Regardless of what one thinks of Confederate symbols - positively or negatively - how much of the opposition to the Confederate flag today stems from the adage that “history is written by the winners (in this case, the Union)?”
Had the Confederacy conquered the North (extremely improbable, but let’s say it happened,) would the Confederate flag be viewed in a very different light today?
If the south had won the war, the confederate battle flag would be seen as a not so subtle warning to African Americans that their kind ain’t exactly welcome. So no, it would be seen the same.
To a really extraordinary extent Americans have allowed the history of the Civil War to be written by the losing side:
What we are seeing now is not the winners writing history, but the history of the war and of the Confederacy being finally written in a way which bears some passing resemblance to the actual and objectively verifiable facts.
Indeed, and it could had been worse, many pointed at the plans many southerners had with what to do with Latin America after winning the war.
So, yeah, the idea included keeping slavery on regions that still had it, I would think that the American Northern states and Europe would had something to say about that. I still think that an eventual defeat for the confederacy was still coming.
Practically all of the “If the South Had Won the Civil War” books have the Confederacy eventually taking Cuba and frequently fighting Mexico for parts of that country.
Didn’t the US defeat Mexico and conquer their capital in open warfare? How would the Mexico of the 1860s have done any better?
A complicating factor in answering that is that France was deeply involved in Mexican affairs at around the time of the Civil War, to the extent that Mexico was something of a French puppet state. So any hypothetical expansionist Confederacy would have not only the Mexicans to deal with, but potentially a strong European power as well.
Very little I think. Mostly it’s howls of political correctness run amok.
Nah, the “winners” (virtually the entire country) have gotten sick of public displays of loser memorabilia.
Well duh. And if the Nazis had won WWII the swastika would be much more accepted (though probably not revered). And if your aunt had balls she’d be your uncle.
I think it has more to do with ‘compassion in victory’. The south lost so much when it lost the war, and I think the northern states acknowledged as much by NOT writing the history.
I think they saw a part of the country devastated by a horrific war. Their cities were burned, their whole way of life and livelihood erased, the fortunes gone for most, so very many brothers, sons, fathers killed. Forced to surrender, and humiliated in defeat, it likely seemed harmless to let them have their illusions of their ‘glorious’ dead.
It might have seemed harmless to let them build statues, name streets, schools, etc, and wave their flag, that they might be left some dignity. Very likely the thinking was, however it may appear it’s really just remembrance of those lost, and with the passage of time, this will naturally fade into obscurity.
But it didn’t, did it? How many generations has it been since those statues to slavers were put up? And still they cling to these symbols of what is a shameful past, well into the 21st century.
Makes me think it might have been easier on everyone if the winners HAD written history sufficiently loudly as to deter such celebrations of the losing generals, the statuary, the street and school names etc.
While it may have seemed hard or cruel at that time, as their society lay in ruin, but I think the south would look very different today if they had.
What should have been done, in my mind, was some sort of de-Confederization similar to the post-WWII de-Nazification in Germany, perhaps combined with something like the post-Apartheid Truth and Reconciliations committees. And the Federal government should have remained entirely in control until the rights of black people were protected and guaranteed (by both cultural attitudes and legislation) for the future.
Zero.
Had the confederacy won the Civil War, their economy would still have collapsed and they would have begged to be readmitted to the Union.
From what I can tell, most of it dates to the very late 19th up until the mid-20th century.
And… “shameful” is maybe a bit loaded. It’s a little more complicated than that; not all is necessarily celebrating slavery or the luminaries of the Confederacy. For example, probably the most commemorated Confederate in Houston is a guy named Dick Dowling, who was a Irish immigrant, barkeeper, militia company commander, and fireman in Houston before the war, and during the war, commanded a gun battery at Sabine Pass, that fought off a Union invasion fleet in 1863 at the Second Battle of Sabine Pass. There are 2 streets (Dowling & Tuam), a statue and a middle school that I can think of that commemorate him, and all either date to the 1890s or later. As far as I know, he wasn’t a slave owner, and was basically just a local guy who was a sort of war hero when his militia company was called up.
And elbows a lot of the compassion in victory likely stemmed directly from Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, in which he points out that the war has been terrible for both parts of the country, and that the tasks laying before the nation were to finish the war and then rebuild the country:
“Sort of a war hero”
In a war to defend slavery. Waged against the state. Which was lost!
THE DUKES OF HAZZARD would’ve been about good-hearted Yankees outracing corrupt cops in a souped-up red-white-and-blue sports car called the General Grant.
What does a “win” mean for The South? They wanted independence, and would not have conquered The North. No?
This just reeks of ignorance. The Federal government would have had to start in Maine and work south. Blacks were denied their rights and disenfranchised in the north as well; forced to live in ghettos. Northern attitudes toward blacks were pretty much the same as southern attitudes.
This sort of posturing makes it really hard for the country to evolve. Even the most sympathetic southerner is going to bristle as such blatent hypocricy and chest thumping. It might make you feel good to have such 21st century views when trying to understand the 1860s but you are doing more harm than good.
There was a PBS doc on the Civil War this weekend narrated by Elizabeth McGovern that goes into some detail about northern racial attitudes. or just listen to Randy Newmans Rednecks.
If the South had managed to break away, its flag would now be considered a foreign flag and really fucking weird to put in your truck window.
Hey, just like today.
Funny.
Would it have been a Lincoln Town car?
No they weren’t. The idea that blacks should be enslaved wasn’t as common in the North. Yes, they were racist, but not as racist. Federal government attitudes were different, too. Look at the numbers of blacks elected in the 1865-1868 in the states where Reconstruction was occurring. Real representation. It might have led to the South, ironically enough, being the cradle for equal enfranchisement and civil rights instead of the backwards region that had to be drug along a century after the war.