Why the Confederacy Lives

Politico Magazine ^ | April 08, 2015 | EUAN HAGUE

[lqcincinnatus]

One hundred-fifty years after Appomattox, many Southerners still won’t give up.

One hundred fifty years ago, on April 9th, 1865, Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House and the Union triumphed in the Civil War. Yet the passage of a century and a half has not dimmed the passion for the Confederacy among many Americans. Just three weeks ago, the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) appeared before the Supreme Court arguing for the right to put a Confederate flag on vanity license plates in Texas. Just why would someone in 2015 want a Confederate flag on their license plate? The answer is likely not a desire to overtly display one’s genealogical research skills; nor can it be simplistically understood solely as an exhibition of racism, although the power of the Confederate flag to convey white supremacist beliefs cannot be discounted.

Rather, displaying the Confederate flag in 2015 is an indicator of a complex and reactionary politics that is very much alive in America today. It is a politics that harks back to the South’s proud stand in the Civil War as a way of rallying opinion against the federal government—and against the country’s changing demographic, economic, and moral character, of which Washington is often seen as the malign author. Today’s understanding of the Confederacy by its supporters is thus neither nostalgia, nor mere heritage; rather Confederate sympathy in 2015 is a well-funded and active political movement (which, in turn, supports a lucrative Confederate memorabilia industry).

[DiogenesLamp]

Boy, irony isn’t lost on you, is it bud? BTW, everyone back in the day thought ol’ Diogenes was a fool. And they were right.

And they thought Jesus was one as well, and they also thought they were right.

[DiogenesLamp]

LOL!! Didn’t know that Bubba. Hey, “Lamp’’ ol’ buddy, ain’t spankin’ yer monkey in public are you? BWHAHAHA!!

Looks to me like i'm spanking yours. :)

[jmacusa]

Not hardly dude, not hardly at all.

[jmacusa]

You aren’t Jesus. Not by a billion light years. Diogenes wasn’t The Son of God. And you? You’re a fool.

[DiogenesLamp]

You aren’t Jesus. Not by a billion light years. Diogenes wasn’t The Son of God. And you? You’re a fool.

I'm arguing with you, aren't I? :)

[DiogenesLamp]

Not hardly dude, not hardly at all.

Well to be honest, you are doing most of the work. :)

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

On this I refer you to the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Which doesn't remotely answer the question of why a state is permitted to do declare itself to be a country and seize property while a county, a township, a city block, the Elks Club or you and your neighbor can not. In fact, it would seem to argue that you and neighbor can do just that, being People and all.

Ah but they did. They absolutely thought that what they were doing was legal and in accordance with the Highest authority.

Okay, I'll be more specific, since you're being willfully obtuse. The Founding Fathers never pretended what they were doing was legal under British law or that they wouldn't have been hanged for treason had they lost. They resorted to the Natural Right of Rebellion.

You may not have read the correspondence between Major Anderson and General Beauregard. It seemed quite civil to me. None of that childish "sturm and drang" like you bring to a discussion.

I have read all of the correspondence between Anderson and Beauregard, and I've read all the correspondence between Beauregard and the confederate government, and among all the orders I've found nothing to Beauregard from the government or by Beauregard to his batteries that they try to avoid actually hurting anyone. On the contrary, I find Beauregard warning Anderson of the "effusion of blood" that will result when he is forced to "batter you to pieces" if Anderson refuses to surrender. That these threats are dressed up in the genteel language of the day makes them no less a threat of violence.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

his version didn’t claim rape.

So you're saying she was asking for it? Strutting around, dressed provocatively, batting her bedroom eyes....

He kept the kids out of sight because they looked so much like him.

[central_va]

I said they like their socialism as much as any other region.

Like a said you must be a non Southerner so you have no clue here. So let me help try to understand. No Southerner in the 1930's was ever going to VOTE FOR THE PARTY OF LINCOLN-ever. This has only changed recently. Southern conservatives are like the Conservatives of today they are stuck in a Party they don't belong in.

Get it yet?

[Pelham]

“So you’re saying she was asking for it?”

No. I’m saying that James Callender spread that libel in the first place and Clinton repeated it hoping that logic-challenged fools would gobble it up and spread it. It’s obvious that their bet paid off.

There is no proof that Sally Heming’s kids were fathered by Thomas Jefferson. There were more than a dozen Jefferson males living near Monticello whose DNA share the same Y chromosome as Thomas Jefferson.

“He kept the kids out of sight because they looked so much like him.”

Sally Hemings was the daughter of Jefferson’s father in law. She was his wife’s half sister. Her kids resembled his wife and his own children. Callender used this fact to libel Jefferson after they had a falling out. I realize that this is history whereas you prefer 18th century gossip but I’ll post it for the benefit of others.

[rockrr]

Even at this late date Spank~Yur~Monkey doesn’t understand the difference between peaceful negotiation and violent revolution. Maybe that’s why he calls it wack-a-mole instead of, well, you know... ;’)

[rockrr]

Interesting. I came to expect a childish response from you a long time ago.

