Why are southerners so proud of the Confederacy?

[placton]

I simply don't get it, as a Civil War buff.
1. They lost the war (NOT a foregone conclusion)
2. Confederate soldiers desertions were one huge cause for the loss - although Union soldiers also "skedaddled" in large numbers, many more southern "heroes" left when the going got tough, proportionately
3. officers who led the Confederacy (from Jefferson Davis on down) were, simply put, traitors: they swore an oath (yes, to God) to "uphold & defend the Constitution," and then violated it
3a-they of course violated an oath TO GOD, good Christians that they were
4. records of ALL southern secession conventions show that slavery was THE reason these states left the Union; thus, racism and enslavement of human beings was THE principal cause for the conflict
5. from Bobbie Lee on down, their leaders wasted the lives of their soldiers, in the wrong strategy

Yeah, northerners were very racist, and had their problems. But, were I a southerner, I'd be ashamed to celebrate the Confederacy.

[Az]

1. Its a theme that still resonates today

State VS National control. At the core of the civil war was the issue of whether the Federal Government could dictate certain issues to the States. We still see this in modern politics.

[NewHampster]

2. But you forget

The war wasn't about slavery. It was about States Rights and keeping the federal government out of their business, except in 2000 when the feds were needed to help Florida decide its election.

on edit: states rights was a bullshit excuse for slavery

[placton]

10. Nope, you are wrong!

This is, of course, the southern re-writing of history of the "lost cause" but it's crap:

“Dew's analysis of the commissioners' message yielded one central finding: the absolute centrality of concerns over slavery and race as the prime justification for secession and hence the coming of the Civil War. As a white person raised in the South of the 1940s and 1950s when the Cult of the Lost Cause stood unchallenged in its assertion that state rights was the cause for which the Confederacy fought, he relates that he was "stunned" (2) by much of what he had found. But there was no mistaking what was first and foremost in the minds of those who led the drive for secession. With passion and anger they never wavered in proclaiming their belief that slavery and white supremacy were doomed in a Union headed by Lincoln's Republicans. As the South Carolina commissioner John McQueen told the delegates at the Texas convention, the policy of the "Black Republican party ... was to be the abolition of slavery upon this continent and the elevation of our own slaves to an equality with ourselves and our children" (48). If Southern whites resisted the designs of the Republicans, the result would be a race war as abolitionist infiltrators spread across the South enticing the slaves into open rebellion. William Cooper, Alabama's commissioner to Missouri, prophesized that "the time would come when the scenes of San Domingo and Hayti, with all their attendant horrors, would be enacted in the slaveholding States" (78). Worst of all, the Republicans would insist on racial amalgamation, the complete equality of the races in all areas of social life. Inferior and loathsome former slaves would now be able to defile the very embodiment of Southern virtue, the sexual purity of white women...”

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2004/4_48/95529209/p1/article.jhtml

[Frances]

21. LOL

As a native of Alabama, I would say you are right.

I love much about my native state, but when I was growing up, I heard all kinds of excuses for segregation. Those people who saw its flaws were demonized just as the Repubs demonize Clarke and other people who speak out against Bush today.

[rock]

29. Love your caveat

"except in 2000". LOL

[JHB]

36. But also conveniently forgotten...

...in all those claims of "states rights" and keeping the federal government "out of our business" are the pre-war Fugitive Slave Laws, which made it the Federal Government's business to interfere with the laws of northern states and make them follow Southern laws in such matters.

[mot78]

67. Don't forget Dread Scott

The Most insidious SCOTUS case prior to Florida that legalizing slavery north of the Missouri Compromise line.

[Lindacooks]

90. It was about slavery.

Don't start getting all revisionist here. It was about slavery. Period.

[dtseiler]

3. You'll get yours one of these days!

http://www.theonion.com/onion3613/south_postpones.html

[NewHampster]

6. Love the Onion

that was a good one I hadn't seen

[buddy22600]

4. Originally I was from Montgomery, AL

I now live in Ohio. The major reason is that the North was more populated and had very different points of view and they used their majority in electoral votes and members of the House of Representatives to implement an Agenda that was harmful to the South. By far the biggest issue on the agenda was slavery. If you throw slavery out, then the Civil War would still have happened, but many years later. It is a bit like what republicans are trying to do right now. They have the majority and even though a vast portion of the population disagrees with them, they still are trying to shove it down our throats. All powers that are not expressly given to the federal government are to be held by the states individually. The north tried to change that and now the republicans are doing the same thing.

[ieoeja]

25. Civil Rights

All powers that are not expressly given to the federal government are to be held by the states individually.

The 10th Amendment ends with "or to the people". Civil War revisionists conveniently forget that fact. Throughout the Constitution and its Amendments "the people" has always been interpreted to refer to individual rights with the exception of the 2nd Amendment (the absurdity of deciding the folk writing the constitution meant something completely different by that specific phrase in that one place is a topic for another thread).


The north tried to change that and now the republicans are doing the same thing.

Can you give some examples of this?

EVERY declaration of secession cited SLAVERY as the overriding reason for secession. And the only thing with regard to slavery imposed upon the states by the federal government was the US Supreme Court overturning the NOTHERN ban on slavery as part of their decision in the Dred Scott case. Are you seriously suggesting the south decided to secede several decades later out of outrage over the federal government trying to take away the rights of the northern states?

[Lindacooks]

91. Thank you!!!

That bears repeating:

"EVERY declaration of secession cited SLAVERY as the overriding reason for secession. And the only thing with regard to slavery imposed upon the states by the federal government was the US Supreme Court overturning the NOTHERN ban on slavery as part of their decision in the Dred Scott case."

[Bozita]

5. Tighten your chinstrap and keep your head down

[KoKo]

9. Yep, good advice. We haven't had one of these Confederacy posts

in awhile. Guess it was time. I got burned on one a long time ago, maybe I should dig up all the "Confederacy" posts/threads from the archives. It would be interesting. sigh...

[Bozita]

31. it's starting now

Those old threads would be like a truck bomb on this thread.

[buddy22600]

7. I have a question.

If a state votes to unratify the Constitution for their state, then are they still considered to be in the United States? Could Texas legally seceed from the Union if 75% or more of its population and state legislators vote to seceed?

[wuushew]

12. A state can neither leave or ignore federal law

the Nullification crisis proved that in 1828 when South Carolina contemplated sucession.

[buddy22600]

15. Thank you

[ieoeja]

17. No

[VelmaD]

49. Bad example...

I believe that Texas retained it's right to secede when it joined the US. As for other states, I have no idea.

[ieoeja]

59. Wrong

A link was posted on some other thread earlier today about that actually. A treaty was being written up which included that provision and which would have had Texas become a federal territory. Instead, Texas was admitted immediately as a state, that treaty was never signed, and Texas was NOT granted the right of secession. They WERE given the right to spin off four other states if they so chose, but that is the only thing special about their admission to the union.

[Yupster]

86. In that case, Texas would be out of the Union

until the federal government sent in the armed forces to force it back in.

[SmileyBoy]

8. Sometimes I think it would be better if the CSA won independence.

Think about it: Can you imagine what the CSA would be like today??? It would be a third-world country!!! Slavery probably would have lasted in the CSA WELL into the 20th Century. Segregation no doubt would still exist to this very day. There would have been a mass exodus of blacks out of the country in the late 1860's if the CSA had secured independence by then. Any blacks left in the CSA would be persecuted and enslaved. They probably would have been an Axis power in WWII. In the 1980's, they would have supported South Africa and their Apartheid policy.

Another thing: Can you IMAGINE the CSA in relation to the international community??? Can you imagine a CSA in the United Nations (That is, if they'd even accept to be part if it)??? Think of how the US acts currently towards foreign leadership around the world, and multiply it by 100. The CSA would be the EPITOME of the obnoxious, ugly American, and the US people would be seen as more like canadians.

Everyone in the world community would DESPISE the CSA!!!

And also not going without saying that the US would be a LOT more liberal today.

[placton]

13. Harry Turtledove

is writing a great alternate history series based on the South winning the Civil War. I recommend it.

[neverforget]

51. I've been reading that series and it's fascinating. I love what ifs in

history!

[Yupster]

87. Love Turtledove, but

I think the Civil War series is his weakest work.

I'd recommend the first three books of the World War II series instead for a better read.

[dtseiler]

14. I think the North should secede

I've made this statement before when people say "we should have let the South secede." Why not just take action and have the North secede. Then those red states won't be sucking up our federal tax aid dollars.

[ButterflyBlood]

22. good idea

I've proposed before how to split up the country.

[Bridget Burke]

28. So, you wouldn't mind letting slavery survive.

Just so you could have a country to look down upon. After all, none of your people were ever slaves.

The surviving US would have been weaker, as well. The push west would not have been so fast. Good for the people already living there--but worse for the US. The Irish could have continued as the permanent underclass, with less demand for new immigration.

Free from the influence of swarthy, Catholic (or Jewish!) foreigners, the WASPS could have continued as the dominant culture. The urge to do the right thing--a positive leftover from the old Puritans--would have failed with the failure of Abolition. Female Suffrage arose out of the Abolition movement--no doubt that, too, would have been abandoned.

So we'd have a trim, neat little country run by parsimonious Yankees. Everyone knowing their place. With a soundtrack of hymns & staid contradances. How stifling. But very white!

[Classical_Liberal]

48. We wouldn't have had to enforce the fugitive slave act

all the slaves would have run north and that would have killed slavery without a war. Without slaves the rich whites would have persecuted the poor whites, then the poor whites would have realized what clods they were for not siding with the Blacks, and their would have been a roundhat revolution against them. IN all probability they would have rejoined the union, having deposed the Southern Plantation class for good. The North without the south would have been much more accepting of non protestants, and Womens rights.

Look at the map for the ratification of the 19th amendment.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/anthony/ratifmap.html

[demigoddess]

11. Men always glorify war

it is a guy thing, but people do glamorize war and remember it a long time. I grew up on WWII movies that were made clear til the 1970's. It is only understandable that people remember a war fought on their own soil. especially when they are told stories about it all the time.

[9215]

94. zzzzzzzz........

"men always glorify war"? Always is an awful lot. :eyes:

"demi-Goddess"? Modesty isn't one of your strong points either I reckon.

