# Confederate Apologists Have No Business in Government! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 16, 2001, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346 "2001-01-16T17:57:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2001, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/81 "2001-02-13T21:41:56Z")
IVORYBILL – It can’t be beside the point: the North’s hands were just as dirty from participating in the slave economy as were the South’s at the time the war started. [/quote] Obviously untrue. The North did not have slavery at the time the war started; the South did. Therefore, their hands can only be deemed to be “just as dirty” if you (a) directly equate past wrongs with present ones; (b) directly equate indirect profit from wrongful actions with the wrongful actions themselves; and © totally discount the evolution of Northern sensibilities from considering slavery to be distasteful but tolerable to considering it to be intolerable at any price. > [@](#): > > Many folks in this thread have come down pretty hard on the South (and rightly so) but those who are the harshest on the South also seem to ignore the North’s share of responsibility for maintaining the economic power of slavery in the United States. Yet surely you see that the North was apparently willing to sacrifice whatever stake it had in the “maintenance of the economic power of slavery in the United States” rather than continue with the Intolerable Institution. The South refused to do so, until forced to at the point of a sword. This, of course, is not surprising: The South’s economy was agrarian and largely slave-based; the North’s was not. The North could afford and absorb whatever negative economic impact would inure with national abolition; the South felt it could not. > [@](#): > > I’m just seeking for a little more even-handed treatment of both sides. I agree that the treatment should be even-handed; I disagree that it has not been to date, at least in this discussion. > [@](#): > > That sound you hear is my head banging the keyboard. Well, take a moment to calm down. > [@](#): > > Okay… you’re not going to admit that while slavery was the overriding factor behind the Late Unpleasantness there were also other underlying factors. Of course, I never said this. I have said that slavery was THE overriding factor behind the Civil War, and the ONE factor without which it is probable that the would would not have occurred. And spare me the “Late Unpleasantness,” which smacks to me again of Southern revisionism. Let’s call a spade a spade: It was a war, and by far the worst war our country has ever experienced in terms of societal impact and sheer number of casualties. > [@](#): > > Slavery was a biggie. So was power, tariff, and folks who were just plain mad that the North was being hypocritcal. “Power” is a theoretical cause that merely begs the question: Power to do what? So are “self-determination” or “autonomy” or whatever label you want to put on the concept of “the unfettered ability to decide whether or not to own slaves.” “Tariff” was not an issue sufficient to start the war, as is clearly illustrated by the fact that it _didn’t_ start the war. “Just plain mad over hypocricy” is mere semantical squishiness, since it doesn’t even say what hypocrisy you’re referring to. > [@](#): > > However, could we go back in time and ask, I bet you the lion’s share of the participants wouldn’t list slavery as their motivation. No, they would probably say “self-determination” or “autonomy” or “states’ rights” or “those bastard Yankees can’t tell _us_what to do” – again artificially removing the actual cause from the theoretical cause. The actual cause, of course, was that the **exercise** of self-determination or autonomy or states’ rights (or whatever you want to call it) lead inevitably back to the South’s desire to retain the institution of slavery, and to not be told by the North that they could not do so. It all comes back to slavery. > [@](#): > > Seems to me that several posts on this thread made Forrest out to be a minor general who wasn’t too competent. Well, I’I wanted to point out that while yes, he played a minor role strategically, he was one of the shrewdest and most capable of the Confederacy’s military leaders. Well, I’ll leave you to argue that out with people who care about NBF, which I frankly do not. However, I continue to fail to see the value in continuing to venerate a person who was a lousy human being and who, even if a great general, by your own admission “played a minor role strategically.” > [@](#): > > Now, why don’t we treat Sherman with similar ire? In addition to his Civil War crimes, he also wasn’t overly friendly to native Americans. I would be happy to treat Sherman with similar ire, just as soon as I hear of anyone wanting to erect new monuments to him, or place his picture on a racist t-shirt or flag, or have evidence that he single-handedly started one of the most destructive and vicious racist organizations to ever plague our country. > [@](#): > > IMHO, we can’t have discussions about the past (or present, for that matter) that paint one side (and its leaders) as wholly evil and the other side (and its leaders) as wholly good, especially when the reality is much more murky. Won’t you agree that such was the tone of many posts in this thread? Oh, I