Romanticization of the Civil War
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 09:53
VIEWED: 15839
PAGE 2 of 13
Well, the thing is, finally the historic glass of public school history class bullshit is being rubbed off and folks are realizing just what a freakin monster Lincoln really was.
It's far less clean cut than most folks were taught, and the causes and factors were radically different than what they were taught, and when folks learn this they tend to get angry.
Neither side was angels, nor were even most of those involved of noble intentions, if anything, nearly ALL of those involved on both sides in the run up to war were lying about their reasons for doing so and this compounded by the bullshit factor of winners writing and propagandizing the history, has muddied the issue to where only the most dedicated scholar can make any sense of it, and so when presented with a whole host of contradictory information to where the facts seem vague and malleable, folks are gonna believe what they *want* to believe, it's human nature, that.
Me, well, I come from Maryland originally, we never liked Lincoln, still hate his guts, and I have issues with the idea of forcing ones citizens to fight other citizens at gunpoint and then shelling the civvies that refuse to do so.
(See Also: New York Draft Riots)
Between Lincolns behavior, and Grant the butcher, who's tactics were mostly "bury them in bodies, we'll just conscript some more!" - and finally, Sherman the war criminal...
I can't say that I consider the Union any damned better, since regardless of anything else, they removed the idea of "mutual consent" and reduced america to rule of the gun.
And for THAT, Lincoln deserves to spin on a spit in the deepest part of his beloved christian hell forever and ever.
That said, I got no issue with someone flyin a dixie flag, so long as they got no issue with my black banner.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
... but I abhor all it stand for and the mentality that accompanies it.
And I don't think romanticizing it comes out of being asked to "apologize" for slavery. I don't think a lot of people in the South feel the slightest bit of remorse over losing slavery, and I think racism is still very alive and well there. JMHO
Niki, I fear you've fallen into a stereotype trap. Do you actually know people from the South, or do you form your opinions based on movies and TV fiction?
I've lived in states that belonged to the Confederacy for all my life, and I've seen them progress from segregation, to resistance to integration, to acceptance, to folks getting along real well. It has taken some time, but as the older generations who never went to integrated schools or met other races socially die out, there's less and less notice of color. Here in Northern Virginia the kids don't care at all and most of the parents are the same. I've seen the same visiting my relatives in Georgia and South Carolina, and have no reason to think it's much different anywhere in the South.
There are always gonna be racists, but if you check on them now, the virulent ones sure aren't restricted to (or even predominant in) the South.
And I have discussed with my older relatives the use of the Confederate battle flag by racists, skinheads, and neo-nazis, and they all were upset by it. They consider that flag a symbol of their brave ancestors who fought against long odds for their cause, not a symbol of bigotry.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki, not being an American I can only speak generally, but I think the tendency to romanticise war is age old. Wars are rarely just or righteous, not matter what the propaganda machine makes out. Mostly they are about preserving or obtaining economic resources and territory and the reality of them is that they are horrible. People kill and die and do shocking things to each other and anyone who happens to be in the way, or a strategic target. It's a bloody, gruesome, nasty business that is usually (these days at least) organised by people who will never take any direct part in it.
And the people who are involved directly, the young, foolish and poor would predominantly make up soldiers throughout history, and some story has to be spun to get them to run into the line of fire, and to their families when they don't return or return maimed and ruined, otherwise imagine the rage that the general population would feel if it knew that it lost its sons for no real good reason. And so history is rewritten to make it palatable.. Even more needed when you've actually lost the war, I'd guess.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But Geezer, help me out here.. What WAS the Confederate cause?
State's rights? Rights to... what?
No matter how I bang it, the nub of the division seems to come down NOT to the practice of slavery in the Old South, because that was already a settled issue... but expansion of slavery westward
Quote:
At the end of the Mexican War, many new lands west of Texas were yielded to the United States, and the debate over the westward expansion of slavery was rekindled. Southern politicians and slave owners demanded that slavery be allowed in the West because they feared that a closed door would spell doom for their economy and way of life. Whig Northerners, however, believed that slavery should be banned from the new territories. Pennsylvanian congressman David Wilmot proposed such a ban in 1846, even before the conclusion of the war. Southerners were outraged over this Wilmot Proviso and blocked it before it could reach the Senate.
There seems to be a lot of double-think going on in the South about the Confederate Cause. It's as if the Nazi flag would become an item of nostalgia in Germany as people remember the Brave Soldiers Fighting for their Fatherland, but fail to mention what the war was all about!
