Can we avoid the southern "lost cause" mythology?

But burned into it in precisely the wrong way. Davis' image on Stone Mountain would now be even bigger than Lee's.

We hanged any number of Irish rebels, but somehow it never made the next generation any less rebellious.

I really don't see how it can be done with a PoD later than abt 1862.

They really aren't comparable situations, though. In Eire, you had a much more genuine and deep-rooted national movement spring up, something that the Confederates lack. You'll notice that we hung most of the Nazis by the neck, and they aren't considered martyrs by anyone other than the worst of the far right. The Confederates were not quite so bad as the Nazis, but they were--in their last ditch defense of slavery--one of the worst regimes of the 19th Century.

Im not american and thus im not sure I understand this matters rightly. However to me it seems that those who call for a stronger reconstruction think that the Confederacy was all about slavery and keeping the slaves. And for some rich people and much of the elit it certainly was. However the majority of the people who served as soldiers of the confederacy was not a rich slave owner. They felt different enough from the northerners and thought of themselfs as a different people - enough so to fight a long and bloody war to gain their independence. Their leaders were slavers and thats true but without popular support they couldnt have fought for years. And I dont believe - though I cant prove - that they fought so the rich can keep their slaves. I dont say that the common white man of the south werent racist or anything. But I seriously doubt that they, who never had slaves were thinking back on the "good old days" because the rich than had slaves.

As people have pointed out, this is the essence of the Lost Cause myth. Even if the average soldier was not consciously fighting to preserve slavery, they were still fighting for a regime that had committed treason as a last-ditch resort to preserve the system, as can be shown by a quick look at most of the state declarations of secession or the Confederate constitution. The motivations of an individual soldier have little to do with why the war was started.

No, he is not. He is fighting for his homeland. That said homeland is led by a bunch of evil lunatics that distorted it to be the most evil country in history doesnt change the fact for him that its his homeland - even if he isnt a nazi.

And back to the confederacy: the soldiers were fighting for their home and independence. The secession ordinances etc were drawn up by the elit who really cared about slavery. But if it was all about slavery why were the ordinary joe's of the south without any slaves fighting in the war?

The ordinary soldier of the German Reich, though, played no role in starting the war. He may not have been motivated by it, but the circumstances that created the war were indubitably Hitler's antisemitism, slavophobia, and obsession with lebensraum.

Many "ordinary joes", as you put it, didn't fight for the confederacy. In many places, most notably the state of West Virginia or Jones County, Mississippi, they took up arms against succession and in support of the Unionist cause. But, even for those who committed treason for purportedly something other than the preservation of slavery, the "elites" in question still indisputably started the war. Unlike in most nationalistic succession crises, there were no popular demonstrations in support of secession leading up to the war. It was, pure and simple, started by the political elites for the preservation of slavery. The elites started the war over slavery. As for why the Confederate soldiers fought, well, I can think of several reasons. In some cases, it may have been pay/hope of reward, in others, it was likely loyalty to the state governments which declared independence to preserve slavery. In many, however, it was forced; do not forget that the Confederacy had to introduce conscription much earlier than the Union, demonstrating the unpopularity of the cause and difficulty in finding recruits. Regardless, however, the war was started over slavery.

Do the exact opposite of what all the revenge-fantasy fueled little psychopaths typically suggest, and instead focus hard on shaping a historical narrative of forgiveness, unity and 'moving forward together'. A sense must be fostered that the attempt to leave the Union was mistake, something to be a bit ashamed about, but that this doesn't reflect on the people involved... as long as they commit to "re-union". DO NOT try to "punish" people, as that only creates hostility, but persuade the Southern leaders (with any incentive you have) to publically and vocally embrace the Union. Make their recommitment to the Union be the historical legacy they stress in their own accounts, instead of glorifying their "Lost Cause".

Everybody likes a dramatic tale about brothers falling out, but what everybody loves most is the tearful reconciliation that awaits at the end. Make that the narrative. do not seek to punish one brother, but embrace him again without reservations. That, and only that, can ensure that he himself wishes to forget that he ever rose against his kin.