don’t know. That wasn’t the tone of my posts. It wasn’t the tone of GADARENE’S. I frankly don’t have the inclination to review the entire thread for “tone.” (And you had every right to revive it, but the whole thing isn’t fresh in my mind.) My personal beef is with modern Southern apologists who want to revive the “romance” of the antebellum period, nicely sanitizing or out-right ignoring the existence of slavery, and who want to act as if the Civil War was _primarily_ about some issue _other than_ slavery. It just wasn’t. If you want to memorialize the old Lost Cause, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for some recognition that it was the old Misguided Lost Cause. It seems to me that if a society is only comfortable remembering a conflict by willfully ignoring large portions of what motivated it – and this is what I see in Southerners who hark back to those halcyon days of yore when women wore hoop skirts and men carried swords (if only for show) and the darkies were gay – then that society should not be surprised to find that others are baffled by the selective way they choose to “honor” the past. > [@](#): > > We are the only group of Americans to have a war fought on our home territory. It is the nature of a civil war that it is fought on native soil. And if by “we” you mean Southerners, then you are simply incorrect. Gettysburg is in Pennsylvania. And Pearl Harbor is in Hawaii. > [@](#): > > We are the only group of Americans to submit to terms of unconditional surrender. There is little to indicate that a conditional surrender would have made any difference in how the war played out, or in how the South felt in its aftermath. > [@](#): > > We are also the only group of Americans to have our home territory occupied by the victorious enemy troops. This again seems to me to be the natural result of having lost a civil war. And if you consider these to be bad things to have happened – as you apparently do – why would you (not you personally, but some Southerners) persist in remembering and venerating them? What possible constructive use is it to recall perceived wrongs inflicted on your family 140 years ago? The Serbs do that, you know – remember a conflict with the Croats that occured some 700 years ago – and look how much better off _they_ are for having such long memories. ---
**Author:** ![Ivorybill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ee59a6/32.png) [@Ivorybill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ivorybill)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2001, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/82 "2001-02-13T22:26:14Z")
Whoa! Let me say up front that some my use of the term “Late Unpleasantness” and “head banging the keyboard” were attempts at humor. (I really wansn’t banging the keyboard - - the message would have been pretty garbled if I had…) Let me also say that while I’m not overly uncomfortable being painted as a Confederate apologist, let me state that I’m not sitting here sipping a julep (they are good, BTW) wishing I was back on the farm in Bienville Parish. As Jackmannii pointed out, we’re a lot better off for having the war end as it did. There’s not much to romance on either side. Finally, I bet if we could sit down face to face over a julep (or beverage of your choice) I think we’d agree on a lot of things. So… if you’re ever in New Orleans, look me up. That said… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > > > [@](#): > > > > The North did not have slavery at the time the war started; the South did. Therefore, their hands can only be deemed to be “just as dirty” if you (a) directly equate past wrongs with present ones; (b) directly equate indirect profit from wrongful actions with the wrongful actions themselves; and © totally discount the evolution of Northern sensibilities from considering slavery to be distasteful but tolerable to considering it to be intolerable at any price. > > How do you feel about German corporations that supplied Nazi Germany’s war machine and profited from the relationship? Many are in still in business today. The fact remains that a good bit of the North’s ability to wage war throughout the South was due to it’s having used profits from associating with slavery economics. Isn’t that slightly ironic? > > > [@](#): > > > > Yet surely you see that the North was apparently willing to sacrifice whatever stake it had in the “maintenance of the economic power of slavery in the United States” rather than continue with the Intolerable Institution. The South refused to do so, until forced to at the point of a sword. This, of course, is not surprising: The South’s economy was agrarian and largely slave-based; the North’s was not. The North could afford and absorb whatever negative economic impact would inure with national abolition; the South felt it could not. > > Nothing to disagree with there; I’d add, however that the South wasn’t offered (nor would it probably have accepted) a plan to reduce its dependence on slavery. Could there have been a diplomatic solution to ending slavery over a generation or so? Something to ponder, anyway. > > > [@](#): > > > > “Power” is a theoretical cause that merely begs the question: Power to do what? So are “self-determination” or “autonomy” or whatever label you want to put on the concept of “the unfettered