Can we avoid the "Lost Cause" mythology after the American Civil War?
- Thread starter NHBL
- Start date
You gave me a twisted idea.
About 1868 Invade Canada!
You create a permanent enemy in the British Empire. You get the officers to bond, as in "Sherman and Forrest took Winnipeg, together!"
You get former Confederates working with free blacks. Perhaps not in the same unit, but on the same side, counting on each other.
Best of all, they can look down on Canadians, together!
Best way to have former enemies bond, beat the crap out of someone else!
History Learner
Banned
Seward very likely couldn't have won the election, looking at the percentages Lincoln got and he (Seward) was considered very threatening to the South, more so than Lincoln; that might be sufficient to drag more of the border states into the CSA, particularly given what decisions Seward takes as the situation develops (Not removing Fremont like Lincoln did, for example). This could be sufficient to secure a peace by exhaustion in of itself, as the South came within a hair of that in 1864. As far as the foreign policy angle, that I'm not sure as Seward did threaten the British via official channels in the Summer of 1861-before Trent.....
The election did not tip Lincoln's way because he was seen as less threatening to the South than Seward. Lincoln was treated with extreme hyperbole as a radical that he really wasn't in some Southern states; in others, where he probably could have picked up more of the vote, he was undercut by John Bell and the Constitutional Union Party. Lincoln himself was not treated with hostility in most of the upper South, at least not until the call for volunteers, a move that seriously backfired. Many of the influential old Whig newspapers in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia actually spoke of him fairly positively while still encouraging a vote for Bell.
Seward was rather a problem who was unlikely to be reelected because he could not unite the factions of the Republican party, which really wasn't even a singular party as of yet. The Know Nothings distrusted him, the Free Soilers who many of which were former Democrats remembered his staunch old Whig partisanship, and his best asset, being a New Yorker, limited his appeal in the Midwest. Lincoln by contrast likely underperformed in New York, but was able to take all of its electoral seats, while appealing strongly in the Midwest, and unified the party through his personal charisma and replication of the Harrison 1840 "common man" shtick, which believe it or not actually was very effective. He retained old Whig voters (outside of the Upper South), but was not nearly as involved in Whig partisan politics and therefore did not have as many enemies as Seward.
Last edited:
It is.
There's actually nothing in the OP about any of this. There seems to be an assumption here that less Lost Cause nostalgia implies different race relations, but this does not necessarily follow. Indeed, given that the North in tis era is only marginally less racist than the South, it quite probably won't. The will to uphold Black rights will be no stronger without a Lost Cause myth than with one.
And if Lee's opinion matters, then it's already too late. The Lost Cause myth began with him and his colleagues, starting from about mid-1862. If he has emerged from the war the same revered hero as OTL, then the Lost Cause myth is already up and running, and nothing the government does will make much difference to it.
There "were" Black militias during Reconstruction. It made no difference.
But in any case, in an 1865-7 with no Lost Cause myth, why would anyone be bothering to promote Black rights? There'd be no need to.
Congress didn't give freedmen the vote out of simple goodness of heart, but because it didn't want to readmit the South under the same old Confederate leadership, and Black suffrage seemed the only way to prevent this. But if Southern whites do not romanticise the Lost Cause then they probably won't be voting for these men, so there's no need to pick up the political hot potato of Black voting - and Congress probably won't.
Last edited:
Sure we could have let the South rejoin the Union, and still keep slavery, or just deal with the race issue as they saw fit. Just what kind of reconstruction would you suggest? Pay the South reparations? Build federal monuments to the noble cause of the Confederacy? Teach in schools that the Union was wrong to use force to prevent disunion? The war was the fault of the North for not enforcing the "Fugitive Slave Act", and for not letting the slave power expand wherever it wanted to? Better still teach that the war was fought over tariffs, and Northern greed? Would these things have made Southerners less upset about rejoining the Union?
It is worth noting that a similar phenomenon was provided by a defect in the American political system - the Rights of the States. The Confederates positioned themselves as ardent advocates of rights os states - which included the right to secession, and the right to sell and exploit slaves. This defect was so rooted that it is used by the most reactionary political forces (even if they are not supporters of segregation and white suprematism). Plus, we have a completely archaic electoral system, which still allows the southern elites to lobby their interests. I believe that it is necessary to declare - "it is not regions that have rights - citizens have rights", and to create a system with a stronger federal government (since it is unlikely to reach the French departments in the US) and disperse the electoral college.
Now they call him president :-D.
Recent elections have clearly shown that radical nationalism is still a thing in Germany.
Let's not make a Entities - CSA can easily be described as a representative of peripheral capitalism (which is why the southern loyalists had the opportunity to gain the necessary influence).
This might indeed have happened had Richmond fallen in 1862.
Such and early fall of the CSA is also by far the best way to avoid a Lot Cause myth.
No need for any of the above.
History Learner
Banned
You misunderstood my point, in that he was likely to not win due to his lack of appeal in the Midwest but, even if he does, Seward made cause the Upper South to bolt to the CSA.
The only real way to ovoid the lost cause myth would be a more federalized education system. Southern children were still learning a pro-confederacy version of the Civil War at least till the 1980's. State, and regional pride makes it hard to admit your ancestors fought for an evil cause. After the worst war in American History, and the ruin of Antebellum Society Southerners could hardly justify the war by saying "We fought the war to keep the Darkies down." They had to invent a more noble reason to justify the horrible sacrifices they made.
What I would do:
--Hang Davis like a dog.
--Hang or exile every Senator, Representative, and Governor who voted for or supported secession.
--Exile or hang Davis's entire cabinet. (Rhett should probably be hanged just to stop him from spreading his insanity)
--Hang or exile Lee and every Confederate military officer who held a Union rank of one star General or higher pre-war, or who rose to such rank during the war. Any who surrender rather than being captured get to pick their poison: Death or exile.
