Neo Confederates and Revisionist Civil War History

So astorian, I’m trying to understand what you are arguing.

Do you think Lincoln was legally wrong to prevent the South from seceding, but because the reason for secession was morally wrong, the two wrongs cancel out each other? (I could go along with this…sort of.)

Do you think Lincoln was legally wrong to prevent the secession, and therefore it doesn’t matter what the reason for secession was…Lincoln should have let them go without a fight and let bygones be bygones? (I disagree wholeheartedly with this.)

Evil Liberals! They just want to destroy America! (Would that make the Confederates liberal? That’s a new one for me.)

Look, we settled this 150 years ago. States don’t get to just up and leave the Union. It’s kind of a closed issue.

To borrow from Pratchett, just because we disagree on what course the boat should be on, and even if people sometimes try and shove each other over the side, you still don’t get to drill a hole in the bottom.

I’m merely suggetsing, as I did earlier, that our opinions on secession and on “states’ rights” in general usually aren’t etched in stone. That people who insist South Carolina had no right to secede would actually be sympathetic to the idea of secession under different circumstances. And that people who normally assume that “states’ rights” is nothing more than a racist code term would gladly invoke the concept themselves, over different issues.

So, your argument is that people would have different opinions if the issues were different?

Well… yeah. So?

On this point you would be right about this liberal. There is a big difference between the Southern states and Hawaii. Hawaii did not join the union voluntarily. It was an out right power grab by a group of rich American planters and rogue military officer. That is a lot different than voluntarily joining (and even for a while dominating) a union and then wanting out when you don’t always get your way.

Neither actually. The Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional and should have been challenged in court.

I agree the the War of 1812 was more a waste than anything, but again I could not support succession. The U.S. Constitution allows us to change our government via voting, not by deciding to leave.

Let me ask you this, at what level does secession break down? One of the few differences between the Confederate Constitution and the U.S. one not directly related to slavery was a prohibition on secession because not every state and region within those states was solidly behind the Confederacy. Should counties be allowed to secede? Towns? Individuals?

There’s also no way to pretend that the Civil War was a result of aggression on the part of the North and Lincoln, which is what you’re being called to task for. This has nothing to do with left vs. right or SDMB liberals; it’s a matter of historical fact.

This is an entirely inapt comparison to the Civil War and your invalid and unsupportable contention that Lincoln and the North were aggressors. For something closer, imagine Hawaii had declared that it had seceded from the United States last December 21st. For the past four months there has been a great deal of unease, but no military action by either side; in fact let’s assume the US military is absurdly small in this alternate reality consisting of say 20,000 men of which 127 of them are holed up in Pearl Harbor. The president hasn’t sent any of the US military to Hawaii or even called for the mobilization or expansion of the military. Four days ago on the 11th of April Hawaii sent military emissaries to Pearl Harbor demanding its immediate surrender. At 4:30 am on April 12th Hawaiian artillery opens fire on Pearl Harbor and shells it for the next 34 hours until the garrison surrenders. What would you think of someone who then proceeded to call this aggression by the US against Hawaii?

It’s easy to sympathize with the South. They fought very determinedly against much greater forces to prevent what they believed would be the imposition of a values system different from their own upon them. They didn’t like the government so they rebelled. Woooo! James Dean bitches! Unfortunately that values system they feared was the notion that owning slaves isn’t cool. The historical facts, which have already been so well presented by other Dopers, clearly indicate that slavery was the main reason why the South seceded. And that the argument for greater states’ rights was mainly constructed as a defense against abolition. And that other issues, such as the tariff, were mainly byproducts of slavery.
I think it is worth pointing out that due to the 3/5 compromise, the South was very much overrepresented in the Federal Government. Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia
I will also say that holding libertarian political beliefs does not mean one is a Confederate apologist or a pro-secessionist. I am vaguely annoyed that some people are trying to defend the actions of the Confederacy for some sort of contemporary political gain.