ability to decide whether or not to own slaves.” “Tariff” was not an issue sufficient to start the war, as is clearly illustrated by the fact that it _didn’t_ start the war. “Just plain mad over hypocricy” is mere semantical squishiness, since it doesn’t even say what hypocrisy you’re referring to. > > For the sake of dropping another coffin nail into this thread, I’ll agree that if you boil it down far enough, slavery was the overriding factor of the U.S. Civil War. FWIW, the “hypocricy” to which I’m referring is the North’s ambivalent stand towards slavery for a good many years and its willfully profiting from slave labor. > > > [@](#): > > > > Well, I’ll leave you to argue that out with people who care about NBF, which I frankly do not. However, I continue to fail to see the value in continuing to venerate a person who was a lousy human being and who, even if a great general, by your own admission “played a minor role strategically.” > > I wouldn’t equate my pointing out Forrest’s military abilities with “caring” about him. I’m with you on your other points above. Just as I’m against the use of the Confederate battle flag on state flags and state capitols. > > > [@](#): > > > > If you want to memorialize the old Lost Cause, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for some recognition that it was the old Misguided Lost Cause. > > Where in my posts today have I attempted to do so? Haven’t I used some pretty strong language towards the South? Mind you, plenty of folks get mighty sappy about reenactments and Sons of the Confederate Veterans and all that. I don’t participate in or approve of that attitude. > > > [@](#): > > > > It is the nature of a civil war that it is fought on native soil. And if by “we” you mean Southerners, then you are simply incorrect. Gettysburg is in Pennsylvania. And Pearl Harbor is in Hawaii. > > Seems to me that only three, or maybe four, military campaigns in the Civil War were fought above the Mason Dixon line. Practically every other battle was fought on southern soil. My dad was at Pearl Harbor, he tells me it was over in a few hours and that the Japanese didn’t come back… I was pointing out the degree of the activity. > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > We are the only group of Americans to submit to terms of unconditional surrender.\*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > There is little to indicate that a conditional surrender would have made any difference in how the war played out, or in how the South felt in its aftermath. > > That’s not my point. There’s a psychology to surrendering that tends to remain with a people for long time. No, I don’t have any research to back that up; but look at how the Viet Nam conflict has affected people and policy - - and it wasn’t exactly a surrender. > > > [@](#): > > > > This again seems to me to be the natural result of having lost a civil war. And if you consider these to be bad things to have happened – as you apparently do – why would you (not you personally, but some Southerners) persist in remembering and venerating them? What possible constructive use is it to recall perceived wrongs inflicted on your family 140 years ago? The Serbs do that, you know – remember a conflict with the Croats that occured some 700 years ago – and look how much better off _they_ are for having such long memories. > > Some Southerners might be deluded; can’t speak for them. As for me, I pointed these things out primarily to show that whereas many other Americans learn about the Civil War from books and history class, many Southerners (I among them) learned about it from family stories, letters, and other primary sources. In my family’s case, we didn’t romanticize what life was like back then (one trip through my great-great-grandfather’s farm journal cured us of that) but we did learn that there are more shades of gray (pardon the pun) to the Civil War than get presented even in good history books. As for bringing up what happened to members of my family 140 (there 'bouts) years ago was to indicate that I had some first-hand experience behind the point of my post (that things aren’t a simple as some would belive). > > As for the Serbs - - good analogy, BUT chances are pretty good that we won’t rise again. I, personally, don’t keeps the memories with plans of revenge, rather a bit melancholy at what they went through, how far they fell, and how long it took us to get on our feet again. I wish it could have been better for everybody. > > No hard feelings, okay? > > ``` > ** > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2001, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/83 "2001-02-13T22:55:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > **Jackmanii’s** assertions that “slavery was ended” and “the good guys won” strike me as just a touch oversimplistic. \*\* But true. And freed from the muck of labored rationalization. Of course, you may be arguing that the Civil War did not bring about the end of slavery. I’d be fascinated to see you try to breathe life into _that_ proposition.\*\* > [@](#): > > For What It’s Worth.\*\* So true. Ivorybill: Sorry that your forebears suffered as a consequence of the conflict. War stinks. BTW, I’m a Texan. Yee-haw and suchlike. ---
