Can we avoid the southern "lost cause" mythology?
- Thread starter NHBL
- Start date
The American Civil War was one of the country's greatest tragedies, especially when you add in the aftermath that's causing such major troubles long after the dust of most civil wars has settled. I've been trying to find ways to make the aftermath less enduring, the oppression and divisiveness less severe. It looks like there probably isn't a good one. Perhaps there is a way to at least reduce the oppression of the freedmen--perhaps demoblzing some of the United States Colored Troops as a unit, with their equipment, and doing some land redistribution, so that there's a state or two that are both majority black, and the blacks are well armed, while the whites that fought for the rebels are prohibited from bearing arms?
Breaking the wealth of the elites might also help. There seems to be no good solution. Most civil wars produce long term hard feelings, but this one's going on longer than most.
Breaking the wealth of the elites might also help. There seems to be no good solution. Most civil wars produce long term hard feelings, but this one's going on longer than most.
There was the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment which even has a movie about them(Glory).
While fort wagner was a fine victory, I'm talking about perform a pivotal action that saves a full fledged Union army from destruction, or destroys a Confederate army.There was the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment which even has a movie about them(Glory).
Actually when you come down to it, the aftermath of our civil war was far more civil than most. Yes, there was a lot of horrible stuff like lynchings and Jim Crow, but many civil wars lead to the near-extermination of one side or the other and animosities lasting down the centuries. During the recent tragedy in Boznia-Hertegovina they were still mad about stuff that happened in the 1300s!
There's a parallel in Britain. After the defeat of the last Jacobite rebellion, the British government took the hard line that some advocate here, executing many Jacobites and banning the kilt and other Highland dress.
By the 1800s, George IV was wearing a kilt on a visit to Scotland [1], the Jacobites were heroes of many a romantic novel, and no one anywhere had a good word for Butcher Cumberland. Even the Lowland Scots, who had been thoroughly anti-Jacobite at the time, went along with this "lost cause" myth and began to see them as Scottish patriots fighting English oppressors. Basically, nobody minded a Lost Cause myth, so long as the cause really was unquestionably lost.
[1]The joke is that the kilt was entirely spurious, made up for the occasion and not remotely resembling anything worn at Prestonpans or Culloden. But the thrifty Scots never missed a chance to make a bawbee, and if his Sassenach Majesty wanted a kilt, a kilt he should have.
It not that they created those attitudes or sentiments, it's that they were the most effective at spreading it and vitalizing them. Without them you don't see the return of the KKK and you probably don't see confederate flags waving in northern states. More effectively than anything else they glorified the South for the rest of the United States.
Sorta, I'm descended from all would be Confederates on my Dad's side. My name was the maiden name of one of my great grandmother's whose siblings all died in the war (3 as soliders, last one died between Petersburg and Appomattox, the sister by Yankee raiders). I grew up on these stories and I now live outside Atlanta.
But I personally grew up in Colorado and New Mexico and am as interested in Anasazi New Mexico as I am in the Civil War. I prefer Mexican food to Soul food any day, and prefer Denver Broncos to Georgia Bulldogs and hate the Falcons with a passion.
At the same time I hate when Southerners are looked down upon as hicks, stupid and arguements on these forums with this underlying attitude. I look at things like the Beverly Hillbillys as not that different from blackface. I think the deplorable comment got us Trump, and carried much of that kind of bigotry even though I voted for the person who made it.
Last edited:
No, but after 1863, under US law, all instances of the use of forced labor in the non-occupied south would constitute criminal action. Jeff Davis and the rest of the South were, after the Emancipation Proclamation, illegally holding people in bondage under US law since the Confederacy had no legal jurisdiction in US courts. Furthermore, there's also the fact that he most definitely committed treason, which certainly was a capital offense. Furthermore, some Confederate high commanders certainly committed war crimes--Ft Pillow Massacre being the most famous--which they could also be tried for, though it would be difficult to pin those on Davis personally...