The issue is that, to get a non-ASB hard reconstruction, you need to give power to the factions that are going to hang Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree. However, the land reform programs etc. that the radical Republicans wanted to push through via the Freedman's Bureau will greatly benefit poor whites as well as blacks. Ultimately, in a best case scenario, you get a situation where Davis et al. are perceived as monsters who tricked the Americans of the south into fighting against their own better interests. From there, well, it's easy to see them being vilified at least as much as Benedict Arnold, if not more.

And people did try the reconciliationist approach OTL, mostly between 1876 and the Spanish War, where ex-Confederates actually fought for the States. Contrary to popular belief, Reconstruction was--IMO--almost the mildest it could have been--maybe it would have been slightly better if Lincoln had survived, but I don't know if he actually would have been able to circumvent the radical Republicans in Congress, and after 1868 who knows what might happen. Certainly, it's not going to be much more mild than OTL. And yet, in this mildness, we still saw the Lost Cause develop. People were able to portray the Rebels as misguided patriots, and reintegrate them into the fold. The only way to do this and overcome the cognitive dissonance of the disgusting things which they fought for (by which I refer to the lionized people like Lee, who accepted slavery in the short to medium term and were very definitely aware that they were fighting for a regime that supported it) and that they did (Fort Pillow massacre, anyone?) was to forget that the latter happened. For people not to have to confront that cognitive dissonance, the memory of their crimes needs to be made public and not forgiven as OTL.
 
Last edited:
The US is invaded by foreign powers in the 1890s who go on a campaign of terror and plunder. That would basically make any American who's not united behind the war effort immediately suspect. Any ideas of anti-Union sentiment don't really exist.
 
Don't accept the surrendering Southern state legislatures as legitimate, instead use the military to enforce new elections where blacks can vote. Ban the Hell out of sharecropping 1st chance we get.

Hang Davis and his VP as traitors. Hang Wirz for war crimes.

Find a way to convince Lee to publicly say "we lost, guys, it's OK, better to just focus on getting back on our feet and apologizing to Uncle Sam than to continue a fruitless fight".

Confiscate all plantations (this is effectively impossible to do without ASBs, though) and divide the land up evenly between poor whites and freed blacks (fire sale on ex-plantations, basically).

Marshall Plan the South. Downside: This is super expensive.

it'd be basically impossible without ASBs IMO to stop the initial formation of the Lost Cause myth. But more publicization of the evils of slavery, to counter the Southern propaganda, not electing Wilson, those would help.
 
The Confederacy was indeed all about slavery and keeping the slaves. Check out the various secession ordinances: they make it very clear what the secession was about. As for the soldiers themselves - doesn't really matter what their opinions were. A WWII German soldier who doesn't want to exterminate the Jewish people is still fighting for a regime that wants to exterminate all Jewish people.

It does matter if you're talking about shaping public perception after the war, though. Preventing a lost cause myth from arising amongst people who fought with the intention of defending slavery will require different tactics to preventing one from arising amongst people who fought for their state's honour and don't really care about slavery one way or the other.

The work to prevent lost cause mythology needed to be done in the 1860s and 70s. These were the fruits rather than the symptoms.

AIUI Birth of a Nation, at least, gave the lost cause myth a second wind, so without it the myth would probably have been less strong in the 20th century than it was IOTL, and might even have died out altogether.

a regime that had committed treason

It always seems a bit rich to me when people accuse the South of treason, given how the USA originally came about.
 
They really aren't comparable situations, though. In Eire, you had a much more genuine and deep-rooted national movement spring up, something that the Confederates lack. You'll notice that we hung most of the Nazis by the neck, and they aren't considered martyrs by anyone other than the worst of the far right. The Confederates were not quite so bad as the Nazis, but they were--in their last ditch defense of slavery--one of the worst regimes of the 19th Century.

Two crucial differences.

1) Confederates were fighting to preserve a long-established way of life which had been followed by such respectable American worthies as Washington, Jefferson Jackson and Henry Clay. Nazis were not. They brought back horrors thought long buried in the past What they did was more akin to a situation where Donald Trump reinstates slavery and encourages wholesale lynching of Blacks.