[arcane1]

16. agreed

I was born, and lived 30 years in the Confederate capitol, and I saw people who had no earthly clue about the civil war, who still loved to parrot the "South will rise again" bs, cast suspicions and insults upon those from the north, and waved the stupid flag like it was a weapon itself

(I really got a kick out of seeing the confederate and US flags on the same flagpole :eyes:

However, ask any of those dumbasses about the Confederacy and most would respond with "duh". They call themselves "rebels" out there, so anyone who has any problem with "authority" in any shape (maybe they just smoke pot and like to drink) is considered one. The terom "rebel" is very appealing to the youth, so they end up thinking "south = party" and "north = anti-party" .

At least, that was my experience in high school...

[PragMantisT]

18. Beats me and I live here

Confederacy was a bunch of traitorous losers.

[Nay]

81. Beats me, and I live here too.

[harrison]

19. A simple question with a complicated answer. As a native

Mississippian, I have spent a lot of time thinking about this question and all other issues surrounding it.

First of all, the Civil War is still the great divide in American history. With the deaths of over 600,000 Americans in four years, then everything else really does pale in comparison. And it wass fought on American soil. So, I think Southerners, who have had little to be proud of, see it as being a part of history, although it was the wrong side of history.

Secondly, the South has a tradition of being militaristic. The US has that tradition as a whole, but the South really does. And along with that militaristic tradition comes these stories of great generals such as Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Nathan Bedford Forrest, JEB Stuart. All of these guys were considered somewhat dashing figures and a lot of Southerners look up to them because of their military brilliance.

Third, a lot of people in the South don't care about the Civil War but have adopted Confederate emblems as symbols of their cultural position i.e., we don't like black folks.

Fourth, the South lost the war, therefore the South had to retain something out of the loss. Thus, some Southerners luxuriate in the myth which grew up about these great generals who directed an outmanned country against overwhelming odds and almost brought it to its knees.

Now, having said all of that, I don't think there is any question that the civil war was about slavery. People that argue otherwise haven't read the Secession articles from a number of states. Mississippi's clearly states that slavery is the reason for secession.

Just my few thoughts.

[placton]

23. harrison, this is why I am confused

The South produced Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and many others who founded our country as a secular democracy, and beacon to the world. The cotton gin was one of the first applications of machines to eliminate human drudgery (altho invented by a northerner). The South has much to be proud of, and yet defines itself by its worst characteristics.

Strange.

[markus]

78. The causes of the war were "its worst characteristics"

However, Southerners would argue (and this is, as harrison pointed out) that the conduct of the war was brilliant, heroic, etc.

A defeated people have to have their myths to comfort them, or we would have fought the war over and over and over again.

And the southerners deserted in larger numbers because they lacked food, shoes, etc. The south could not logistically support the war effort.

The northerners, of course, deserted becuase they were weenie cowards who could not stand up against the southerners.

:evilgrin:

[ieoeja]

40. Newt Gingrich would disagree.

And along with that militaristic tradition comes these stories of great generals such as Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Nathan Bedford Forrest, JEB Stuart. All of these guys were considered somewhat dashing figures and a lot of Southerners look up to them because of their military brilliance.

No less a southern historian than Newt Gingrich pointed out something on the History Channel awhile back that I had not realized. When Grant finally took to the field against him, Lee lasted a whopping two weeks. There is nothing particularly brilliant about fighting a war according to the book as did Lee, his compatriots, and his opponents. Doubly true when the book was written for sword and shield, not firearms.

When you have a sword and shield you mass together to protect each other's flanks and rear. When you are shooting and being shot at by firearms, massing together just makes you easier to hit. This does not require any particular brilliance to figure out. I would, in fact, argue that it requires a special kind of stupidity. The sort that says "we will do it this way because this is the way it is done".

Yes, the first Union generals made Lee, et al, look brilliant. But then Larry and Curly made Moe look like a genius.

[Yupster]

89. Grant first took the field against Lee

on May 5, 1864 when his army of the Potomac of 118,000 crossed the Rapidan River. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, 62,000 strong ripped into Grant's flank and the two sides fought for two days with Grant losing 18,000 to Lee's 9,000.

The two sides fought pretty much continuously for the next 12 months at Spottsylvania, Cold Harbor, North Anna River, Petersburg, the Crater, Bermuda Hundred, etc.

On April 2, 1865, the Confederate lines were snapped at Five Forks, and with no reserves left to throw in, Lee evacuated the capital and made a dash for the mountains to the west.

He was cut off and surrendered at Appomattox on April 9, 1865.

I don't know what the "two weeks" period could possibly be referring to. I guess you could say one week if you ignored the 12 month campaign and just counted the last week of flight. Then the headline could read "Lee runs from Grant like a coward."

Of course you'd have to ignore the Wilderness, Spottsylvania, Cold Harbor and the Petersburg campaign to say that.

[ButterflyBlood]

20. because they hate America

they claim we hate America yet they celebrate the biggest rebellion against the country in history, responsible for the deaths of more than 300k Americans. THE CONFEDERATE FLAG IS ANTI-AMERICAN.

[PATRICK]

24. Fighting yourselves

Once fighting against one's fellow countrymen for the sake of some division or independence they one track ideology then consistently(when for once consistency is a deadly vice!) weaken it's own bureaucracy and unity.