Again, they were forced or paid to, in large part, or they had family who persuaded them to fight, or they were already enlisted in state militias and didn't really know what exactly was going on at the start of the war, or they were lured in by propaganda. Heck, the same thing goes for many US soldiers, particularly those recruited off the boats. Many US Soldiers fought for patriotism or to preserve the Union, in line with the goals of the government prosecuting the war and what the war was "about" to the North. Many others were devoted abolitionists, who had the personal goal of freeing the slaves, but that doesn't mean that the war was about removing slavery for the north as a whole. Many others were immigrants or poor folks down on their luck who were more than happy to take Uncle Sam's cash, or were drafted to do so.
And, comparing it to the War on Terror examples, it's obviously absurd to say that the war started and was prosecuted because of those soldier's patriotism. The War on Terror was *about*, depending on your perspective, either a noble campaign to rid the world of evil or a narrowly-concealed attempt to grab oil. It was not fought because of Patriotism. That's not to say that American soldiers weren't patriotic--that'd be absurd--but rather to demonstrate that the willingness, coerced or otherwise, of enough people to fight is a necessary condition for *any* war. That doesn't make the war *about* that willingness, because if it did then all wars would be about the same thing. No, you need to look at the actions of the people in charge to determine why the war was began and to what ends it was fought.
Sure it would have. People will go to great mental gymnastics to avoid thinking they did something wrong--it's called cognitive dissonance.
I was born in southern Maryland but grew up in New England. So no, not really, but I do have a family history in the southern planter class.
There is also the fact that they would lose cultural status with Black Freemen around. Poor Whites wanted someone to look down on and Black Slaves filled that role. They took pride in the "fact" that they were "better than a nigger". Emancipation threatened that.
If there isn't a "lost cause" school of historiography, it's not as if there won't be similar undercurrents. I really doubt you're going to do away with racism and Jim Crow and the like simply because there isn't a high fallutin version of historical events told about them. There's some slippery and undefined terms being used in these analyses that make it seem as if the lost cause school of thought has had much more influence on subsequent events than it actually did and that if it had just been confined to a minority viewpoint than it would not have had such an influence. It *is* a minority viewpoint is what seems to get overlooked.
Finally someone says it. People tend to forget what President Lyndon Johnson said and that with black freemen, it would threaten the status quo.
Yes the common man would fight to
Maintain their way of life, but that would include maintaining slavery and having their scapegoat
SwampTiger
Banned
As a Southerner of sorts, I can remember my first interest in history around age 8-10 was Confederate generals. Now, rather older, I have come to realize the failures of Southern elitism. The average soldier marched to protect his State, his home and his way of life, including slavery. It was accepted that white men kept black, and occasionally white, slaves. The Industrial Revolution had not been accepted in southern states. Black field hands kept cotton, tobacco and sugar cane profitable.
The failures of Reconstruction were failures to uproot southern plantations, strike quickly and decisively against terrorist atrocities during and after the rebellion, and action against Confederate leaders after the war. Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Stuart and other leaders swore allegiance to the USA as members of the US Army. By fighting the USA, they were traitors. American leaders should have pressed for trials to punish these leaders. Punishment varying from hanging and exile to loss of voting rights should have been issued. The expropriation of lands of these leaders from the officer ranks would provide a supply of land for redistribution to ex-slaves and poor white southerners. These punishments could be ameliorated by various actions. Railroad building and waterways projects would improve communication for trade and defense. The costs could be partially covered by taxes raised on all southern lands for a short, 5-10 year period.
Additionally, the Union should have actively and swiftly acted against the various white terrorist organizations. Freedmen and poor whites should have been recruited into local militias. Carpetbaggers and scallywags should have been restricted and punished for illegal and punitive actions. Allowing ex-Confederate soldiers immediate voting rights would have diluted anger against the black vote. The corruption of the Reconstruction governments caused greater anger in the South. Northerners were uprooting the southern culture and government, while allowing wholesale pillaging by unscrupulous Republicans.
Thus, a more proportional version of Reconstruction would both punish the worst of the Confederate actors and allow the Southern white underclass a voice in local Reconstruction governments. Punishment of elites would be balanced by rewarding lower class whites with plantation lands. A wedge would be pushed between the now landless elites and newly landed poor whites. A fair handed and strong Reconstruction government could offer protection from terrorists like the White Knights and KKK.
OTL Reconstruction failed. The US Government did not protect freedmen after 1875. It allowed the rollback of pro-Reconstruction laws. It allowed the growth of white supremist groups.