**Author:** ![Strainger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strainger/32/244_2.png) [@Strainger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strainger)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2001, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/84 "2001-02-13T23:18:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Of course, you may be arguing that the Civil War did not bring about the end of slavery. I’d be fascinated to see you try to breathe life into that proposition. [Well…](http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=4CAVSVLCZA&mscssid=KGQ7FPS2Q2L88GUFESTK9QP2FKK59JM6&isbn=1556523572) (OK, granted it still took place in the South. This is also a shameless plug for a book by our own **GregAtlanta** ) ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2001, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/85 "2001-02-13T23:18:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > > **Jackmanii’s** assertions that “slavery was ended” and “the good guys won” strike me as just a touch oversimplistic. \*\* > > But true. Can something be oversimplistic _and_ true? I suppose, but only to the extent that there is a less simplistic (yet equally true) alternative. > [@](#): > > And freed from the muck of labored rationalization. What does this mean, exactly? Parse for me. [quote] Of course, you may be arguing that the Civil War did not bring about the end of slavery. I’d be fascinated to see you try to breathe life into _that_ proposition. [quote] Well, I was aiming my quills more at your comment about the “Good Guys” winning. (Hint: things are almost always more complicated than that.) But how’s this? Slavery ended with the enactment of the Thirteenth Amendment; forced servitude (via share-cropping and crop liens), caste stratification, and institutional inequality, however, outlasted the Civil War and Reconstruction by a good long ways. What’s worse, people seeking to revisit the issues of civil rights in the late nineteenth century were derided as “waving the bloody shirt”; that is, conjuring up ghosts of a war that people would like to see forgotten. The slaves had been freed, after all, and amendments had been passed; nothing more needed to be done. Anyone who said otherwise was simply agitating. This kind of attitude resulted, of course, in a general myopia about racial issues that lingered at least until the 1950s…and arguably beyond. Fair 'nough, Champ? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2001, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/86 "2001-02-13T23:21:19Z")
IVORYBILL – > [@](#): > > Whoa! Let me say up front that some my use of the term “Late Unpleasantness” and “head banging the keyboard” were attempts at humor. (I really wansn’t banging the keyboard - - the message would have been pretty garbled if I had…) Let me also say that while I’m not overly uncomfortable being painted as a Confederate apologist, let me state that I’m not sitting here sipping a julep (they are good, BTW) wishing I was back on the farm in Bienville Parish. As Jackmannii pointed out, we’re a lot better off for having the war end as it did. There’s not much to romance on either side. Finally, I bet if we could sit down face to face over a julep (or beverage of your choice) I think we’d agree on a lot of things. So… if you’re ever in New Orleans, look me up. Well, we agree so far, and don’t worry – my knickers are not in a twist over this. And I must say that I _love_ New Orleans – I had a year’s worth of fun one week down there, so much so that it took me a week to recover when I got home. 🙂 > [@](#): > > How do you feel about German corporations that supplied Nazi Germany’s war machine and profited from the relationship? That they are not the same as the Nazis in the first place, and that they are not comparable in the second. The North was not supplying the South’s “war machine” (or vice versa), nor was the North to any great extent profiting from the activities in the South. Meaning, for example, that the raw materials supplied by the South could be obtained elsewhere (and were, during the war), and that those items that could not be obtained elsewhere could be done without. > [@](#): > > The fact remains that a good bit of the North’s ability to wage war throughout the South was due to it’s having used profits from associating with slavery economics. Isn’t that slightly ironic? I don’t know. I guess I’ll give you “slightly ironic” if you’ll give me “largely irrelevant” to the question of what was the underlying cause of the war. > [@](#): > > Nothing to disagree with there; I’d add, however that the South wasn’t offered (nor would it probably have accepted) a plan to reduce its dependence on slavery. Could there have been a diplomatic solution to ending slavery over a generation or so? Something to ponder, anyway. I don’t see much to ponder because they _were_ in effect offered a “diplomatic solution” – to the extent there was one. That solution was that the South retain slavery and that new states in the West be brought in as free. The South refused to allow this, however, foreseeing (correctly, I assume) that disturbing the balance of power between slave states and free would lead to an immediate loss of power (and therefore autonomy) in Congress and the eventual ghetto-ization of the South. The fact is that there probably was no “diplomatic” way to divest the South of the