That was the average price of a prime field hand- meaning a strong young male. Women did not sell for as much nor did older slaves, so the average price for a slave was actually much lower. Based on the research I’ve done in estate appraisals of the era in Alabama, Georgia and North Carolina (and slave dealers actually had appraisal guides they used when estimating the value of slaves) the average price around 1860 was probably closer to $1000 or so.

For perspective, this is from the estate records of one of my ancestors whose estate was appraised in April 1861 (the month the war started, though that was a coincidence- he had died the previous month and his many children and their stepmother were about to go to their own kind of war- as any genealogist can tell you, litigious relatives are the bomb for learning about a family’s dynamics and inner workings). All spelling is as appears on the appraisal (though I’ve changed the do to “quotation marks”) and you’ll see that only one is appraised that high.

This is only one estate, but the figures are too close to those of other estate appraisals I’ve read to be coincidental. They were based on some common appraisal tables. (An interesting thing about the above: some of these slaves were auctioned in 1863 when Confederate money was already down to about 1/8 of its face value, and many were sold for goods rather than currency.)

For perspective: his horses were appraised at $50 for a 15 year old mare to $350 for a dapple gelding, and his mules between $75 and $200. (Like the slaves, they were identified by name in the appraisal.) He owned several farms totalling about 1,300 acres and his land appraised from $140 per acre (that’s prime river land) down to $5 per acre (undeveloped land miles away from the water); a breeding bull named Gentry appraised for $40, while the rest of his cattle (not identified by name) were appraised at $5 per head for beef and $20 for dairy cows, hogs were $3.50 apiece, and hunting dogs $10 apiece.

This means that for the price of Sampson above ($1300) you could purchase a 100acre undeveloped plot of land, a fine horse, a herd of cattle and many hogs. Even the elderly Isaac was worth more than 30 beef cows and 5 dairy cows (which would sustain a family indefinitely if worked properly).

But as to slaves being too expensive to purchase, this is completely right. During the Niagara Falls Peace Conference (an 1864 affair that was not officially sanctioned by either government but at the same time both Lincoln and Davis sent unofficial ‘kitchen cabinet’ level delegates to serve as “let me know what they have to say” eyes and ears) it was proposed by the Union faction that the slaves be purchased for $2 billion, an amount they felt was conceivably raisable over the next decade. There was a huge balking from others on both sides.

A reminder that this was in 1864, and while this was not officially sanctioned there were some high ups there (Horace Greeley and several prominent abolitionists and some generals for the north, John Breckinridge and Clement Clay and others from the south, including possibly Alexander Stephens [conflicting records- Stephens incidentally was considered one of the greatest legal minds in the nation]). By this time of the war Confederate money was so worthless that sometimes when the paymaster caught up with the troops and ran out of funds he’d just print more with a portable press! (More than a year earlier Joseph Davis, Jefferson’s brother and a refugee after the fall of Vicksburg, rented a small house in Tuscaloosa, AL, the rent on which was $5,000 per year in Confederate currency or $200 per year in gold; he paid in Confederate to conserve his gold.) Vicksburg has made the Mississippi a Federal river, Gettysburg has forever broken the southern offensive in Virginia, Bragg’s insanity has lost Tennessee and Atlanta ain’t lookin’ good- any southerner with bat brains had to know the war was unwinnable; the best they could hope for was Lincoln to be defeated at the polls by a candidate more prone to reconciliation.
Even so: the southerners at the convention balked. That was far too low a price in the first place- only averaged out to about $500 per slave! And even if they doubled it or more to fair market value, it should be their decision completely whether or not to sell!
Most of the Union faction- and this is important- was even more aghast at the suggestion than the rebel factions. Why in the hell should factory workers in Boston or even multimillionaire railroad owners in NYC and San Francisco pay taxes to buy slaves they didn’t want in the first place! Plus even if you include southerners, $2 billion divided by a population of 33 million Americans equals a whopping tax burden; figuring 5 as the average family size that’s around $300 per household, which while charts will tell you translates to around $6,000-$7,500 per year it’s more important to view it as “more cash than most families saw in a year”. It was not feasible.