That's not to say that southerners are terribly racist (in fact, the harshest racism is in the northeast) but there seems to be a great deal of voluntary amnesia in the south about what the Civil War was all about.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I can also tell you that a lot of folks with deep Southern heritage dislike the racists and neo-nazis who have co-opted the Confederate battle flag as their symbol.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Thing is, others could make just about that same claim for THEIR family ancestry - "heritage", "honor", and all that rot - only since they're of German ancestry, they'd get to fly a Nazi flag. And yeah, they're all kinda pissed that the racists and neo-nazis have co-opted THAT flag as their symbol, too. After all, to them, it's merely a symbol of their ancestors' highest rise, and really, it wasn't about the Jews or any of the negative stuff, so why keep banging on about just THAT aspect of it, right?
Here's the thing: If any of you don't have a problem with someone flying the flag of the confederacy, a bunch of traitorous, anti-American rebel scum who attacked the U.S. and waged war on American soil and sought to violently overthrow the legitimate government, then don't get upset at people who want to fly OTHER flags here as well - flags like Al Qaeda banners, Nazi flags, Mexican flags, Chinese flags, etc.
Sound like a fair deal?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But Geezer, help me out here.. What WAS the Confederate cause?
State's rights? Rights to... what?
States Rights to determine their own policy, probably.
Remember that the Revolutionary War was still fresh in memory in 1860. Its end was less than 80 years ago. Folk who were alive then were still alive. The folk in the Confederate states figured that it was their right to secede from the Union if they wanted to, based on the rules the Founding Fathers laid down. When they did, they considered that they were invaded. Many of the major cities in the South were destroyed and an army of occupation was imposed on them. Think of how you suppose Iraq feels.
I understand that slavery was an abomination, but, given the cost in lives and residual hatred caused by the war, I'd wonder if letting the South secede and then propagandizing against slavery and boosting the Underground Railway until the South realized it wasn't economical and gave it up might not have been a better solution.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, a policy of slavery. Your thinking goes only so far and no further. That explains a lot.
States Rights to determine their own policy, probably.
Quote:Yeah, if you were a baby then you'd be an old fart by 1860.
Its end was less than 80 years ago. Folk who were alive then were still alive.
Quote:Actually, no. The Constitution doesn't provide for secession, it never did. They were referring to the Declaration of Independence. But as historians have often noted, once the FF had a nation to create, their rhetoric toned down considerably.
The folk in the Confederate states figured that it was their right to secede from the Union if they wanted to, based on the rules the Founding Fathers laid down.
Quote:Or Germany, or Japan, which have shouldered their responsibility and guilt, and moved on. A lot quicker than southerners, it seems.
When they did, they considered that they were invaded. Many of the major cities in the South were destroyed and an army of occupation was imposed on them. Think of how you suppose Iraq feels.
Sounds to me like the south would do a lot better by saying: YEP, we were slaveholders. The war was all about slavery. It was wrong. We were wrong. Let's move on. But instead, the south has to keep justifying and re-justifying itself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Here's the thing: If any of you don't have a problem with someone flying the flag of the confederacy, a bunch of traitorous, anti-American rebel scum who attacked the U.S. and waged war on American soil and sought to violently overthrow the legitimate government,
Didn't do too well in history class, did you?
The Confederacy never wanted to overthrow the U.S., just leave it. As of 1860, many states though that it was all right to opt out of the United States if they wanted to, based on what the Founders had proposed 80 years previous. When several states did, the U.S. government responded by reenforcing its military bases in the states which had opted out...for example, Fort Sumter.
Aside from that, the first major battle of the Civil War was when Union troops invaded Virginia at Manassas Junction. Aside from Gettysburg and Antietam (attacks by the Confederacy to convince the Union to quit the war and leave them alone) all the major battles of the Civil War were fought on Confederate soil.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
[B}'States Rights to determine their own policy, probably.' Yes, a policy of slavery. Your thinking goes only so far and no further. That explains a lot.
As I noted, I disagree with slavery, but not the concept of states rights. I also figure that non-violent action could have resolved the slavery question more affirmatively, less bloodily, and with less resentment - if possibly a bit less quickly - than a war that killed more Americans than any other in history.
Edit to update based on your edit:
Quote:
Yeah, if you were a baby then you'd be an old fart by 1860.
Oh, come on. In 1860 the Revolutionary War was the biggest thing that had ever happened in the United States. Folk still believed the Declaration of Independence applied.
Quote:
Actually, no. The Constitution doesn't provide for secession, it never did. They were referring to the Declaration of Independence. But as historians have often noted, once the FF had a nation to create, their rhetoric toned down considerably.
Historians pre-1860? Cites?
Quote:
Or Germany, or Japan, which have shouldered their responsibility and guilt, and moved on. A lot quicker than southerners, it seems.
Were Germany or Japan trying to secede from a government? Seems to me they were invading and conquering other countries. Slightly different. Would you expect the Founding Fathers to apologize for the Revolution?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In the best of all possible worlds, slavery could have been defeated without war. But the conflict was being propelled forward by westward expansion, and required urgent resolution.
So you reach a conundrum- Which set of rights takes precedence: The right of all men to be free, or States' rights? Assuming that you HAVE to choose, which would you pick?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME