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).

[Iron Munro]

The north kicked their asses back to the stone age.

And that is a big part of the problem and contributes to the lingering feelings in the south.

Once it became clear that the war was effectively won by the north there was no need for the Union army to march through the south destroying everything they could and laying waste to half of the nation.

That was done out of petty bitterness and a an impulse to get even or get some payback.

Imagine if after the end of WWII hostilities the US had spent a year or so sending armies through Germany, Japan and Italy, raping plundering, destroying or stealing everything that was left. Burning the homes and possessions of civilians, turning them out into the streets with nothing more than the clothes on their backs, taking away what little they had left - their homes, lands and livelihoods.

Relations between the US and those countries might still be strained, to say the least.

[DiogenesLamp]

By that time they had created the Confederate States of America with a central government. They did not consider themselves a coalition but a country.

Fine. Let's get you on record as to the reason Brigadier General Irwin McDowell was leading 18,000 men to Richmond.

Was he going to Richmond to free the slaves? Surely he had some purpose in being sent on that mission. Could you tell me what it was?

[DiogenesLamp]

I'll try...as soon as you can show something that supports your claim on the number drafted.

I currently have no idea how many were drafted, I only know that they drafted a lot of them. I think i've looked it up before, but just for the sake of argument why don't we say it was 100 men who were drafted?

Do you have 100 statements from Drafted Irish men about how much they wanted to fight in this war against people who never did them any harm?

Never mind. I'm not sure anything can be learned from this because it's a far different opinion someone is liable to have *AFTER* it's all over, than they had when someone first forced them to the draft office.

[Vermont Lt]

Germany WAS leveled. Japan was ruined.

The south should have surrendered.

[Vermont Lt]

Dont know. Dont care.
I dont even care if the war wasn’t about slavery.

The fact that you would have put off the question another forty or fifty years is simply bizzare.

[Vermont Lt]

Yes. We won.

Sucks to lose, doesnt it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Will read it in bits and pieces.

[Vermont Lt]

I NEVER said the war was about Slavery? Where did you get that from.

I am for stopping these stupid threads. YOU seem to be interested in this March on Richmond.

Personally, I was always more interested in the Mongol hordes.

Ancient history, both.

I am finding your fanaticism fascinating. I personally think Grant made a mistake in letting Lee off so easily. It seems the foot was not pressed down hard enough on the Confederate necks to get them to understand they lost.

[DiogenesLamp]

I learned in school that “Lincoln Freed The Slaves.” No details were taught about those he did not free. Also, from as far back in grammar school as I can recall, we were all instructed that Lincoln was one of the two top presidents. It was unquestioned - he was presented to schoolkids as the closest thing to a diety as ever walked the soil of America.

The same with me. My first school was even named after him. I went to "Lincoln" school. I was told unequivocally that he was the second greatest President ever, and when I was that age, I just accepted it, because why would all these adults tell me so if it weren't true?

It wasn’t until I decided to study the events leading up to the war between the states to better understand modern racial tension that I learned about Lincoln’s duplicity and, in my view, weakness as a president.

I now rate him as one of the worst presidents we have ever had.

This is where I have come to as well. I do not discount the man's brilliance. He was indeed one of the most brilliantly intelligent people who ever sat in the office. His writing and clarity of thought is simply superb, and I think therein lies the reason why his term in office was such a disaster for the nation.

He was too clever by half.

I do not know for certain that he cynically started that war, but I do know he was appalled and I suspect exceedingly resentful at the news that the Southern states wanted to leave the Union on the account of him being elected as President. I think any man in his position would like to strike back at them if he could. Who would want to go down in history as the man who lost a third of the country?

I find it plausible that he could think he could manipulate his way out of this situation. That the will to be independent would dissipate with a firm hand and a little "showing who's boss" determination. I think he gravely underestimate their will to resist, and how it would galvanize against him with the presentation of his force.

I think Lincoln was the 1860s version of Bill Clinton. A Clever, somewhat unethical lawyer who was smooth at manipulating people, but who wasn't as smart as he thought he was.

And that's why his Presidency turned into a disaster.

Did you ever notice that it is all the "Genius" Presidents that really screw things up? Funny that.

Lincoln launched an excursion past the boundaries of existing Federal power that has only waxed stronger ever since. Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson merely built on the foundation that Lincoln laid down before them. Same with Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama. (All the "Genius" Presidents.) :)

[Monorprise]

“Yes. We won.

Sucks to lose, doesnt it.”

You tell me, you lost the free Constitutional republic too. The only difference is your state fought with the empire to end it. In the end thou your as condemned to live under an unaccountable and increasingly lawless imperial government no longer bound to respect the consent of the Governed, as we are.