I’ve looked at the problem from every angle and I honestly don’t think there was any way slavery would ever have ended peacefully. Adams called that one in the 1770s- it was destiny to end in a war. Period.

Lincoln was very glad that there was nothing really workable that came from Niagra, incidentally. If there had been he’d have been pressed hard to consider it and that would require dealing with members of the Confederate government in their political capacities which he absolutely refused to do as this would be to lend credence to the rebellion. At one point a letter was sent to the Confederate executive mansion addressed to President Jefferson Davis regarding a prison exchange, and when Lincoln learned this he had the letter tracked down and destroyed undelivered and replaced with one that just said “The Honorable Jefferson Davis” (since he was legally entitled to that title as a former senator and cabinet member).

Breckinridge, by then Secretary of War (and former VP of the USA) would later help negotiate the surrender to Sherman all remaining Confederate troops after Appomattox Courthouse, but Sherman would only hear him if he negotiated as a Confederate field general. He was legally authorized to negotiate with a general, but could not and would not with a Confederate cabinet official; it would be the same as if I founded a terrorist group, seized the capitol at Montgomery, titled myself “His Serene Highness Sampiro, Autocrat of Weokahatchee and all other Americas twixt the 30th and 36th parallels” and pointed nuclear weapons at various U.S. targets; the government would deal with me as “The crazy guy with the nukes”, but would probably just brace for bombing and open fire before acknowledging my ‘titles’); otoh, if Vicente Fox ousted Huerta and in due time the Mexican government granted him the title of King, then chances are we would negotiate with El Rey Vicente I since it’s their nation and their business. (IIRC, Santa Anna- who definitely considered being king of Mexico, was living in NYC during the U.S. Civil War; I know he volunteered for a field command, but was declined since in addition to being a former enemy of the U.S. [even if Texas was who he really hated and they were in rebellion and in fact he and Davis had met on the field as enemies], Santa Anna sucked as a general and was also damned near insane.)

Anyway, I mention the above because the story of Breckinridge at the surrender is one of my favorite of the war. Breckinridge arrived, demoted to general (of course he’d only been Sec. of War for a few weeks anyway but it was the humiliation that irked him) and he was a sullen, silent, belligerent figure who made Sherman notice. Sherman tried small talk- didn’t much work- then took his saddlebag and said “It occurs that you gentlemen have been cut off from supplies of late, perhaps you will not be offended if I suggest we begin with a libation?” and brought out a whiskey bottle. Sherman poured some into a cup, then Johnston, then Breckinridge poured himself a full cup full.
Per Sherman, what followed was a beatific smile on Breckinridge’s face, followed by a lecture on constitutional law and history and diplomatic relations worthy of marble halls even if it was delivered in a simple farmer’s cabin. When Breckinridge began negotiating terms he was so persuasive that Sherman at one point said "See here gentlemen! Who is doing this surrendering anyway. If this thing goes on, I’ll be sending an apology to Jeff Davis!”:smiley:

Their next meeting was quite different. Because of the assassination of Lincoln, Stanton would not approve the terms that Sherman had agreed to even though they were no more liberal than what Lee had been given. (It was known to Johnston and Breckinridge that Sherman did not have total authority, but it was believed- even by Sherman- to be pro forma.) Sherman was irritated himself- he really felt a kinship with other soldiers that transcended politics and loyalties- and at some point he pulled out his whiskey bottle. Breckinridge spat out a plug of tobacco to take a drink- but Sherman never offered one.
Per Johnston in his memoirs, the entire way back to camp Breckinridge didn’t complain about the much harsher terms of the surrender but turned the air blue with profanity about how Sherman had been stingy with the whiskey and forced him to waste a fresh chaw.