2) Germans had a awkward choice. They could not seek the withdrawal of the Wallies, as this would leave them at the mercy of Stalin. So they were obliged to play the Wallies game and at least pretend to be glad that Hitler was gone. They clung to a western "nurse" to avoid a Soviet "worse". To get a comparable outcome in the South, you have to imagine a situation where Haiti is ten times as big, and the Union has won the ACW in alliance with it. Everything south of a line from Charleston to New Orleans is the Haitian zone of occupation. In such a world the rest of the South would indeed transform themselves into good little Unionists asap. But no "worse" existed to produce such a result.

Contrary to popular belief, Reconstruction was--IMO--almost the mildest it could have been

And contrary to another popular belief, Reconstruction did not "fail". It was a complete success, giving the North everything for which it had fought. That was why nobody worried much about the Lost Cause myth, or the treatment of the Blacks. Since the white South was now firmly loyal to the United States in the present, neither of those things particularly mattered.
 
Last edited:
This conversation is going to be amusing, in both directions. Only thought I'll offer is to the folks going with the idea to get the Southerners to consider themselves as Americans, sure thing, get the Northerners to consider the Southerners as Americans too, that's a prerequisite. Might also want to try to do something about regionalisms that pulse strongly to this day. There's an inherent problem with enforcing a single identity when there is an explicit cultural ideology that every State is a country unto itself (albeit non-sovereign), regionalisms rose early, and despite the best efforts, remain relatively strong to this very day. Sure, Americans are all Americans. They're also all X, Y and Z as well.

Reconstruction worked completely, by the way. Which is horrifying when you think about it.

As to everyone yelling treason? Com'on, how was the Glorious United States of America founded, again?
 
If you don't meaningfully alter the course of the Civil War, you're going to invariably end up with something like the Lost Cause school of history, if only because there are a not-insubstantial number of Southern nationalists who will be discontented with the results of the war and attempt to rationalize and justify it. Whether it could be prevented from becoming "mythological" is debatable, too, for much the same reason that it's very hard to prevent "knife in the back" arguments from planting deep roots among the defeated. A harsher Reconstruction may well do it, but it could also be a case of the cure being worse than the disease because of butterflies and the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The more interesting question in this vein, I think, is whether -- given the plethora of Confederate victory timelines -- there is an equivalent of Lost Cause-ism in those independent Confederacies, as a kind of nostalgia for a rose-tintedly-remembered Unionism and a simpler time before inflation, the boll-weevil, and the threat of negro socialist revolution inflicted their ravages upon the South.
 
If you don't meaningfully alter the course of the Civil War, you're going to invariably end up with something like the Lost Cause school of history, if only because there are a not-insubstantial number of Southern nationalists who will be discontented with the results of the war and attempt to rationalize and justify it. Whether it could be prevented from becoming "mythological" is debatable, too, for much the same reason that it's very hard to prevent "knife in the back" arguments from planting deep roots among the defeated. A harsher Reconstruction may well do it, but it could also be a case of the cure being worse than the disease because of butterflies and the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The more interesting question in this vein, I think, is whether -- given the plethora of Confederate victory timelines -- there is an equivalent of Lost Cause-ism in those independent Confederacies, as a kind of nostalgia for a rose-tintedly-remembered Unionism and a simpler time before inflation, the boll-weevil, and the threat of negro socialist revolution inflicted their ravages upon the South.

Actually, this could be a very intersting idea... what if you had a Confederate victory timeline that resulted not in a fall into authoritarianism, a sunny Dixie-wank, or other such thing, but rather the state muddling along with semi-stable, power to the states system, hampered industrialization as local industries get swamped by cheap British and Yankee imports without a protective tariff, ect, that results in the south slipping further down the economic ladder as time goes on and a growing gap between the slave owners and their regions (Who use their property as cheap labor, leaving less jobs for Southern Whites) and the backhills counteries that results in in a upsurge in Pan-Americanism among the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of the Confederate Veterans? A return to the Union by their own efforts, if followed by a boom by integration into a common market and investment/monetary system, would go a long way to souring the Rebellion as a reactionary, emotionally driven mistake.
 
Last edited:
"Homeland" is an abstraction. If he's in the German army in the Second World War, he is fighting for the war aims of Herr Hitler - and is fighting because of the ambitions of Herr Hitler.

When you ask people to fight and possibly die for something it does matter for them what that something is.

If you asked a german to fight and die for Hitler you would have gotten some - the die hard nazis. If you ask them to fight and die for Germany you get the Heer. And beside the tangible result its really important for the people as well.