Note: There is no easy way to stop the concerns of poor whites of equality with freedmen. This will require education and time.
The failures of Reconstruction were failures to uproot southern plantations, strike quickly and decisively against terrorist atrocities during and after the rebellion, and action against Confederate leaders after the war. Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Stuart and other leaders swore allegiance to the USA as members of the US Army. By fighting the USA, they were traitors. American leaders should have pressed for trials to punish these leaders. Punishment varying from hanging and exile to loss of voting rights should have been issued. The expropriation of lands of these leaders from the officer ranks would provide a supply of land for redistribution to ex-slaves and poor white southerners. These punishments could be ameliorated by various actions. Railroad building and waterways projects would improve communication for trade and defense. The costs could be partially covered by taxes raised on all southern lands for a short, 5-10 year period.
Additionally, the Union should have actively and swiftly acted against the various white terrorist organizations. Freedmen and poor whites should have been recruited into local militias. Carpetbaggers and scallywags should have been restricted and punished for illegal and punitive actions. Allowing ex-Confederate soldiers immediate voting rights would have diluted anger against the black vote. The corruption of the Reconstruction governments caused greater anger in the South. Northerners were uprooting the southern culture and government, while allowing wholesale pillaging by unscrupulous Republicans.
Thus, a more proportional version of Reconstruction would both punish the worst of the Confederate actors and allow the Southern white underclass a voice in local Reconstruction governments. Punishment of elites would be balanced by rewarding lower class whites with plantation lands. A wedge would be pushed between the now landless elites and newly landed poor whites. A fair handed and strong Reconstruction government could offer protection from terrorists like the White Knights and KKK.
OTL Reconstruction failed. The US Government did not protect freedmen after 1875. It allowed the rollback of pro-Reconstruction laws. It allowed the growth of white supremist groups.
Note: There is no easy way to stop the concerns of poor whites of equality with freedmen. This will require education and time.
Well I'm from Atlanta, Georgia so let's see if I can give any perspective on this.
I think that the lost cause was inevitable as by time 1865 rolled around the South was economically ruined and there economy in free fall both because there primary source of labor has just been set free and because war had just ravaged most of there country while strategic cities like Atlanta had been burned to the ground.
To avoid the worst of the lost cause at a minimum the Union would have to walk into the South leaving everything intact and compensate slave owners on the loss of there human property.
I think that the lost cause was inevitable as by time 1865 rolled around the South was economically ruined and there economy in free fall both because there primary source of labor has just been set free and because war had just ravaged most of there country while strategic cities like Atlanta had been burned to the ground.
To avoid the worst of the lost cause at a minimum the Union would have to walk into the South leaving everything intact and compensate slave owners on the loss of there human property.
SwampTiger
Banned
I doubt compensation will have any effect on the majority of poor whites without slaves. Besides, you are just rewarding the class of slave owners who started the war, by 1865, this is not possible.
Provide land, education and development to middle class and poor whites without the burden of carpetbaggers, add a voice in local and state politics and kept violence to a minimum.
Besides, I'm from New Orleans, so I'm required to disagree with you!
I doubt compensation will have any effect on the majority of poor whites without slaves. Besides, you are just rewarding the class of slave owners who started the war, by 1865, this is not possible.
Provide land, education and development to middle class and poor whites without the burden of carpetbaggers, add a voice in local and state politics and kept violence to a minimum.
Besides, I'm from New Orleans, so I'm required to disagree with you!
What burden of carpetbaggers? During Reconstruction the North put in more than it took out. A lot of the "carpetbaggers" went broke.
SwampTiger
Banned
Northern transplants ran the government, railroads, many of the plantations, took over businesses, and elbowed out poor and middle class whites from jobs and business opportunities. They, with the appearance of large numbers of freedmen, were the prominent causes for the rise of the precursors of the KKK. It was bad enough to lose the war. Then you had a large group of outsiders taking over government and jobs. All sorts of folks go broke. The South had enough trouble supporting black and white southerners without a horde of penniless Yanks.
Japan.
Unconditional surrender - well, the total defeat needed to get unconditional surrender - does that sort of thing.
It is very debateable if modern Japan truly thinks it losing was a good thing.