I would like to start a thread over in GD about how we, as a nation, can arrive at a consensus with regards to the way we think of the Confederate States of America. But before that becomes a useful question, I think it is important to ask: what should the consensus we arrive at be? I came up with these poll choices, and I’m interested to see how many of you are actually on the same page as I am before I start a thread asking how we can get to where I believe we should be.
I realize that this could get a bit heated, so let’s try to just state our opinions in this thread, and discuss those opinions, but save the debate for the future GD thread.
So, the options are below. Please vote for the one that comes closest to how you believe children in public schools should be taught about the Confederacy in history class:
The Confederate States seceded for the wrong reasons, but they were a product of their times. We can’t really blame them for what they did, and the men fighting for the Confederacy were just as honorable and worthy of praise as the Union soldiers.
The Confederacy was formed to defend the rights of states against Federal overreach, an issue that is still important today. The Confederates were brave men and women, who deserve our respect.
It was a tragic situation, with fault on all sides. We should remember both the good and the bad done by both the Union and the Confederacy, and learn what we can from them both.
The Confederate States seceded for a truly evil cause. Slavery is a shameful blot on the pages of our nation’s history, and fighting the Civil War to free the slaves was one of the greatest things our nation ever did.
The Confederate States seceded for a truly evil cause, and despite the Union’s eventual victory, we’ve never fully dealt with the fallout of slavery or institutional racism as a nation. This failure continues to haunt us to this day.
The Confederacy was right to secede, and the Union’s victory was a dark day in our nation’s history.
We had a similar poll, but I’d like to tie this one into a GD thread once we have some results, so I thought I’d post a fresh one. This isn’t (necessarily) about how you feel about the Confederacy but about how you would like Americans in general to view it, or how it should be taught in history class.
I really like how these questions were worded. Kudos.
From my perspective, fighting for the right to own another human is universally bad, regardless of your traditions and other (seemingly important) factors.
The South overwhelmingly seceded to protect the institution of slavery, a reprehensible motivation, unlike that of the North, which overwhelmingly was to preserve the Union. Bravery and honor on the part of the military of both sides can be recognized without giving public prominence to displays meant to celebrate rebel leaders and/or their philosophies. It’s important to recognize history without attempting to sugar-coat it or unfairly castigate public figures of the time to suit modern tastes.
OK, one more poll option:
The Civil War is over. The Union was preserved. Slavery ended. The good guys won. Get over it.
Does that apply to the Wehrmacht and Imperial Japanese Army, too? Should we recognize the bravery of the forces holding the line as long as they could on the beaches of Normandy until the Americans broke through, or the honor of the Kamikaze pilots? Or does this only apply to our boys in grey?
I like this option! So let’s get rid of all the monuments to Bad Guys and stop flying the Bad Guy Flag now, since we aren’t bad guys. And disavow everything the Bad Guys fought for, too.
Any reasonable person would doubtless agree that many of the men in the Wehrmacht and Imperial Japanese armed forces fought with great bravery and honor. Soldiers often fight with honor for the wrong side. No, there should not be memorials lionizing the cause for which they fought, but Jackmannii’s proposed wording does say “without giving public prominence to displays meant to celebrate rebel leaders and/or their philosophies.”
Originally the Northern and Southern colonies jointly worked together in the Revolutionary War. They worked together afterwards to create the Nation.
That uneasy alliance lasted well into the 1840’s. Both regions shared power. Gradually the entry of new states shifted that power. By Lincoln’s election, the South’s influence in Congress and the Presidential election had become marginalized.
Wealth had also shifted towards the Industrialized North.
Civil War was inevitable regardless of the slavery issue. Slavery just made the political atmosphere even more volatile.
If the South didn’t have slavery, what would have made the war inevitable? The fact that one region is different from another region (almost always true) doesn’t mean the regions are headed for war.
I don’t know that the poll choices are mutually exclusive; 2,3,4 and 5 are all more or less true at the same time.
Overall, I prefer **Jackmanii’s ** seventh option. That’s pretty close to how I feel about it; below a certain level your average soldier/person doesn’t have a lot influence or choice in the reasons wars are conducted. They can still be brave, honorable and skilled, and that is worthy of respect regardless.
And I look at it this way; 150+ years from now, our descendants are probably going to be having a similar debate w.r.t. global warming. Some will be saying we’re the most evil bastards in history for driving fossil-fueled cars, others will still be trumpeting that it was our choice and right to drive those cars if we want to, and most will be saying that your average person’s ability to influence climate change was very limited, and it’s not reasonable to have expected them to sell their otherwise good cars for Priuses or electric cars, or ride public transit.
So I’m hesitant to pass judgment on people of that era, save the elites/political leaders, as most people probably didn’t have a huge ax to grind about slavery in general, or about preserving the union either, for that matter.
If I misinterpreted his post, then I apologize. It’s certainly possible to recognize that there were brave and honorable individuals on any side of a conflict. When they fight for an evil cause, though, it is wrong to celebrate that bravery and honor, because that is only a very small step away from celebrating their cause. If his point is that we can note that there were certainly brave men who fought on the Confederate side, but that no grand memorials or statues of them should exist, then I agree.
Also – if someone wants to celebrate, say, Lee specifically because he was an honorable soldier who fought for his nation without buying into the Confederate ideology – I’d watch that person closely, and not necessarily agree, but I also wouldn’t be too disturbed by this. I’d liken it to the way Rommel is seen in Germany. Both Lee and Rommel have a much better reputation than they probably deserve, but as that reputation is specifically built around their rejection of hateful ideology (Rommel the Supposedly Reluctant Nazi, Lee who supposedly didn’t want to secede) it’s a lot less troubling.
I’d also like to point out that I’m not asking how you feel about people living under Confederate rule, or how you feel about the soldiers who happened to fight for the Confederacy. I’m asking how you think Americans should view the Confederate States of America.
I think we should. Do we castigate the bravery of the men who held Stalingrad, just because they fought in armies commanded by another despot?
That works only if we all agree on what the Bad Guys fought for, and we don’t (and they didn’t either). Plenty of poor white boys donned the grey not for slavery but the honor of Virginia or Tennessee, or because all their friends did, or because their family expected it, or because they’d been lied to about the causes of the war, or because their government told them they must, or for any of the other reasons that men have donned battle uniforms since battle uniforms came to be.
If Germany can maintain a U-boat memorial, and Das Boot can receive all but universal critical acclaim, then clearly the answer (to the first and maybe the second question) is “yes”. (I don’t know about the kamikazes specifically, but Clint Eastwood–who is about as iconic an icon of America as it gets–directed a movie about Iwo Jima, told from the Japanese perspective. I admit, I haven’t actually watched that one–maybe it even has a scene featuring kamikazes, I don’t know.)
We can understand that even people who fought for very, very bad causes were our fellow human beings facing extraordinary hardships, sometimes with great fortitude, ingenuity, and courage, without in any way trying to justify the causes for which they were fighting.
Yeah, but do you feel nazi soldiers who invaded France deserve to be noted for their bravery? Should soldiers in the Khmer Rouge who overthrew the Cambodian government be lauded for their bravery.
Also the civil war never ended. Whites in the south hate and fear blacks, and they have voted for whichever political party lets them treat black people like garbage for the last 200 years. When the democrats let southern whites treat blacks like garbage, the vast majority of southern whites were democrats. Starting in the 1960s when republicans started letting southern whites treat black people like garbage the vast majority of southern whites became republicans.
The civil war never ended, its just gone cold. It’d be like if 200 years after the Nazis lost WW2 if the majority of white Germans voted for whatever political party let them treat Jewish people like garbage. You can’t say ‘WW2 is over’ in that situation. Its just gone cold.
Like the overwhelming majority so far, I voted for 5 above, but 1 would not have been entirely inaccurate. As **Jackmannii **implies in 7 above, it is not necessary to vilify the heritage of people who fought for their community, even if the overarching ideals of that community were reprehensible. I know several people who feel that Erwin Rommel was an honorable man, for example. That doesn’t mean that Germany should want a big old statue of the guy in the middle of Berlin, though. On the other hand, we DO have a big old statue of card-carrying Nazi Wernher von Braun in Huntsville. Perhaps his contributions and virtues outweigh the evil cause of which he was once a part?
I don’t think 1860s slavers were a product of their time as much as they were dinosaurs and among the last to acknowledge abolitionism. That said, I don’t know how honorable the individual soldiers on either side were. They fought for a lot of different reasons. The governments of the confederacy, however, led their boys into battle for what they knew to be an evil purpose, and any efforts to whitewash that fact are disgraceful.