Matthew Yglesias (April 03, 2008)

But if that's not the ideology you mean to associate with, then why not drop the flag and adopt some less provocative emblem of Southern folkways?

and let the Yankees tell them what they can and can't do, again ?

Posted by cleek | April 3, 2008 5:36 PM

"When I was growing up in New York City, for example, I don't remember any mass campaigns to celebrate the 1863 draft riots as the city's finest hour."

Similarly, in 140 years, no one will remember New Yorkers' protests against the Iraq War as the city's finest hour.

Posted by Juan | April 3, 2008 5:39 PM

I recommend Bainbridge's take on the South:

http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/index.php/punditry/the_day_freedom_died/

"I came away from this book convinced that the South was readmitted to the Union far too quickly. Granted, I don’t think you can change people’s hearts and minds at gun point, but you can institutionalize legal and political barriers to evil if given enough time. This story makes clear that the South was not ready for self-government by 1875. Federal intervention to protect the freedmen and to institutionalize the political changes effected by Reconstruction was necessary to prevent the Southern white elites from imposing the segregationist institutions that evolved into Jim Crow, thereby frustrating the aims of Emancipation for nearly a century."

Posted by Commenterlein | April 3, 2008 5:40 PM

The moral superiority is suffocating, Matt.

Posted by right | April 3, 2008 5:40 PM

The moral superiority is suffocating, Matt

If it suffocates the treason-in-defense-of-slavery crowd, then it's hard to argue that this is a bad thing. Seriously, your argument is that you find MattY's moralizing uncomfortable? And this is meant as a *criticism*? I should HOPE that the Confederate-celebration-day-people find it suffocating! That's what we want!

Posted by Tyro | April 3, 2008 5:43 PM

Right:

But opposition to white supremacy *is* morally superior to supporting or tolerating it. If you're offended by someone's pointing out that the Confederacy was a morally awful thing, then you'd better re-evaluate your morals.

Posted by James | April 3, 2008 5:44 PM

Blame the fact that Sherman and Sheridan, for political reasons as Bainbridge notes, called off.

Then there wouldn't be any "South Will Rise Again" bullshit.

Posted by Greg | April 3, 2008 5:44 PM

Blame the fact that Sherman and Sheridan, for political reasons as Bainbridge notes, were called off.

Then there wouldn't be any "South Will Rise Again" bullshit.

Posted by Greg | April 3, 2008 5:44 PM

Americans tend to mythologize their own histories, and the South is no exception. People tend to delude themselves into thinking the Confederacy were freedom-fighters against the evil Lincoln Union, because it makes their history look better. It is similar to the popular American myth that Washingtion chopped down a cherry tree and could not "tell a lie". These things that we say about our history are not true, but we say them anyways. Maybe it is because we don't have any real mythology, like King Arthur, so we invent our own out of our history. I think that premise is what John Adams used when composing his opera Nixon in China.

Posted by freddiemac | April 3, 2008 5:44 PM

Right:

But opposition to white supremacy *is* morally superior to supporting or tolerating it. If you're offended by someone's pointing out that the Confederacy was a morally awful thing, then you'd better re-evaluate your morals.

Posted by James | April 3, 2008 5:45 PM

When dealing with idolizers of the confederacy it is
difficult not to be morally superior.

Posted by Taisa | April 3, 2008 5:46 PM

Lmao, you didn't have to go to school with a lot of transplanted southerners who refuses to accept the real history of the Confederacy.

Most of these people have convinced themselves that slaves 'had it good', were well cared for, and that the war was all about the North trying to force the South back into the union.

Juan, if you think you're going to get cast as a hero 100 years from now, you're clueless. You're going to be cast as war profiteering racists trying to cling to outmoded beliefs of empire. You're deluding yourself to think otherwise.

Posted by Soullite | April 3, 2008 5:46 PM

This celebration of the Confederacy shit should have ended over 200 years ago.

Can you imagine South Africa celebrating the legacy of aparteid?

Germany celebrating the Holocaust?

Oh, but don't tread on the South's "tradition!!!"

See Matt, now you've gone and gotten me angry.

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | April 3, 2008 5:46 PM

"and let the Yankees tell them what they can and can't do, again ?"

As far as I can see it's mostly Black people in the South who actually get angry enough about Confederate flags etc to try to do something about it. But I suppose it's (thankfully) more politically acceptable to complain about Yankees getting arrogant than Blacks getting uppity, even if the latter is what's really bothering you...