[Iron Munro]

Just why would someone in 2015 want a Confederate flag on their license plate?

Few, if any, imbecilic, uninformed liberal bigots could tell the difference between the British flag and the Confederate Battle Flag.

And nary a one would recognize the real National Flag of the Confederacy if you flew it on a flagpole across the street from their home..

They all think the Confederate Battle Flag is the National Flag of the Confederacy.

Their motivation on this issue is the same as every other issue on their agenda, hate for anything and anyone who thinks differently than they do.

They love the concepts of free speech and diversity except for people they disagree with.

[DiogenesLamp]

Dont know. Dont care.

Well you seemed to know and care before. If I recall correctly, you kept suggesting it had something to do with the issue of Slavery, so I would suggest that Irwin McDowell and his 18,000 man task force must have been going to Richmond to free the slaves. That would be the only thing consistent with your claimed position.

I dont even care if the war wasn’t about slavery.

Well that's good, because that's a more logically consistent position, and one more supportable by the available facts.

The fact that you would have put off the question another forty or fifty years is simply bizzare.

Didn't say I would put it off for forty or fifty years. Just said it was going to go away eventually anyways. I also said that slavery would have been allowed by the Union if the independence movement had just given up quicker.

If you want to direct outrage at someone, you should direct it at those people who were willing to trade the continuation of slavery against Independence.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes. We won.

Your "team" won. Not sure if your principles won.

Sucks to lose, doesnt it.

Well as I mentioned, my family didn't get here till the 20th century, and they didn't settle in any of the Southern States, so I don't really identify with the losing side other than to note the principles involved have very grave consequences to the future.

We are going to see the "Might makes Right" scenario play out again in our own futures.

[Iron Munro]

Germany WAS leveled. Japan was ruined.

That was during hostilities. Not after the Germans and Japanese ceased resisting.

There is a great difference between collateral destruction during a war and intentional wanton destruction of a civilian population by an army when resistance has effectively ceased.

Even the most ardent Southern-Hater cannot make a case that the post-war destruction of the south was a military necessity.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan one of the last half-way sane democrats observed:

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

[DiogenesLamp]

I am for stopping these stupid threads. YOU seem to be interested in this March on Richmond.

I'm interested in the March on Richmond because if people tell the truth about it, they have to give up the "We fought that war to free the slaves" claim.

The honest truth is that we *Didn't* fight that war to free the slaves. We fought that war to stop Independence for Southern States, and then to punish them for putting up such a d@mned hard fight, they freed the slaves.

Again, as Lincoln said:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

I am finding your fanaticism fascinating. I personally think Grant made a mistake in letting Lee off so easily. It seems the foot was not pressed down hard enough on the Confederate necks to get them to understand they lost.

That's funny. You think *I'm* the fanatic! :)

The Federal Leviathan's foot is now pressing firmly down on all of our necks. Who was it that lost again?

[DoodleDawg]

Was he going to Richmond to free the slaves? Surely he had some purpose in being sent on that mission. Could you tell me what it was?

He was fighting the war that the Confederacy had started.

[DoodleDawg]

Do you have 100 statements from Drafted Irish men about how much they wanted to fight in this war against people who never did them any harm?

Let's trade. I'll post one and then you post one. Here's one from an Irish soldier: Link

Now can you post one from one of those Irish immigrants grabbed right off the boat and forced into uniform?

[DiogenesLamp]

He was fighting the war that the Confederacy had started.

You are evading the question. Nobody fights for the sake of fighting. Well, maybe the Scots and the Irish, but no SANE person fights just for the sake of fighting.

Why was Irwin McDowell sent to Richmond? Was he delivering to them the Emancipation Proclamation? Was that his instructions?

How about some honesty here?

I say he was going to Richmond to stop the Independence movement, and had no orders or intentions of doing anything at all about Slavery.

I'd like to get an honest answer from you and the rest.

[rockrr]

Lincoln “apologists” (and the rest of us too!) answer that question all the time. The answer is exceedingly simple - because he didn’t have the authority to unilaterally do so. He knew that it would take an amendment to the constitution to free all of the slaves.

See how easy that was?!

[DiogenesLamp]

Let's trade. I'll post one and then you post one. Here's one from an Irish soldier: Link

Now can you post one from one of those Irish immigrants grabbed right off the boat and forced into uniform?

I may get back to you on that later, but right now I'm more interested in the intentions of a particular Scots man; Irwin McDowell.

Now you and others keep insinuating that he and his merry band were headed to Richmond to free the slaves, so I just want to know if you really believe that.

If you don't believe that's what he was doing, I would like to hear what you think his purpose was in heading to Richmond.