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: