They always have.

The "Lost Cause" bullshit got piled high and thick by the traitors after they lost the War of Southern Treason.

Nothing personal, I object to it whenever I see it.

At best, you can say history is written with the approval of the victors. If only the victors wrote history, there would be no German accounts of WW II.

-- Mal

Me, I'm a Pennsyvania boy born and bred, and my ancestors fought in the Army of the Potomac. But I'd bet a nickel my personal views on the Civil War would surprise you.

-- Mal

because those who rebelled won.

Washington and a lot of others? Swore an oath to the Crown. Every bit as much a traitor as Robert E Lee, winner or not.

You don't get to say "Lee was a traitor for violating his oath to defend the Constitution blah blah" and apply different standards to Washington.

To the United Kingdom, they were most definitely traitors, but the United Kingdom lost the war so tough shit, they were patriots to the United States of America.

So they were traitors. They lost.

Pretty typical of DU that someone is incapable of admitting that there may be a broader perspective to a given issue than the one they have themselves, though.

For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

(Of course, they do, but it's a cool couplet anyway)

-- Mal

I've several revolutionary soldiers in my direct line and a few confederates as well.

defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

There must have been an important reason??

My field of study is Latin American history, so CW and Reconstruction is not my thing. But I guess people wanted an end to the killing.

swastika waving over government property for far too long.

... that there were more moderates in the North than radical abolitionists. And then there's the whole "with malice towards none" thing, but Lincoln was, after all, dead. It all kind of came out in the wash, anyway: the South got nicely plundered, and the former slaves got Jim Crow. As usual, the people on the bottom suffered most.

-- Mal

By the way, the oath was different in the 19th century. Observe here: http://civilwarriors.net/wordpress/?p=3082

Interesting discussion in the comments. My own personal spin is that yeah, he may be seen to have violated the oath anyway, but that was forgiven by law. I do not see that he should be honored by the US army, however. He was, after all, an enemy.

-- Mal

He is however studied and reveered in his military acumen. In the art of war he was quite brilliant. His tactics are still studied today. There are a lot of evil folk, who also happened to be good at what they did in war. They are also studied by the military.

Although I suppose we could quibble over whether that constitutes an honor.

-- Mal

Nor at West Point (where he was superintendent).

I have not the eloquent manner in which to describe how the Army in particular views these men. I did however (a few months ago) have the privilege to take a course at West Point. During our visit, we were offered the opportunity to learn about the academy during a tour. It's a complicated relationship to say the least. There was pain in the academy when nearly half of the living alumni resigned their commissions, and fought for the south. They abandoned their country, and fought against all it stood for, and then lost. Yet they were admirable men before the war.

I'd suggest taking a tour of the academies and asking about the civil war specifically. Also Annapolis has an excellent tour and museum.

All I can say is that the relationship is complicated.

are praying for. This is the "United States" of America.

Do you guys with these 'South-bashing' threads think you're doing something 'positive' on this site, or do you just not give a fuck, either way?

I guess it gives a feeling of superiority or something.

Billy went so far as to exceed his authority and make a truce with Johnston which included provisions that were to apply to the whole Confederacy and not just Johnston's army. He got into all kinds of hot water about it, and was very close to being relieved of his command.

The final truce was basically a copy of the one made by Grant with Lee, and the rest of the problems were addressed piecemeal and over a course of years.

-- Mal

...and carpetbaggers and Jim Crow and the KKK...

African Americans are still fighting for their freedom, even today. They are still fighting for their right to vote. They are still fighting for equality. Too bad the "winners" were unable to keep their promises...

One of the great ironies of the war is that the most effective generals for the U.S. were really political moderates, but they were ruthless as generals.

-- Mal

Our Northern Heritage is all about our ancestors who grew up in snow. We in the North have grown up in snow, so that's what Northern Heritage is all about. Snow and ancestors in snow.

One could argue the best general the Confederates had was McClellan.

calling southerners traitors. In fact, I remember a teacher telling us that soon after the war,northerners and southerners were working together to build the railroad system from east to west and that the U.S had survived it's civil war far better than other countries and was somewhat uniquely able to move past it successfully. The Jim Crow laws after the war were taught to be a relic from the slavery days that prolonged the misery and survived well past the Civil War.

I'd bet a few coppers that Chinese and Irish labor were more important in its completion than Southern cooperation, but it sounds like you got treated to a version of the consensus theory of U.S. history.