A Confederate cabinet official who had been expelled from the Senate, where he was a Senator from a state that hadn’t seceded. If it had been anybody else…

Here’s part of a New York Times editorial from December 1863, after a false report of Breckenridge’s death:

In most ways it’s nicer than the obit of John Tyler. Selected excerpts:

His wife made it back to NY at some point during the war. Her brother was super-rich (Gardiner’s Islandwas their private estate) where there was an incident involving a Confederate flag found in her possessions- possibly planted, though her sympathies were most definitely Confederate in spite of her Staten Island upbringing. She was financially destroyed by the Panic of 1873 and was given a pension, as were the other surviving First Ladies, by Andrew Carnegie; it was later taken over the Feds when they were embarassed by the First Ladies relying on one of the most infamous figures in the nation for their support.

I’m too busy to enter the debate because I get swept away in these things, but just as a matter of historiography I’ll add that The Lost Cause (a term that was coined during the war believe it or not- though very soon before it ended) is a lot like religions or political parties in that it is not the least bit static. What it is now is not what it was during Jim Crow is not what it was during Reconstruction, etc.- the agenda changes with the times. I’m not saying this is a good thing- in fact I attribute it to a mutating virus- but it is interesting.

To the extent it had a father that would be Edward Pollard, a Virginia journalist who wrote yearbooks of the Confederacy during the war. Pollard’s agenda: he knew Jefferson Davis before the war during his D.C. career, he knew him by reputation, he’d been a guest in his house, and he HATED him with a burning passion. Many journalists in the Confederacy- which had a very free press- loathed Davis, but few if any more than Pollard. His annual volumes (which he understood to be writing the chronicles of the war for future historians) could have been called "“Things Davis fucked up in 1862”, “1863, or 365 more reasons to hate Jefferson Davis”, “1864, or Know who I fucking hate? Rhymes with Deff Jayvis” and “The state of the Confederacy 1865- now with 8 fewer months (thanks to Jeff Davis”).

I’m not a fan of Davis by any means for reasons I’ve gone into many times, but I will say that nobody could have been a good president of the Confederacy as it was the original herding cats assignment. The independency of the individual states were one of the many things that damned them- it was hard getting them to work together. (Examples: South Carolina let thousands of uniforms rot rather than give them to states that desperately needed them while the governors of Georgia tried their dead level damnedest to keep their troops in their own state and saw no need in them defending Virginia.) Davis tried ruling with an iron hand and got laughed at, tried being more appeasing and got sneered at, many of his generals had similar problems working together (one that I increasingly loathe as a person from what I read is Leonidas Polk, as arrogant and conceited a bastard as the war produced and with near nothing to back it up [other than a shitload of money when the war started]). By the end tyranny was near impossible, though it didn’t stop Pollard from calling him a tyrant.

Anyway, Davis went to prison in 1865 and could have done Dr. Eric Vornoff’s soliloquy for the next two years for he truly was hunted and despised in a world of which he’d once been master. Yet in 1867 he was beloved- and not just in the south, he had a large northern fan base due to a masterful and intentional PR campaign.* Soon Pollard was obsolete- he had blamed the Lost Cause’s failure- this Cotton Camelot to coin a term- on Davis (because you certainly couldn’t blame it on the soldiers could you? Or the generals- not all of them anyway, Bragg was pretty despised, and later Longstreet but that was more for being a scalawag than any real or perceived military failings).

Of course as Chicago states “it’s good isn’t it/grand isn’t it… but nothing stays” and in a few years Davis was a pathetic old has been, Norma Desmond minus the money, fallen from Olympus into the swamps where he hustled for a buck and instead of mansions lived in rooms rented on credit for a while. He had a small but faithful cult but most people forgot he existed (many of his former slaves actually did remember he existed- some sent him everything from money to food, and this when they were far out of his control- he also loaned money to a derelict former Union soldier who had previously been one of his guards- not relevant but interesting if only to me) but he died a monomanic old man writing 1,500 page testimonies to answer questions nobody asked. He had a huge funeral when he died in New Orleans but they were pretty much burying an era more than a dried up old man who had worked himself to death trying to resurrect his plantation.