More Rebel "victories" seemed to me to just peter out short of decisive simply because they were ill fed, ill equipped and lacking shoes for the final push. The Confederate states and the society were stingy with their already inferior resources. Zealous enough to arrogantly cause a lot of damage, but not doing what was necessary to defeat a vastly more powerful for. Why did they even try? Sure, the Revolutionaries were similarly outclassed but several key comparisons pale before the fact that the Americans were rescued by the French and the expensively imported and incompetent British did not try to break the resolve a la Sherman. Nor did the Revolutionaries have that much faith in the regular battlefield except to impress Europe.

The Confederacy created a slaughterhouse foreshadowing WWI to come. The Kaiser also put faith in "quick victory". The aftermath simply steamed on over that idiotic miscalculation to the inevitable destiny of mathematics.

At least soldiers here had a big homeland to desert into. Sane soldiers in foreign lands had no where to go. It is amazing more did not desert. War is a mesmerizing snake.

I say this in some defense of the individual soldier at the cutting edge of all mistakes, no matter which side of the mad chessboard they lined up on.

As for romantic reenactments, how do you romanticize stupidity and horror? By taking out all the blood and real death. If the South had pured as much into shoeing their men as much as they have spent on war tourism they might have won some real battles. As for taking up the banners of the past, you are celebrating past mistakes, crimes and despair, not the comic book glory that enticed so many young men to die in the first place.

[keopeli]

26. Southerners today know very little about the civil war

After the war, the south voted for Democrats en masse for decades (until Johnson...Reagan really). That's 100 years. You go in the voting booth and check one box for Straight Democratic Ticket. All of my ancestors did this (almost all, I guess). They had no interest in differences between candidates. It was simply a matter of loyalty to dems and a bitter rivalry with repubs.

Today in the South, the Confederacy is viewed with nostalgia as a brief moment of unification. It now represents a regional pride that has little to do with what the Confederacy originally stood for, which was slavery and states' rights.

Southern young people riding around in their trucks with the confederate flag on the window have no interest in slavery per se. They have little interest in states' rights, except when it benefits them directly. It is more of an identity thing.

Consider this: What seperates the South culturally from the rest of the US? They have their own dialect, their own flag, their own religious convictions, and even their own president. For young Southerners (not the crazy right wing militia types), these things are cultural symbols, not slavery symbols or reminders of a lost war.

[carolinayellowdog]

27. False assumption. Many of us loathe its memory.

Hey,

Your formulation doesn't ask why "some" Southerners revere the Confederacy and implicitly suggests that we all do. Nothing could be further from the truth. 900,000 soldiers fought in the Confederate military. 150,000 black Southerners, 100,000 whites from the Confederacy and 150,000 from border states all fought for the Union. Descendants of those Unionist Southerners loathe the Confederacy's memory, as do many descendants of Confederates who haven't been carefully taught to revere it. Virginia was split in two by the Confederacy, literally. Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina were, figuratively, in terms of substantial numbers fighting on each side.

Here's a book that shows how far from unanimous the Confederacy's support was:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195130278/102-0741359-4961701?v=glance

CYD

[Bridget Burke]

33. It's much easier to act superior & avoid the facts.

The book you linked looks quite interesting. But don't expect certain people to check it out; might interfere with their "knowledge". Quite a few Texans fought for the North, as well.

I've lived in Texas most of my life but have met very few who weep for the Lost Cause. The more intelligent ones go off on "states rights" but they're mostly showing a pride for their family background. A bit wrongheaded, but these are not the vicious racists. (I've managed to avoid most of the latter group.)

But, everytime this topic comes up at DU, I'm appalled at the Northerners who show disdain for their ancestors. The ones who fought to preserve the Union and, incidentally, ended slavery. Oh, no, these wimps say we "should have let the South go".

They ain't making Yankees like General Sherman any more.

[DemBones DemBones]

45. Living in a city that Sherman burned, I thank God they aren't

"making Yankees like General Sherman anymore."

Sherman was a brute who ordered his men to be brutal. Deliberately destroying civilian property during war is immoral.

[DrWeird]

61. Sherman was ahead of his time.

His tactics hastened the end of the war. Destruction of civilian property was common practice throughout the 20th century, and we're doing it right now in Iraq.

Grant was much less a brute then his confederate counterparts that ordered the shooting of black prisoners of war.

[JVS]

83. He was only following the Confederates' lead

Remember Chambersburg

[9215]

95. Bingo!

It looks like Southerners haven't cornered the market on prejudice.

:thumbsup:

[Brotherjohn]

30. Most of us are NOT. It is an embarrassing part of our past of which we...

... are profoundly ashamed.

Not that anyone anywhere doesn't have similar parts of their past history of which to be ashamed, such as most of our ancestors' participation (implicit or explicit) in the genocide of the native Americans. Or, for that matter, all of us being citizens of George W. Bush's America. I realize we here at DU are all in opposition to W., but I'm sure there were some southerners in the 1800s who were opposed to the Confederacy and slavery, too.

So there's my bit against demonizing all of us for the sins of our ancestors. But that being said, this issue still brings up such discussion because you've still got "morans" down here running around displaying the flag of a failed (and yes, traitorous) regime from a century and a half ago, trying to claim it's all about "heritage, not hate". Why must they choose such a hateful symbol to display their "heritage"? Especially one that only even flew over that failed regime for two years (and was revived for, and flew over, the anti-segregation movement for many more).

Perhaps the (obvious) answer is because it actually IS about "hate", NOT "heritage".

I saw a bumper sticker here in the Deep South yesterday, with a confederate flag and the phrase: "Don't blame me, I voted for Jefferson Davis".

Sigh. Why can't we just use a big plate of Jambalaya or Gumbo as the symbol of our heritage? It would be much more fitting, and representative, of the South.

[carolinayellowdog]

39. What do you think the real percentages are?

If the question is "do you as a Southerner regard the Confederacy as history to be proud of, ashamed of, neither, or both?" I think in VA and NC it'd probably be about 1/4 each. Probably higher for the "proud" scores in the Deep South states that started the mess and then lived far away from most of the violence.

[Brotherjohn]

44. I think that's pretty close. But answers like "neither" and "both" give..

...people an "easy out". It's a non-committal of sorts.

If forced to answer either "proud" or ashamed", I believe a significany majority would say "ashamed". To start with, the minority population would vote nearly 100% ashamed (certainly African_Americans, but I think most Hispanic-Americans, too). Since most of the south is 25-50% minority, that leaves 50-75% "white". Even if half of them says they're "proud" of the Confederacy, that still leaves a significant majority "ashamed" of it.

[Yupster]

92. Many southerners were

against slavery and for the Confederacy.

Jubal Early is one example of a Virginian who was a delegate to the secession convention, voted against secesssion, and then served the Confederacy rising as high as a corps commander.

[patricia92243]

32. Know the rage that we Democrats feel BOUT bUSH - that is how we.......

Southerners feel about the Civil War.

It is not a feeling of pride but of pent-up anger that we lost "The War of Northern Aggression".

True-blue Southeners still don't like Yankees to this day.

[NewHampster]

34. -

:nuke:

[placton]

37. patricia

you are kidding, right? I know it's fashionable among the right wingers down south to call it "The War of Northern Aggression," but wasn't it the South who fired the first shot?

[SayitAintSo]

98. Some call it " The War to Smite Yankee Arrogance" .....

:)

[LoneStarLiberal]

35. It's Celebrated Because It's Romanticized

Like most lost causes, it's romanticized by those who themselves were steeped in some ahistorical romantic vision of "what was."

There is a high correlation with ignorance and bigotry and overt support of the Confederacy in the South. The dumbest people I went to high school with here in Texas always had rebel flags in their window tint or Stars and Bars license plate frames on their trucks. You could see them burning up their tires on figure-8s in the parking lot after school...going nowhere fast, an apt analogy for how most of them have ended up 13 years after graduation.

My own interest in my relatives' roles in the Civil War is out of interest in their own stories. One of them was a General in the CSA, Patrick Cleburne, an Irishman who proposed that slaves should be given their freedom if they fought for the Confederacy. As you might imagine, that one went nowhere fast. I'm fascinated by Cleburne's life, but I never forget that he was fighting for slaveholders and bigotry.

It's easy to sell the myth of the romanticized South here in the South because people are mostly ignorant of the Civil War and while there is a proliferation of organizations that continue to uphold this mythical swashbuckling, honorable Old South (like the Daughters of the Confederacy and several other wide-spread organizations), there simply aren't any organizations that continue to counter their myths and fairy tales with the reality of the situation.

[placton]

38. LoneStar

I've always felt Cleburne was the South's best general in the western theatre, and would have been better off putting him in charge of the effort there. But, as you say, he encouraged abolition, and thus was frozen out.

[LoneStarLiberal]

54. I Think Hood Was Incompetent

I sometimes wonder how much more slaughter there would have been and how longer the war might have run if Cleburne were in command of the Army of Tennessee instead of the incompetent Hood...at least it's my opinion he was incompetent as a tactician.

He seems to have had the right ideas for strategic engagement, but he has a record full of bloody failures in terms of tactical operations. I don't think it's too far from historical fact that his leadership of the AoT in the "West" sealed the fate of the Confederacy as much as anything that went on in Virginia.

I've had run-ins with people who are involved in the Cleburne Society on several occasions with regards to our different views about the war, or more pointedly, what I feel is my balanced view of the war versus their mythological view of the war. These are the types who just can't bring themselves to believe there could be anything bad about Cleburne...there exist revisionists like these for just about every major Confederate military commander, particularly for Robert E. Lee.

My background in history has taught me that rarely do we find any instance of things being completely clear-cut and defined in good and bad with no gray area. I don't think Cleburne is any different.

[Yupster]

93. Don't think you're being fair to Hood

He was put in an impossible situation when he was given the AOT.

His campaign from Atlanta back into Tennessee was brilliant.

I won't defend him at Franklin or Nashville. He went against what he promised his army would be the goals of the campaign.

As far as tactics, I don't blame the army commander for bad tactics in a battle. Tactics are handled below Lieutenant General level at the brigade, division or maybe even corps level.

Also, calling Hood incompetent ignores three years of good work as head of a division in ANV.

[LoneStarLiberal]

105. You're Right

Truth of the matter is that I'm probably not being fair to Hood, you're correct.

[Bandit]

41. I think it is more about Trying to put a good face on their loss.

They had some heroes and they had some victories. I can see why they would try and rewrite history to give them something to be proud about. I think they should just drop it and let the nation heal after a hundred and fifty years. They seem to want to keep the scab picked and blood flowing. Anything to stir people up so they will vote Republican.