--Hang Wirz.
--Confiscate every property worked by slaves.
--General amnesty for Confederate noncoms, junior officers, and enlisted men. Officers below General rank prohibited from being employed by the Union army. One exception: Anyone who can be proven to have killed Union POWs, black or white, swings.
--Redistribute confiscated property to freedmen. Fire sale on mansions! Maybe turn them into hotels and restaurants.
--Hang any former Confederate caught taking up arms against the Union again. You get one second chance.
--Every election in the USA shall be by universal manhood suffrage*. No restrictions upon this shall be permitted under any circumstances.
--Keep a wary eye out for paramilitary activity.
--Don't be comically corrupt like the 1870s and 1880s GOP decided to be. If you lose an election, all the above goes to shit, so you cannot give the voters a reason to vote against you for at LEAST 30 years.
--Sponsor some halfway accurate history textbooks for use in new schools to be built across the South.
--As a gesture of reconciliation, fund rebuilding and infrastructure efforts across the South, employing Southerners heavily. Put 'em to work and keep 'em busy.
*Obviously it'd be great to have universal suffrage but that's even harder to implement than the above.
--Hang Davis like a dog.
--Hang or exile every Senator, Representative, and Governor who voted for or supported secession.
--Exile or hang Davis's entire cabinet. (Rhett should probably be hanged just to stop him from spreading his insanity)
--Hang or exile Lee and every Confederate military officer who held a Union rank of one star General or higher pre-war, or who rose to such rank during the war. Any who surrender rather than being captured get to pick their poison: Death or exile.
--Hang Wirz.
--Confiscate every property worked by slaves.
--General amnesty for Confederate noncoms, junior officers, and enlisted men. Officers below General rank prohibited from being employed by the Union army. One exception: Anyone who can be proven to have killed Union POWs, black or white, swings.
--Redistribute confiscated property to freedmen. Fire sale on mansions! Maybe turn them into hotels and restaurants.
--Hang any former Confederate caught taking up arms against the Union again. You get one second chance.
--Every election in the USA shall be by universal manhood suffrage*. No restrictions upon this shall be permitted under any circumstances.
--Keep a wary eye out for paramilitary activity.
--Don't be comically corrupt like the 1870s and 1880s GOP decided to be. If you lose an election, all the above goes to shit, so you cannot give the voters a reason to vote against you for at LEAST 30 years.
--Sponsor some halfway accurate history textbooks for use in new schools to be built across the South.
--As a gesture of reconciliation, fund rebuilding and infrastructure efforts across the South, employing Southerners heavily. Put 'em to work and keep 'em busy.
*Obviously it'd be great to have universal suffrage but that's even harder to implement than the above.
Even northern states won't ratify that. Many had residency or other requirements. There's a reason the 15A was worded as it was - that was the most that was likely to be ratified.
This would drive Grant, Sherman and other Northern heroes out of the Army and into the Democratic camp, since it would be a repudiation of the surrender terms which they had negotiated in good faith.
Anyway, nothing in your proposal would have any effect whatsoever on the Lost Cause myth - unless perhaps to reinforce it. Similarly hardline policies by Britain did nothing to extinguish Irish nationalism.
To avoid the LCM you need *less* change, not more. The less difference there is between before and after, the less there is to wax nostalgic about.
The problem is, that will only encourage the LCM because a lack of punishment for starting a violent uprising over not being allowed to lord it over the northern states and expanding slavery every which-way anymore, will only encourage another rebellion attempting to restore the "peculiar system". You need to make clear the consequences of treason, while investing in the region to flip the common people over to the government's side by offering them steady cash.
And as it is, the 15th amendment was easily circumvented by Jim Crow laws for decades. There can't be a loophole the size of a truck that potential coup governments can get through to retain power.
As for the generals--they are traitors, and should be treated as such. Honestly, offering them the choice of exile is IMO merciful. Let Grant, Sherman, etc. know before they go around accepting surrenders that the terms are: If you betrayed your country to be a general for the treasonous rebellion, you get death or exile.
I don't think that there's a politically feasible way to gut the Lost Cause BS before it starts, but there were much better ways to handle the aftermath of the war of treason.
What need to punish anyone when the sons of the traitors and even some of the traitors themselves, were willingly fighting for the US only 33 years after Appomattox - and would probably have done so earlier had the US been at war with anyone during that period. Why waste energy punishing traitors who will soon cease to be traitors if left alone. And how would doing so make the slightest difference to the LCM?
For Pete's sake, why do you suppose that the North never worried about the growth of the LCM - and even embraced it? Because they knew it didn't matter. It wasn't of the slightest importance if some people wanted to prance around in Confederate uniforms - just as long as said people were perfectly happy to fight for the US when it was at war?
It was the same in Britain. Seventy years after Culloden, King George IV was prancing around in a kilt - because Jacobitism was so thoroghly scotched that it was now safe to romanticise it.
How is it of the slightest importance what loopholes an Amendment does or doesn't contain if there is no way to get it ratified?
Those traitors only turned their coat to fight for America again because the government had sold out and let them indulge their fantasies of racial superiority on the legal stage. I'm proposing that proactive action be taken to avoid and suppress the negative social impacts of the lost-cause myth, because IMO it's completely impossible to prevent it from materializing in SOME way.
It is better IMO to treat the South like Nazi Germany post-WW2. Try all the leaders for their crimes, then Marshall Plan the whole area to flip the lower classes. That should gut the support of organizations like the KKK before they can even get started, and safely remove most of the most ardent fire-eaters.
Because if there are obvious loopholes that let voting bans be rules-lawyered through, the 15th amendment isn't worth the paper it's printed on.