-- Mal

...and many were more than willing to try and redeem themselves for their country.

I loved a reference I once read of a Plains chief who referred to the soldiers as "white men" and "black white men."

Ah, perspective.

-- Mal

and actually tried to get the Army to bring them freed slaves, which did not happen. This is in Omaha, so importing the Irish from the East Coast in sufficient numbers was a task unto itself and they really arrived along with the large influx of post war veterans seeking employment.

Here's how much of the Union Pacific got built during the war: 40 miles.
Here is the length of the Union Pacific Railroad: 1,086.
'Started during the war' is a term of art. They tried to start it. After 1866 they did about 2 miles a day, so during the war they managed 20 days work. Call that what you will.

Makes sense, Omaha is a long way from any coast.

The cool thing is that the president had the vision to call for it in the middle of a war. And the land grants for those lines were initiated in 1862.

-- Mal

My Southern Heritage taught us that the Civil War was all about the North trying to promote the cotton gin. Slaves got in the way of business. Had to free them to get more sales.

The cotton gin enables more cotton to be processed, meaning more demand for the raw materials, hence more need for labor.

Sure, the gin replaces slave labor for ginning, but seriously, the impact on demand was huge.

-- Mal

They were indoctrinating young minds, with the goal of exonerating the South from all blame for the war.

Edit: I think I started hearing this is second or third grade.

The cotton gin created more demand for slave labor.

http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/score_lessons/cotton_gin/pages/reading.html

<snip>
Eli Whitney was born in Westboro, Massachusetts on December 8, 1765 and died on January 8, 1825. As a young boy he liked to work in his father’s workshop taking things apart, like clocks, and putting them back together again. When he was a young man, he worked on a Georgian plantation tutoring children. He noticed the trouble the slaves were having picking seed from cotton bolls. In his spare time, he put together an instrument that would allow the slaves to clean more cotton in a shorter amount of time.

The cotton gin was a very simple invention. First, the cotton bolls were put into the top of the machine. Next, you turn the handle, which turns the cotton through the wire teeth that combs out the seeds. Then the cotton is pulled out of the wire teeth and out of the cotton gin.

Farmers were able to plant more cotton. Cotton is easy to grow but because it was so difficult to clean, cotton was not a cash crop. Tobacco and indigo were the South’s cash crops. Tobacco is difficult to grow. Tobacco wears out the land and the land must be given a rest once every 7 years. But cotton can grow anywhere, even on land that is drained of its nutrients.

Now that cotton is easier to clean and since it grows easily, cotton became the number one cash crop in the South. The farmers needed more land to grow cotton. They took the land from the Native Americans. The farmers needed more workers. Slaves were the free labor that the farmers needed to harvest the cotton.
....more

Although I probably did hear something-or-other about Eli Whitney and his cotton gin 50 years ago, I made sure to look him up first to make sure my memory wasn't playing tricks.

-- Mal

I never heard it called the "War of Northern Aggression" until well after I graduated high school, and it was on a message board discussion how northern people see southern. I've never actually heard anyone in my family or friends or acquaintances saying it. Actually I see the phrase more on DU than anywhere else.

I was taught the Civil War was about slavery. I was taught Lincoln was one of our best presidents and Reconstruction would have gone better if he hadn't been assassinated. I was taught that segregation and Jim Crow laws were wrong.

It's almost getting silly around here. I just scroll and roll my eyes.

I rec'd this thread ironically. I know alerting on it is futile.

to all of the above. I have never heard a family member or acquaintance mention our "heritage" either. If it wasn't for DU, there is a lot about my own family I wouldn't know.

War Between the States or Civil War

until the internet age, from one extreme right wing southerner on one of my political boards.

I was taught the same in a mid-atlantic state.

Nobody I have heard in my whole life ever called it The War of Northern Aggression.

And that's just mean. Those threads are trying to point out that the people who are aligning themselves with that bigoted flag and those attitudes are hurting those of us who have much to love and would love to have seen.

Men who thought long and hard about the choices they were making.

In real life, with real consequences, not some anonymous discussion board chest-pounding.

Some were on the wrong side, obviously.

One cannot simultaneously fight for secession to keep humans in bondage and be "good and noble".

Last edited Sat Jul 11, 2015, 10:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Those who have not been there may not grasp that reality.