[DemBones DemBones]

42. If you were a Southerner, you wouldn't have to ask why

and you would not be ashamed of your heritage. As you are not a Southerner and have very negative attitudes about the Confederacy, I don't think that you will understand any answer given to you. I'd be willing to try if I thought you would understand.

But first, why are you a Civil War buff? You admitted that Northerners were "very racist " and said they "had their problems." You think even less of the Rebels, so why are you interested in a war between two groups of low-lifes?

Tell us what YOU care about about that war, please.

Edit: It's been more than forty minutes since I posted this, and I need to get offline and do some things. I'll check back sometime this evening or tonight to see if you replied. :hi:

[sangh0]

43. "Tell us what YOU care about about that war, please."

What I care about is why Southerners are so proud of the Confederacy

[DemBones DemBones]

47. I'd like to see what placton says. nt

[sangh0]

52. placton asked a question

so I think it's reasonable to assume that placton doesn't have an answer.

[placton]

60. my answer:

There are many things:
1. altho I am pretty much a pacifist, I enjoy reading about all things military ("consistency is the virtue of small minds")
2. the War was the seminal event in US history, after the era of the founders
3. I continue to be amazed at the courage, and different view of the world, that existed on both sides
4. there is never an end to studies about this war - I am told that there are literally hundreds of battles which have not been written about

enough? Sorry I did not respond quickly enough for those demanding a reply.

[Yupster]

96. No group of Americans ever fought harder, under worse conditions

and suffered such heavy losses as the Confederates during the Civil War.

At the outset of the war, there were an estimated 1 million physically fit adult white men in the Confederacy capable of bearing arms.

750,000 of them or 75 % of them fought for the Confederacy. No group of Americans ever came close to such a unified war effort. At the end of the war, 250,000 of those men (25%) were dead and another 250,000 (25 %) were sereiously wounded. Again, America never saw anything like those kinds of losses before or since.

The regiments were formed by counties and towns. The whole county marched off together, elected its leaders (usually the mayor or pastor) and when a regiment was destroyed in a charge, it could be 3/4 of all the men of a rural county that were lost.

These men were Democrats and Whigs, slaveowners and not, secessionists and anti-secessionists, all fighting together to stop an invasion of their homes. Rightly or wrongly they felt their states had every legal right to secede. They fought until they had nothing left to fight with, fought for a cause they thought worthy, and still they couldn't stop an invading army from destroying their fields, burning their crops, shooting their livestock, digging up and stealing their valuables and tearing up their railroads.

And people have a question why they were bitter?

Perhaps if there was some sort of a Marshall Plan? Perhaps if Lincoln had lived? Who knows.

[charlie]

46. I'm a southerner

and I've never "gotten it" either. I can understand being a buff, if history is your bag. But where does the invested pride, the touchy, prickly defensiveness come from?

[DemBones DemBones]

50. You don't object to being stereotyped?

That's what I object to, being stereotyped as ignorant, racist, inbred people who are devoted to the Lost Cause.

None of those descriptions describe me and I'll bet they don't describe you, either.

I also object to the idea that all the good people fought for the Union and all the bad people fought for the Confederacy. Common sense tells you that couldn't be true. No war has ever had all the good people on one side.

[DrWeird]

53. People who admire the confederacy are racist and ignorant.

The only stereotyping I've read in this thread is you claiming all southerners admire the confederacy.

[DemBones DemBones]

57. You've misunderstood. I'd never claim that all Southerners

admire the Confederacy, or make any other claim about all Southerners, all Democrats, all Americans, etc.

Edit: If you reply to this, I'll get back to you later. I'm going offline now. :hi:

[DrWeird]

58. OK, explain this comment.

 If you were a Southerner, you wouldn't have to ask why (southerners are proud of the confederacy),
and you would not be ashamed of your heritage (confederacy).

[sangh0]

55. I didn't see any of that in the original post

The OP had nothing that stereotyped Southerners. It did make some statements about the Civil War and why it was fought, but nothing that portrayed Southerners as "ignorant, racist, inbred people who are devoted to the Lost Cause" or that "all the good people fought for the Union and all the bad people fought for the Confederacy". In fact, the OP clearly agrees that the North had plenty of racists also.

In complaining about something that isn't happening you come off as being defensive.

[Classical_Liberal]

56. I object to the notion that we have to overlook

the South's conservatism to spare the feelings of Southern liberals. A high percentage of whites in the south have traditionally sided with the notion that they are better off if blacks were treated as second class citizens. The fact that many white southerners object to public education and entightlements for the poor reflect these attitudes.

[charlie]

76. Stereotypes of ignorance, racism, and inbreeding

weren't raised by the poster. The thread is about the perplexing obsession and pride in the Confederacy by so many southerners... and I still don't get it.

[bhunt70]

62. I admire the south, not the confederacy.

I like being from Virginia, I like having lived in Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia. I admire a lot of things that came from the south, culturally and otherwise.

I do find it deplorable that the main reason that the north and the south split was the slavery issue as far as I understand. I know there were other reasons but the stigma is there "If you are from the south then somewhere down the line your family supported slavery".

[ACK]

63. Because we love pissing off haughty Northerners

Especially the ones that keep moving to the Sunbelt in droves and then tell us how much we suck.