Anyway, in Davis’s own lifetime the Lost Cause became about other things. Veneration of the Dead was a huge part of it. Later it became about race relations (always an issue of it but they became the driving issue). It’s no coincidence that by 1915, when Jim Crow was in full bloom (something many people don’t realize is the South didn’t go straight from the Civil War or even straight from the end of Reconstruction into Jim Crow- that was a gradual process) most people who were alive could not remember the war and while they certainly would have known the members of the family who died in it they didn’t feel it personally, just as few people today mourn the loss of family members who died in Vietnam or Korea (i.e. they know that Uncle Jimmy or even Dad/Grandpa died in it, but those who lost children in Vietnam are ancient and those who lost spouses aren’t much younger and those who lost others have gotten over it for the most part if they’re ever going to and most people were born after it altogether). Anyway, that’s when race became the primary focus of Lost Cause- there was a time when being white meant something and we were kings.

The Depression changes the Lost Cause again- these fields have turned to dust and people are being evicted everywhere you look, yet there was a time when there were more millionaires on the Mississippi River than in all of the rest of the country combined and the U.S. south was in and of itself one of the largest economies in the world. Is this desolation due to failure to diversify or to changing markets or to the destruction of the soil with overplanting cash crops or just historical crap shoots or the heat or the fact the world is moving in an opposite rotation? HELL NAW, it was that war (which while not recent enough to remember it was recent enough to be a golden era and the fact the new godmakers from Hollywood were romanticizing it to hell and back didn’t hurt).

1950s- Lost Cause is about race again. Speed up to today, it’s about “down with big gubmint/back with Baby Jesus in the schools” on the social level and on the racial level it’s less “blacks need to go back to the back of the bus” than “Goddam it we’re sick and tired of being blamed for everything bad that ever happened to anybody because we’re white”. Like most hateful ideologies, there is truth in the kernel form within: who among us of the whites hasn’t in all honesty sometimes felt tired of hearing how evil we are, and who doesn’t sometimes wish the government would go screw (I’m really feeling it after paying taxes of course), and while we don’t make it a fanaticism, some people do. Most minority ideologies are simplistic, simplicity in ideology needs a dualist system (again the curse of Queen Margaret- “Compare dead happiness to living woe”) and so Beulah Land and hoop skirts again become the swampy Eden from which we were driven in neo-Confederate mythology.

It’s really fascinating how malleable it is, but it explains the longevity.

*Facebook friends will know my own VERY LONG conspiracy theory about- involves everything from clairvoyant photography to international espionage to Judah Benjamin to one of the most mysterious men of the 19th century [a man whose name appears exactly once in near every famous 19th century American’s biography and an epic financial ruination scheme orchestrated against… well, another time as I doubt anyone’s interested, but trust me- it’s good and unlike most ct’s it makes sense.

Plus, neo-Confederate ideology does what all religions/reactionary political movements/infomercials do if they want to succeed: don’t just offer a solution (preferably one that would fit on a Tee-shirt) but offer absolution. Revering the Confederates is more than about historical revisionism, it’s about "You’re okay- don’t be ashamed to be southern [not that all neoconfs are southern]- don’t even be 'well it happened a long time ago and while today it seems barbaric it was a different and very complicated time- objective about it, but BE PROUD of it. This is why I think McDonnell is so diabolical- not that he’s trying to make people unashamed of their ancestry (personally I find genealogy and family histories fascinating but don’t understand either shame or pride in your ancestors) nor is he trying to make a more critical study of the events of the Civil War (God forbid) or even say “You know, people have misjudged them” (which anyone who’s participated in debates on this board knows I get extremely irked at the sin of presentism in viewing the past).
He could as easily have honored Vietnam vets or WW2 vets or even Desert Storm/Iraq War vets, all of which have miniature armies of survivors still walking around Virginia. There’s a reason he went Confederates. Saying “They were heroes” which is the closest he can get to saying “They were right” without saying “They were right” which leads to “They were right about states rights… they were right about other things too I’ll bet”. He scares the shit out of me.