Posted by Kalkin | April 3, 2008 5:53 PM

and that the war was all about the North trying to force the South back into the union

It's sort of startling how widespread this belief is. A couple years ago I was having a conversation with a couple of very well-educated (albeit in the arts, not politics) and very LIBERAL Southern transplants to the DC area, and one of them started trying to tell me that the war was about "states' rights" and it bugged him that people thought it was about slavery. I asked him what "right" he thought the "states" were fighting for, and he obviously didn't have much of an answer. He backed off the whole thing pretty quickly, but it left me very discouraged and disappointed nonetheless.

A similar one you hear a lot is that the war was about secession. Uh...why did they secede? Just to see if they could do it?

Posted by Jake H. | April 3, 2008 5:53 PM

I don't know . . . it seems like we celebrate an awful lot of people who were responsible for massacring Indians and stealing their land. Hey, they were basically good people if you ignore the stealing and killing.

Posted by blah | April 3, 2008 5:54 PM

I can't speak for other southerners, but when I was growing up in South Texas someone gave me a full-size Rebel flag and I thought it was the coolest thing. I did not understand back then that it was considered offensive by some people. It was the Rebel Flag and being a Rebel sounded cool. Heck, the most popular show on TV at the time was The Dukes of Hazzard. Was it racist to think that the Gen. Lee, the Duke brothers car painted to look like a Rebel flag, was pretty neat?
I think rebellion and racism are different concepts for most people. The Rebel flag signified independence and freedom from authority. It had a similar appeal to the Texas anti-litter slogan "Don't Mess With Texas".
Years later, I would support efforts to remove the Rebel flag from the top of state capitals. But I do not feel ashamed that I had a rebel flag during my youth.

Posted by Mike Thomas | April 3, 2008 5:56 PM

Some of the appeal of Confederate pride is precisely because it rankles New York-born, Harvard educated Yankees...There's certainly an element of "you may run everything in fact, but you still can't tell me what to do..." You find this a lot in what people call "black culture" too, although you don't see the Yglesias' of the world touch that with a ten-foot pole...

There's a lot of nuance in Confederate pride, and to insist that every aspect of it is racial only makes people dig in and have even more pride in their heritage...

Posted by P | April 3, 2008 5:57 PM

While I don't usually have a lot of patience for Southerners, Matt has gravely mischaracterized the events leading up to the civil war. "Rebellion against a democratically elected government" is a stretch, to say the least. Weren't the governments of the individual Southern states also democratically elected? The state governments were arguably far more representative of the wishes of the population than the government in Washington. In any case "democracy" is a stretch for a society where women couldn't vote, senators were not directly elected but appointed by state legislatures, many Americans lived in "territories" with no representation in Congress, and the South was overrepresented in Congress in any case.

Slavery is what muddies the issue, if it weren't for the fact that the Southern states were perpetuating that disgusting and racist custom, the rights of individual states to secede should be at least debatable - the States joined the union voluntarily, why shouldn't they leave if they wanted to? Of course Southerners will do whatever they can to obscure the fact that slavery was the sole motivation for secession - that doesn't make them very sympathetic.

Posted by vanya | April 3, 2008 5:58 PM

Only losers celebrate losing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Lazar

Seriously, can't the southern whites find something nonracial to be proud of? Like BBQ?

Posted by chris | April 3, 2008 6:02 PM

But opposition to white supremacy *is* morally superior to supporting or tolerating it.

Of course it is. That doesn't excuse Matt for being absurdly smug and self-congratulatory about it.

Is it possible that people who observe things like Confederate Heritage month, you know, aren't white supremacists?

This is a much more complicated issue than Matt is willing to acknowledge, probably for two reasons. One, it's difficult for anyone who has never lived in the south to understand all the different cultural connotations and tensions of the Confederacy. And second, it's very easy to call other people racist and demand they change their ways.

Posted by right | April 3, 2008 6:05 PM

and one of them started trying to tell me that the war was about "states' rights" and it bugged him that people thought it was about slavery.

Send them copies of the various southern states' declarations of secession (they are online); they are all about slavery.

Posted by giotto | April 3, 2008 6:06 PM

In my limited personal experience with people involved in the Neoconfederate movement, they genuinely don't seem to be directly motivated by race. The confederacy, in their eyes, really does stand for refusing to let meddling outsiders tell you how to live your life.

That the two major incidents where meddling outsiders told Southerners how to live their lives came about because they committed treason in defense of slavery, and committed tyranny in defense of racial inequality, are completely and utterly beside the point and how dare you bring that up you damn meddling Yankee. It's about sovereignty! Sovereignty I say!

Truth be told, the Civil War wasn't even fought in defense of slavery so much as in defense of the principle that slavery could spread to new territories whenever Southerners damn well felt like it, and the power of the federal government could be used to seize runaway slaves and return them to slavery whether or not the other state wanted to grant them freedom, and the South could secede from the union and seize US Army forts by force if they so desired.