institution that formed one of the mainstays of its economy – fifty-some years of pre-war compromises and political maneuvering attests to that. > [@](#): > > For the sake of dropping another coffin nail into this thread, I’ll agree that if you boil it down far enough, slavery was the overriding factor of the U.S. Civil War. FWIW, the “hypocricy” to which I’m referring is the North’s ambivalent stand towards slavery for a good many years and its willfully profiting from slave labor. I don’t think an evolving ethos is the same as “hypocricy.” Many people in the North were _never_ okay with slavery, but it is axiomatic in an evolving society (with evolving morals and mores) that something that would be considered okay in your grandfather’s generation might not be considered okay in yours. This is not hypocricy, it’s evolution. I also disagree that the Northern economy was based in any significant way on “slave labor.” If it had been, the North would not have so willingly embraced abolitionism (if abolitionism had meant shooting itself in its collective economic foot). When I spoke of people memorializing the Lost Cause, I was not talking about you, particularly; I was talking about people of the type commented on in the OP. > [@](#): > > There’s a psychology to surrendering that tends to remain with a people for long time. No, I don’t have any research to back that up; but look at how the Viet Nam conflict has affected people and policy - - and it wasn’t exactly a surrender. I understand this from a psychological point of view, but I don’t think it’s an attitude worthy of indulgence – especially after 140 years. Modern Southerners have never had to surrender anything, any more than modern Northerns have. Add to this the basic injustice of the basic cause (or one of the basic causes) of the war, and to me you (not you personally) have even less reason to continually mourn over having lost it. > [@](#): > > Some Southerners might be deluded; can’t speak for them. As for me, I pointed these things out primarily to show that whereas many other Americans learn about the Civil War from books and history class, many Southerners (I among them) learned about it from family stories, letters, and other primary sources. In my family’s case, we didn’t romanticize what life was like back then (one trip through my great-great-grandfather’s farm journal cured us of that) but we did learn that there are more shades of gray (pardon the pun) to the Civil War than get presented even in good history books. As for bringing up what happened to members of my family 140 (there 'bouts) years ago was to indicate that I had some first-hand experience behind the point of my post (that things aren’t a simple as some would belive). Again, I am not speaking of you personally, but rather of those who continue to venerate the war – the people with the Confederate flags on their flagpoles and bumperstickers that say “The South Will Rise Again!” and who refer to the war as “the true flower of Southern manhood.” I just don’t get it. The South lost. The country is inarguably better off because the South lost (because it still exists, for one thing). And it was a long time ago. I don’t come at this issue without my own family history; my great-great-grandfather was a Confederate soldier from Missouri. I appreciate the fact that he fought for a cause he believed in; that just doesn’t prevent me from judging, through the clarity of a lot of passed time, that the cause he fought for was at bottom an unjust one. > [@](#): > > I wish it could have been better for everybody. So do I. I think the Civil War was the single greatest tragedy to ever befall our country. But I don’t see how it could possibly have been avoided. > [@](#): > > No hard feelings, okay? Nah. Just don’t expect me to drink a julep. They’re gross. I’m more of a hurracaine girl, myself. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2001, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/87 "2001-02-13T23:30:17Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > The South could not & did not **succeed** over States rights- the South was very much **AGAIST** States rights._\* Are you dyslexic? You also misplaced a few apostrophes. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2001, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/88 "2001-02-13T23:38:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ivorybill \* > **The North profited from slavery economics as much or more as the South did, and for at least a century or longer. Many Boston merchants profited by trading cod for Carribbean rum (made from sugar grown by slaves) in the 18th century. Other textile factory owners turned southern cotton (grown by slaves) into thread and cloth in the 19th century.** Not unlike people today who buy clothes and other goods made by prison labor and/or child labor. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2001, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/89 "2001-02-13T23:54:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ivorybill \* > **We are the only group of Americans to have a war fought on our home territory. We are the only group of Americans to submit to terms of unconditionaly surrender. We are also the only group of Americans to have our home territory occupied by the victorious enemy troops. My ancestors lost everything they had in the war.