finest" are stating that the ONLY reason that the WBTS was fought was to abolish slavery!
when i was "un-wise enough" to challenge that particulir bit of damnyankee foolishness/self-righteousness, i was told that i was socially/academically illiterate.
the damnyankees hav infected EVERY university history department with that self-righteous LIE!
for a free dixie,sw
i AM working to FREE dixie EVERY DAY, however.
and YEP, i'm glad you are not dumb enough to believe the damnfools of academia.
free dixie,sw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.