It was fought in defense of the right of southern white people to do whatever they want whenever they want to whomever they want as long as their white neighbors don't mind. This is the prevailing sentiment behind the confederate flag. It's more juvenile and obnoxious than anything else.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 3, 2008 6:09 PM

Some of the appeal of Confederate pride is precisely because it rankles New York-born, Harvard educated Yankees...There's certainly an element of "you may run everything in fact, but you still can't tell me what to do..." You find this a lot in what people call "black culture" too, although you don't see the Yglesias' of the world touch that with a ten-foot pole...

There's a lot of nuance in Confederate pride, and to insist that every aspect of it is racial only makes people dig in and have even more pride in their heritage...

I'm not arguing that stupid racists told that they're stupid racists will promptly double down on stupidity and racism, I just don't get why you think it's "nuance".

Posted by Dan | April 3, 2008 6:10 PM

Matt has gravely mischaracterized the events leading up to the civil war

He has to do that in order to stack the deck in his favor. Don't you know? Southerners were eeeevil in the 19th century, and looking back on that time period in any positive light whatsoever makes you a bad person.

There's a lot of nuance in Confederate pride, and to insist that every aspect of it is racial only makes people dig in and have even more pride in their heritage...

That's exactly right.

Posted by right | April 3, 2008 6:10 PM

This celebration of the Confederacy shit should have ended over 200 years ago.

Can you imagine South Africa celebrating the legacy of aparteid?

Germany celebrating the Holocaust?

Oh, but don't tread on the South's "tradition!!!"

See Matt, now you've gone and gotten me angry.

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | April 3, 2008 5:46 PM

Celebrating the Confederacy should have ended 200 years ago? That's a neat time travel trick.

I guess both sides of the debate house the historically ignorant...

Posted by hodge | April 3, 2008 6:10 PM

Is it possible that people who observe things like Confederate Heritage month, you know, aren't white supremacists?

Well, they could just be big fans of rebellion, but given the general level of flag-waving and hatred of others' dissent among them, I gotta go with white supremacy.

Posted by calling all toasters | April 3, 2008 6:11 PM

And, to the extent there was *any* doubt about it, it is allayed by the fact that the flag they wave is the battle flag, rather than the political flag of the Confederacy.

200+ years of history, but the only magical time worth remembering was the 4 years they were at war...

Posted by McKingford | April 3, 2008 6:12 PM

I think southerners get their backs up when northerners get on them about slavery as if the North was morally pure on the matter. Setting aside the presence of the practice in northern states until quite late, the war was not started over the morality of slavery and emancipation was the product of political and military necessity more than any desire to do right. True, it was only politically necessary because opinion had moved so much against slavery in the North later in the war, but the war itself was not launched to end it. Southerners have little to be proud of, and inexplicably call attention to their disgrace in the ways MY notes. But Northerners forget their complicity entirely.

Posted by Jack | April 3, 2008 6:13 PM

Maybe he was referring to the original Articles of Confederation?

Posted by blah | April 3, 2008 6:13 PM

Re: Most of these people have convinced themselves that slaves 'had it good', were well cared for, and that the war was all about the North trying to force the South back into the union.

Far be it from (great-great grandson of a slain Union cavalryman) to defend the Condfederacy, but the chief war aim was to bring the South back into the Union. Ending slavery was secondary, and only after Sep 1862.

Re: This celebration of the Confederacy shit should have ended over 200 years ago.

Um, that's a little hard when the CSA did not come into existence until 157 years ago.

Re: "Rebellion against a democratically elected government" is a stretch, to say the least. Weren't the governments of the individual Southern states also democratically elected?

Yes, but that does not preclude Matt's statement. And after all, the Federal govermment had not taken one single action against the South that might justify their revolt (in the manner that the oppressive, high-handed rule of Britain was invoked to justify the rebellion of the 13 Colonies). Quite the contrary: the Federal government had bent over backwards to meet the South's demands for years. What else could the Feds have done? Cancel an election whose results he South did not like? Impose slavery on the North? Conquer the Caribbean so as to gain more slave states? The mind boggles here.

Re: if it weren't for the fact that the Southern states were perpetuating that disgusting and racist custom, the rights of individual states to secede should be at least debatable

There was a carefully defined path for the states to abnegate the Constitution (a contract, even freely signed, cannot be nullified legally except according to its own stipulations). What needed to happen was a new Constitutional Covnention had to be called and any state not ratifying the new pact would be outside the Union.

Posted by JonF | April 3, 2008 6:16 PM

Regarding How Insane's comment, if we stopped celebrating the Confederacy 200 years ago, we would have stopped celebrating it before it existed.

Actually, never mind. That sounds about right.