If you don't like it in the South then please for goodness sakes move back to Jersey.

We are the only part of the country that has ever been through an occupation and that does impact a people's mentality.

There are plenty of white people throughout the South that are not knuckle dragging racist bastards who lift up the Confederate flag in love for the pure race lifestyle.

Notice many Dem candidates lose in much smaller percentages than other Repuke areas.

Between strong black communities, white women, annoying yankee immigrants and white liberal southerners you still get canidates like Mark Wanrner and the lady in LA that won elections here in the evil South.

Demonize the region. Fine fuck it. I love watching yankees live up to the elitist liberal circular firing squad stereotypes.

_

[DrWeird]

64. Can you answer the question?

Why do (some) southerners admire the Confederacy?

[bhunt70]

66. probably the same reason that some northerners admire

white supremist groups, or republicans, or NAMBLA, or Joes church of the creator or whatever.

probably the same reason that some people from the midwest dislike people from mexico or china.

Probably the same reason that some people from the midwest
hate the rice growers or some hawaiians hate some mainlanders

Why is it a specific region? This kind of shit goes on everywhere and you just wondering "Why do (some) southerners admire the Confederacy?" is a loaded question and truthfully shows that there is a perception that the north is somehow better than the south.

[DrWeird]

82. C'mon now.

When was the last time a northern state passed a law admiring NAMBLA?

[bhunt70]

65. ...

"Especially the ones that keep moving to the Sunbelt in droves and then tell us how much we suck"

I've never understood that, I agree too...the south is looked down upon from the north and I think it's ridiculous. The war has been over for some time now, looking down your noses at us is getting a bit old.

[Classical_Liberal]

71. Look at electoral college map

It isn't over at all. We even had a Southern nominee for Potus and a dlcer (conservative dem)VP, and the South rejected them in droves.

Meanwhile we lost New Hampshire because of Naderite defections.

[mot78]

70. Especially the ones that keep moving to the Sunbelt in droves and then tel

"Especially the ones that keep moving to the Sunbelt in droves and then tell us how much we suck"

Arn't many of those people Yankee Repug transplants?

[ACK]

77. Unfortunately half and half

Seen enough of both.

Liberal yankees who do not vote but complain about how conservative the South is.

Northern repukes who laugh at the simple white trash folks.

Yep, seen enough of them both.

I have also seen wonderful folks from New York and Wisconsin that shared traditions and respect with me.

But that is why I said "the ones that keep moving to the Sunbelt in droves and then tell us how much we suck. " and not just every yankee transplant or as I like to say ex-pat yankee.

_

[Bandit]

72. Are you saying the South and the Confederacy are inseperable?

I like the South and have many relatives there. I love the country and the lifestyle of many southerners but I don't care for the Confederacy. What it stands for and how it behaved against the USA. I don't see how attacking the Confederacy is the same as attacking Southerners. Unless you are suggesting All Southerners are Racists . I don't think you would want to suggest that but it seems to me like all who support the Confederacy are indeed Racists.

[ACK]

80. No I am not saying that...

In fact I said explicitly in my post that to quote myself,
"There are plenty of white people throughout the South that are not knuckle dragging racist bastards who lift up the Confederate flag in love for the pure race lifestyle."

Attacking the Confederacy is not the same as attacking all Southerners and I never said it was.

However, at least 30% of the people supporting the confederate flag issues in the states just love pissing elitist yankees off.

Now, the rest are usually racists or apologist for racists (tough to explain).

I hope that you are not saying that every Southerner who fought in the war did so to support slavery or racism? Many fought quite simply to fight the Northern invasion and protect their homes and families.

My grandmother still can tell stories her grandmother told her about Sherman and his march to the sea. My relatives did NOT own anyone they were dirt farmers and if I ever got a chance to piss on the grave of that bastard Sherman I would in a second. Raping and pillaging and burning barns. Fuck the Confederacy but also fuck the arrogant self-righteous Yankees too.

I am so tired of being slammed into the same bucket as hate mongers just because I come from the South. I hate having to pour through threads of people slamming the South painting us in the same broad brush we criticize our opponents of using when they try to paint us as unpatriotic. My grandparents were Democrats because of Hoover and stood there for the New Deal and the Fair Deal and through the Great Society. But I am still part of the problem and the enemy... why?

Because Nixon's Southern strategy works and the Democrats have no populist voice.

I am not proud of the Confederacy but I have no love for those who push against hate and bigotry with more hate and bigotry.



_

[JVS]

68. Because Reconstruction was not properly carried out

We should have at the very least not had states retain the borders under which they seceeded, it allows too much historical continuity.

It also would have been wise to deport influential members of southern society to isolated parts of the country, so as to scatter them and dilute their influence.

[Classical_Liberal]

73. We were going to exile several of them

That plan really should have been followed through on, as opposed to the repatriation debacle.

[JVS]

74. I'm thinking more along the lines of several hundred thousand

[Classical_Liberal]

75. I think all that would have been necessery was the deportation of anyone

working for, or elected to serve the CSA. Most got their jobs back in the USA civil service and in elective office in the USA after reconstruction. This was a big fucking mistake. It allowed their political machine to be preserved.

[mmonk]

69. Speaking as a southerner

It has to do with the total war campaign of Sherman (quite brutal). Also, the south is a bastian of ignorance (politically) in the industrialized world.