** Want some cheese with that whine? Go tell that same story to any Native American you happen to meet and see what happens. But I guess Indians aren’t REAL Americans… :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2001, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/90 "2001-02-13T23:56:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \* > > …the muck of labored rationalization. > > \*\*What does this mean, exactly? \*\* Try rereading your post. Strainger, your link gets me a “The parameter is incorrect” message. Which is what my response might have been in any case… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2001, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/91 "2001-02-14T00:11:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \* > > > …the muck of labored rationalization. > > > > \*\*What does this mean, exactly? \*\* > > Try rereading your post. Try telling me what it means. What parts, specifically, were labored? What parts, specifically, were rationalizations? What part of “parse for me” didn’t you understand? For someone who contends that “laughably obfuscatory” isn’t an accurate characterization of their posting style, you’re certainly doing a bang-up job of filling the rhetorical bill. Care to oppose my argument that the Civil War didn’t resolve things in nearly as black and white a fashion as you suggest, or are you content to ignore anything for which you don’t have an immediately evasive answer? ---
**Author:** ![Ivorybill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ee59a6/32.png) [@Ivorybill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ivorybill)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2001, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/92 "2001-02-14T00:45:27Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > [@](#): > > So do I. I think the Civil War was the single greatest tragedy to ever befall our country. But I don’t see how it could possibly have been avoided. Well, I think Lincoln’s assassination and its subsuequent impact on reconstruction were the greatest tragedies… Reconstruction institutionalized some pretty hard feelings and we’re all still involved in the aftermath of it. \*\* > [@](#): > > No hard feelings, okay?\*\* > [@](#): > > Nah. Just don’t expect me to drink a julep. They’re gross. I’m more of a hurracaine girl, myself. 🙂 You’ve never had a real juelp, obviously. At any rate, that or a hurricane, on me, next visit. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2001, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/93 "2001-02-14T00:48:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \* > > …the muck of labored rationalization. > > What does this mean, exactly…\*\*Try telling me what it means. \*\* For one thing, it means you’re overdependent on boldface. 🙂 To repeat: As a result of the Civil War, the Union was preserved. Slavery was ended. I personally think these are outcomes to rejoice about, unless one is a) a professional outraged Southerner, or b) a white liberal who thinks he should be allowed to use the word [octoroon](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=58583) because Wynton Marsalis does. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2001, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/94 "2001-02-14T01:02:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \* > To repeat: As a result of the Civil War, the Union was preserved. Slavery was ended. I personally think these are outcomes to rejoice about, unless one is a) a professional outraged Southerner, or b) a white liberal who thinks he should be allowed to use the word [octoroon](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=58583) because Wynton Marsalis does. Out of context much? Here’s the statement you quoted when referring to my “labored rationalizations:” > [@](#): > > Jackmanii’s assertions that “slavery was ended” and “the good guys won” strike me as just a touch oversimplistic. To say that slavery was ended by the Civil War is overly simplistic. I’ve provided reasons for that view, to which you’ve yet to respond. To say that the “Good Guys” won in the Civil War is overly simplistic. I’ve provided reasons for that view, to which you’ve yet to do anything but reiterate your original statement. Never for one second have I suggested that either a Southern victory or retention of _de jure_ slavery would have been preferable outcomes of the Civil War. I merely seek to temper your glee by pointing out that, in the years following the war, Northern states did as much or more to further _de facto_ inequality in this country as did the Reconstructed South. The fight for racial freedom, so to speak, didn’t end at Appotamox, and we’d do well to remember that. If you’d like to debate this, please do so on the merits of what I’ve, y’know, actually said. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2001, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/95 "2001-02-14T04:28:26Z")
If it lightens your load of grievances any, my original remark about “labored rationalization” was directed at Confederate apologists in general - the people who hawk half-truths and mistruths about The Cause, and act aggrieved that things turned out the way they did. That the Civil War brought about the end of slavery is not “overly simplistic” - it’s simple historical truth. If you want to use that as a launching point for a riff about subsequent injustice I won’t argue with you. I’ll even applaud your new-found racial sensitivity. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2001, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/96 "2001-02-14T07:33:27Z")