If the confederacy was really only about slavery for most of his people I dont think that it could have put up nearly as much a fight as they did. And a lost cause mithology wouldnt take root with the people - only with the elit.
 
Actually, this could be a very intersting idea... what if you had a Confederate victory timeline that resulted not in a fall into authoritarianism, a sunny Dixie-wank, or other such thing, but rather the state muddling along with semi-stable, power to the states system, hampered industrialization as local industries get swamped by cheap British and Yankee imports without a protective tariff, ect, that results in the south slipping further down the economic ladder as time goes on and a growing gap between the slave owners and their regions (Who use their property as cheap labor, leaving less jobs for Southern Whites) and the backhills counteries that results in in a upsurge in Pan-Americanism among the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of the Confederate Veterans? A return to the Union by their own efforts, if followed by a boom by integration into a common market and investment/monetary system, would go a long way to souring the Rebellion as a reactionary, emotionally driven mistake.

I know a lot of people on this board seem to expect the South to come crawling back begging to be readmitted into the Union, but frankly I think it's unlikely. Very few countries, having gained independence, willingly surrender it again to their old overlords, even if they turn into total basket-cases. (How likely to you think, say, Zimbabwe is ask Britain to come back in and take control?)
 
I know a lot of people on this board seem to expect the South to come crawling back begging to be readmitted into the Union, but frankly I think it's unlikely. Very few countries, having gained independence, willingly surrender it again to their old overlords, even if they turn into total basket-cases. (How likely to you think, say, Zimbabwe is ask Britain to come back in and take control?)

I think people who say things like this disregard the fact that while fighting the civil war the Confederacy was also fighting another civil war within its own borders against everyone who didn't want to be a Confederate American, to imagine that a substantial portion of its population base would simply shut up and accept things after some literal gods given victory in the civil war is a fallacy at best. No, I am not insulting your or anyone else's intelligence either.
 
I know a lot of people on this board seem to expect the South to come crawling back begging to be readmitted into the Union, but frankly I think it's unlikely. Very few countries, having gained independence, willingly surrender it again to their old overlords, even if they turn into total basket-cases. (How likely to you think, say, Zimbabwe is ask Britain to come back in and take control?)

Apples to Oranges. Zimbabweans were never Britons, either in their own identification or in the eyes of their colonizers,nor was their things like broad everyday similar language use, physical proximity/interaction, ect. that could form the foundation for a common identification. Granted, there are regional differences, but I'll readily argue it's more akin to that between Austria or Barvaria and Northern Germany (And I think we can agree Pan-Germanism was a viable ideology). It's not guranteed, sure, but it's certainly far from ASB
 
Apples to Oranges. Zimbabweans were never Britons, either in their own identification or in the eyes of their colonizers,nor was their things like broad everyday similar language use, physical proximity/interaction, ect. that could form the foundation for a common identification. Granted, there are regional differences, but I'll readily argue it's more akin to that between Austria or Barvaria and Northern Germany (And I think we can agree Pan-Germanism was a viable ideology). It's not guranteed, sure, but it's certainly far from ASB

In cultural terms, it is, but in political terms, not really -- Austria and Bavaria hadn't been part of Germany and then rejected it, nor had they fought a long and bloody war of independence against the north. States which have never been united sometimes unite willingly, but I'm struggling to think of examples of states that have split off from another state and later asked to be readmitted.
 
My suspicion is that you can't really neuter a romanticist movement with the logical application of steel and lead. You are almost always guaranteed to have this minority position exist among some portion of the population.
 
Make sure that black people don't lose their newfound voting rights due to the efforts of white supremacists. Crack down harder on KKK-style terrorism and lynchings.
 
Something else will replace them.

Not really, it's not like they were the only two pro-confederate movies ever made, they had impact they did because despite their horrible messages, racism and being propaganda, they were objectively two of greatest films in the history of cinema. One is considered to be one of if not THE most significant movie in the development of filmmaking, and the other won ten academy awards. Birth of a Nation was highest grossing film ever at the time until is was passed by Gone With The Wind 24 years later which is still the most successful movie in box office history when you account for inflation.

For every massively successful pieces of propaganda there are countless more that are duds. My point is these two films aren't going to be replaced just like that.
 
Last edited:
Top