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

79. First of all, use "some" southerners and you will always do better...

All southerners do nothing as all southerners have greatly different viewpoints just as all of anything usually do...but putting the lumping of everyone into one category aside...I do not know why some people tend to blame others for what has happened to them...for some low educated whites they seem to place blame on blacks. I do not know why. Many southerners are racists, but there are many racists from all around the world. You must also remember though, there were a good number of us Southerners that marched with Dr. King. My parents were there with the good Dr. throughout the 50's and 60's. They were born and raised in Tennessee.

One of the only answers that I can equate with the problems in the South is this: ignorance is the root of many a great evils, and the South has always been the rural, farming area of our nation. We had less schools and still do. The educational standards before and after the war were lower than the North's, and stupidity and ignorance are the perfect breeding grounds for hatred...it is much easier to get an uneducated man to hate than it is for an educated man who has varying viewpoints based on knowledge.

[wyldwolf]

84. I'm not

[librechik]

85. they cling to the delusion that even though they lost, they were correct

about their principles, and the loss was inherently unjust.

It's all they have to be proud of. And now they ridicule Dems who whine about Florida as "sore losers"

The irony dial is shut down on their moral compasses, I guess. It couldn't be that they prefer to be racist assholes. Could it?

[chaska]

88. I'm not reading this.

I'm a Southerner and I despise the Confederacy.

We've got a fight to win right here and now with bushco. Forget the Civil War. Who cares about this crap.

[9215]

97. This topic pisses me off.

Do you know what prejudice is? Well you are guilty of it. You just made a sweeping prejudgement of ALL Southerners with the title to this topic.

This happens alot at DU and I really wish people on this board would be a little more diligent about calling other members on crap like this. :eyes:

[Yupster]

99. I object to the term "traitor"

Treason is a serious crime. I don't think someone should be labeled a traitor unless convicted of the crime.

Jefferson Davis was indicted for treason. He was never tried. He begged for a trial. He had a high powered group of northern abolitionist lawyers financed by Horace Greeley and Cornelius Vanderbilt to help with his defense.

His defense was that secession was legal, and therefore he could not be a traitor.

The government cowardly chose never to test the case, and Davis was left indicted without ever getting his day in court to prove his innocence.

How would any of us like it if the government indicted you for child molestation, and then never put you on trial. Just left the charge hanging over your head forever. That would be an abuse by government and a violation of the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial.

Anyway, the government refused a trial because the danger was too great. What if the Supreme Court ruled secession legal? Then what? Better to never try the case and let people 150 years later on internet message boards just declare the defendant guilty without ever needing any formalities like a trial. Screw the defendant. The government must be right.

[fla nocount]

100. Simple really...States Rights.

A larger loyalty to community than national concerns with people you feel no affinity for. It's time for regional government to make a comeback IMO.

[SayitAintSo]

101. Oh Goody .... Let's dig up the Thurmond threads !

Let's dig up bones and have a North Vs South (who needs the South) flame war ! You must be bored deary .... Go poke around in the archives and see what you can find .... Maybe you will learn something ...

[FDRrocks]

102. Half OT: Regarding Lincoln

I heard a theory that Democrats pretty much threw the election so that Lincoln would win and give them an excuse to secede.

I don't quit recall how whoever told me said it was thrown, something about rigging the convention and putting up a shabby candidate.

Any veracity?

[Yupster]

104. No

The shabby candidate was Stephen Douglas.

The south would not accept him because in his senate campaign just a few years earlier, he was pushed (in the south's opinion) too radical on the slavery issue by Lincoln. The debates were a disaster for Douglas. They ruined his chance at a united Democratic nomination, and were pretty pointless since senators weren't elected in those days anyway. They were elected by the state legislature which was solidly Democratic, so he was going to win the seat regardless of any debates.

The southern Democrats nominated Vice-president Brekinridge of Kentucky who immediately said he was willing to stand down if Douglas would too for a compromise Democratic candidate. Senator Jefferson Davis proposed former president Pierce who said he would accept the nod, but Douglas wouldn't stand down.

When it became apparent that Lincoln would win the election, Douglas campaigned in the southern and border states to try to convince them to stay in the Union. Douglas also chose a Senator from Georgia as his VP candidate. Douglas caught sick barnstorming throughout the south and was dead before the war started.

I think if Lincoln would have campaigned in the south, even after the election, he would have had a decent chance to have kept at least some of the border states in the Union. Perhaps Virginia, N Carolina and Tennessee. He spent the lame-duck three months touring the big cities of the north while the southern states started to secede. Tennessee incidently voted by narrow margin not to call a secession convention. After Sumpter, Lincoln gave Tennessee a quota of troops to enroll to help quell the rebellion. When forced to choose sides, Tennessee voted by wide margin to secede. Obviously, Lincoln badly mishandled that period.

Anyway, no the Democrats didn't throw the election to make the southerners secede. Douglas worked very hard to keep the south from seceding.

[FDRrocks]

103. Half OT: Regarding 1860 Election

I heard a theory that Democrats pretty much threw the election so that Lincoln would win and give them an excuse to secede.

Whoever told me said, if I recall, that the convention purposefully didn't nominate a single candidate at the appropriate time, and the multiple fractions the party apparently broke out in was planned.

Any veracity?