You’re a peach. You should have seen me before my “new-found racial sensitivity,” back when I was starting threads trumpeting such racist swill as the need for a revitalization of our urban infrastructure to remove what vestiges remain of the ethnic caste system in this country, or the degree to which pernicious Social Darwinism and political compromise (specifically regarding the Hayes-Tilden election) have led to a re-entrenchment of institutional inequity in the years following the Civil War, reconfigured as economic determinism. God, I was a step or so away from being a Klansman! :rolleyes: (Nitpick, by the way–the end of the Civil War demonstrably did **not** bring about the end of slavery. The thing that ended _de jure_ slavery in the U.S. was, strictly speaking, the Thirteenth Amendment.) ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2001, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/97 "2001-02-14T12:50:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ivorybill \* > My ancestors lost everything they had in the war. My great-grandmother was a college graduate (pre-1861); there wasn’t another until I came along. Now when I got to here, I just about spit. I guess you should consider the effects of the South’s social policies to …oh about 1970… on non-whites. I guess by these standards they shouldn’t forgive the segregationist scum for another century or so. ---
**Author:** ![Strainger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strainger/32/244_2.png) [@Strainger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strainger)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2001, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/98 "2001-02-14T16:00:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \* > **Strainger, your link gets me a “The parameter is incorrect” message.** Huh. Works for me. Oh well, try [this one](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1556523572/o/qid=982165516/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/104-5802284-5003926) instead. ---
**Author:** ![Strainger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strainger/32/244_2.png) [@Strainger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strainger)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2001, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/99 "2001-02-14T16:02:18Z")
I was going to add to that last post (I remembered as I was hitting “Submit”), that I’m not really debating so much as picking nits. ---
**Author:** ![Ivorybill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ee59a6/32.png) [@Ivorybill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ivorybill)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2001, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/100 "2001-02-14T17:12:20Z")
\*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ivorybill \* > My ancestors lost everything they had in the war. My great-grandmother was a college graduate (pre-1861); there wasn’t another until I came along. > \*\* [QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > [@](#): > > Now when I got to here, I just about spit. I guess you should consider I guess by these standards they shouldn’t forgive the segregationist scum for another century or so. You’re the second person to infer that my comment meant to illustrate first-hand knowledge of the Civil War and its aftermath as (1) “whining” and (2) not considering “…the effects of the South’s social policies to …oh about 1970… on non-whites.” Let me set the record straight. Once more with _ **emphasis:** _ my point has been to show the the North was not, as many people on this thread have inferred by their self-righteous approach to the debate, completely on the side of justice or truth or whatever you want to call it. Northerners also profited from slavery economics and benefitted from the South’s role as a provider of agricultural products and raw materials; much like a number of highly profitable firms today that “employ” women and children to produce $130.00 running shoes. Never have I suggested that the South should be let off the hook for slavery, for the KKK, for Jim Crow, and for a segregated society. That my family lost a great deal in the Civil War and Reconstruction is just a fact; nothing more, nothing less. I’m not whining, I’m not ignorant of the fact that others (Native Americans, African Americans among them) have fared much worse in history than I and my family have, I’m not holding a grudge against the “Damn Yankees,” and I’m not sitting around calculating damages and devising strategies for revenge. Some on the thread were wondering why some southerners (John Ashcroft, apparently, among them) are still focused on the Civil War and buy in to the “Heritage, not Hate” view; I thought that by illustrating that many southern families have yet to recover from the war’s aftermath I might help answer that question. I guess I was wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346.md?page=6)