[miss marmelstein]

Well, Doodle, my family were those wild Irish who were being conscripted into the army by Lincoln and fought viciously to stop it. It was the Irish immigrants who pulled the dreadful draft riots in NYC in which God knows how many poor blacks were lynched. In fact, the great Irish Rep in NYC recently put on a play about it. Not pretty. Lincoln did offer immigrants citizenship if they signed up - probably had officers waiting at the docks as the greenies got off the boat. And I speak as a fan of Lincoln.

Whatever you say about Johnny Reb, he willingly joined up.

[miss marmelstein]

I also blame Gore Vidal for these smears against Jefferson. In his fine book “Burr” he defames Jefferson with these charges. Actually, some of Jefferson’s male relatives were quite backwards. Two of his nephews chopped up a living slave to teach the other slaves “a lesson.”

[miss marmelstein]

How old are you? The south stuck with the party not because they liked socialism but because it had been their party for generations and they were loyal - just as today’s Conservatives have been loyal to the R party even though nothing has been done for them since Reagan.

I repeat: the Midwest has, in general, been much more liberal than the south - just check out the career of William Jennings Bryan. You don’t catch complete lunatics like Jesse Ventura or Al Franken being voted in down south.

[DiogenesLamp]

Which doesn't remotely answer the question of why a state is permitted to do declare itself to be a country and seize property while a county, a township, a city block, the Elks Club or you and your neighbor can not.

To get any use out of the Declaration of Independence, you have to actually read it.

Okay, I'll be more specific, since you're being willfully obtuse.The Founding Fathers never pretended what they were doing was legal under British law or that they wouldn't have been hanged for treason had they lost. They resorted to the Natural Right of Rebellion.

That's funny. I've been hammering the distinction between natural law and British law going on six years now. (with you being one of the stubborn opposition) I very much know the difference, and i've been working pretty hard to get other people to understand the difference and which one we were following back in 1776-1787.

But here's a question for you. Does the United States follow natural law when it suits its interests, but reject it when it doesn't?

On the contrary, I find Beauregard warning Anderson of the "effusion of blood" that will result when he is forced to "batter you to pieces" if Anderson refuses to surrender. That these threats are dressed up in the genteel language of the day makes them no less a threat of violence.

And yet nobody got hurt. Funny that. :)

[ROCKLOBSTER]

There is no proof that Sally Heming’s kids were fathered by Thomas Jefferson. There were more than a dozen Jefferson males living near Monticello whose DNA share the same Y chromosome as Thomas Jefferson.

So, you confess, that also means you can't prove it wasn't good old TJ. I guess it all depends what the meaning of "Y" is.

[rockrr]

Actually both sides used conscription as a means of filling out the ranks. The confederates were first, passing the Conscription Act on March 28, 1862. The union came next with the Militia Act on July 17, 1862.

Both sides allowed exemptions that permitted the rich to employ surrogates. They also both employed the “carrot vs. stick” with regard to conscription, offering much better terms for volunteers. As the war wore on and recruiting proved increasingly difficult the confederate army redefined the tours “for the duration”. As a result desertion became quite rampant.

The Army of Virginia had three classifications for deserters. The lowest severity was called “stragglers” - where soldiers would disappear for a day to a couple of days. The next group was called “French leave”, soldiers who take off for a few days to a few weeks to conduct family business or visit family and friends. The last group were the true deserters who left with no intention of coming back.

Lee himself estimated that a third of his force was absent at the Battle of Antietam on September 17, 1862. The confederate army imposed increasingly harsh measures to fight the spiraling desertion rate including the use of sharpshooters along the rear to shoot stragglers. Union commanders encouraged enemy desertion through promises of amnesty and it is estimated that 30,000 confederate solders took them up.

In the course of my research I’ve discovered that conditions and circumstances were far more intricate and complicated than I ever imagined.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not pretty. Lincoln did offer immigrants citizenship if they signed up - probably had officers waiting at the docks as the greenies got off the boat. And I speak as a fan of Lincoln.

If you haven't seen "Gangs of New York", you need to treat yourself. It was a very entertaining movie, and it touches on the Irish riots in New York.

It's been some years since I've seen it, but I seem to remember it showing the Union forces conscripting the Irish right off the boats.

The other day when I was looking for something else, I stumbled across some commentary from the period.

White workers compared their value unfavorably to that of southern slaves, stating that "[we] are sold for $300 [the price of exemption from war service] whilst they pay $1000 for negroes."

I thought to myself that was a very sobering way to regard the situation they found themselves in. They were effectively Slaves at 1/3rd the price. Till they were killed anyway, and then they were worth nothing.

[DiogenesLamp]

Two of his nephews chopped up a living slave to teach the other slaves “a lesson.”

Barbaric. Is this true?

You would have thought that while Jefferson was writing the Declaration of Independence, he might have given some consideration to these people, but hypocrisy and dichotomy was the norm for that era.

They respected the Idea of freedom when it applied to them, but not when it applied to others.

Funny, we are still having that problem.