Meant to include this Dr. Eric Vornoffclip above. Forgot to.

Then you are ready to cease badgering Southerners about how “ignorant” they are?

Oh come now. You are quite aware that I paid my dues long ago.

Of course I felt some responsibility with that close an association. Not that he was fighting to preserve slavery. That was the reason that the South had for fighting. His reason was that was where his brothers were. Young men everywhere rationalize about the reasons they go to war. Most often, it’s because that’s where the fighting is. Or they are fighting for their country. Or they are fighting for freedom. But it still amounted to the same thing. They were fighting to preserve the right for other Southerners to have slaves.

What you call “inner demons of guilt,” I would call compassion for the victims of the greed of earlier Americans – and that included the Confederates. Do you feel and guilt over what the white ancestors in your family did to the slaves?

Then consider reporting your own posts about Southern ignorance.

Now you are talking in circles.

You didn’t notice that I had already directed a comment to Jackmannii too. For the most part, I don’t know who is black here and who isn’t. I find comments by some of the other posters too absurd to even address. I always think there is hope for you.

As I said before, mindset is everything.

That map is exactly your problem. You see everything in a dichotomy, it’s not. States are red or blue because of the antiquated electoral system, but in fact they are shades of purple. (I live in a very blue belt across a red state.)

I already linked to some more realistic maps. He wasn’t impressed.

I live in Houston–a Democratic city. When the 2008 election results came in for Texas, Obama was in the lead because the cities & the Rio Grande Valley reported in first. Then the far 'burbs & rural areas reported in by telegraph (or whatever they use) & the state swung to McCain.

My city was named for Sam Houston–the man who won Texas from Santa Anna. He was governor in 1861 & fought secession. Then was removed from office because he refused to swear allegiance to the Confederacy. I’ve seen various versions of Houston’s description of Jefferson Davis around the 'net. “Ambitious as Lucifer and cold as a lizard” is the most common version. But I haven’t been able to find the source.

If the denial is so deep in here that yall can’t even admit the south is more conservative than the rest of the country, I’m bowing out of this discussion. It’s a stupid thing to argue about, seriously.

The description of Davis I liked, by somebody other than Houston, was that he was a man who “could not forget what ought not be remembered”, and also Sandberg’s description of him, “He lacked the skill to manage other men, but he was too positive a character to let others manage him, nor would he, as Lincoln did on occasion, let others believe they were managing him”.

The week his second wife met him she wrote her mother

which was an extremely perceptive and accurate observation from a 17 year old girl. (Davis was 36 at the time.) The situation would only worsen- his opinions rarely changed but when they did the fact he was right stood firm.

Varina Davis wrote of two Jefferson Davis’s- one for his public image (and she was very much a fanner of his flames as an icon after he died) and then her private writings, where she was far more critical and blunt about him. She had denounced the Civil War as unwinnable and idiotic before Fort Sumter, but of course defended it as a valiant and necessary noble cause publicly. A historical novelist wannabe could have a lot of fun writing her Procopius like “secret history” autobiography, which would make sense for her to write one. (She lived alone in her hotel room in NYC after her daughter died, leaving rarely and when she did it was often as not to see her friend Mrs. Ulysses Grant, so there’s another source of info for the book; Mrs. Grant and Mrs. Davis had a lot to talk about, both having been married to key players in the bloodiest 4 years of history to that point and both having had roller coaster ups and downs.)