Posted by Kraz | April 3, 2008 6:17 PM

There's something romantic in rebellion and in wanting to stop outsiders from telling you what to do, but the south always seemed to stand up and pick a fight over the issue only when it came to outsiders talking about slavery, segregation, and lynching.

Mostly that's because the southern politicians had their run of the country, for the most part, and got irritated when there was pushback.

Posted by Tyro | April 3, 2008 6:18 PM

And second, it's very easy to call other people racist

And, it's something Matthew is an expert at. He calls various people racists, what, like every other day? People are still making fun of Matthew for the last time Matthew called someone a racist, on Tuesday - you know, that John McCain celebrated his grandfather... RACIST!

And of course there was the whole "Ohio Democrats who voted for Hillary are racists" post that so much p*ssed Petey off.

I assume Matthew is stepping up his activites in calling people racists in advance of the Obama general election campaign.

As to this particular post, I would think that most people celebrating are not celebrating racism, but rather are celebrating parts of their heritage other than racism. After all, when I celebrate Washington's birthday, that doesn't mean I am celebrating his ownership of slaves.

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 6:18 PM

That doesn't excuse Matt for being absurdly smug and self-congratulatory about it.

I call bullshit. Not only is Matt not doing this, but what provokes Matt's sentiments is a month long love-in where Confederates act absurdly smug and self-congratulatory about their little racist slice of heaven from 157 years ago.

Is it possible that people who observe things like Confederate Heritage month, you know, aren't white supremacists?

Is this a rhetorical question? "Observe" - maybe. Celebrate, no.

Posted by McKingford | April 3, 2008 6:22 PM

"One, it's difficult for anyone who has never lived in the south to understand all the different cultural connotations and tensions of the Confederacy. And second, it's very easy to call other people racist and demand they change their ways."

this is apologistic garbage. anyone who believes (or states) that the creation of the confederacy and its secession weren't driven by fears of the ban on slavery are not paying attention to history.

the rumbles began decades before 1861. andrew jackson (slave owner) had to basically threaten SC with images of seas of blood to end their 'secession' talk in the early 1830's after a series of provocative anti-slavery pamphlets were delivered to southern ministers in that state. it worked. the tensions of course grew and came to a head in the 1850's as the issue of slavery in the new terriroties and states was confronted (see 'jayhawkers' in kansas and missouri raids). tensions were further exacerbated by john brown's attempted slave rebellion.

then came lincoln and the new, expressly anti-slavery, republican party. for anyone willing to challenge me on the issue of secession, slavery, and the confederacy, consider these two points:

1. the confederate constitution was almost exactly like that of the US except for provisions expressly granting the right to own humans as chattel property (key phrase: CSA constitution Article I section 9, clause 4 - "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."). there are a number of other minor differences, but this is THE big one.

2. the confederate states began seceding in late 1860, only AFTER it was clear lincoln of the expressly abolitionist GOP won the presidential election.

this was ALL about slavery.

all in all, "different cultural connotations" mean nothing. it's all apologetics and resentment of the richer, better educated, more upwardly mobile, yankees. hell, i get called a yankee by the southern transplants i meet in NYC (literally, the home of "the yankees") today. in 2008. cultural connotation? no. intense cultural resentment at being forced to stop owning people at the point of a gun? yes. and it simmers 150 years later. incredible.

Posted by Brad | April 3, 2008 6:22 PM

What else could the Feds have done? Cancel an election whose results he South did not like? Impose slavery on the North? Conquer the Caribbean so as to gain more slave states? The mind boggles here.

The obvious answer is it could have let them secede. I think we're all glad it didn't, but that would have avoided "violent rebellion."

Posted by right | April 3, 2008 6:23 PM

"After all, when I celebrate Washington's birthday, that doesn't mean I am celebrating his ownership of slaves."

Do you celebrate George Washington's birthday by adorning your house and car with a giant banner of George Washington surrounded by Little Black Sambo caricatures--which you insist is totally just a historical tribute to George Washington's lifestyle? 365 days a year?

Al, I know you have a penchant for bad analogies, but this one is REALLY stupid.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 3, 2008 6:26 PM

right, the Confederacy's main beef in the slavery issue was that of their ability to expand slavery into the rest of the states and territories. Had the US allowed the confederacy to secede "peacefully," they would have been brought into the exact same armed conflict over claims to the territories and, by extension, the spread of slavery into those territories.

The pathology of the south was not simply a demand to "keep outsiders from telling them what to do," it was that they demanded that their value system receive carte blanche to spread and perpetuate itself. Allowing the south to secede was just exchanging a violent rebellion for a traditional violent war.

Why people are celebrating the right to spread slavery is beyond me, but there you go. I *hope* they find that reminders suffocating enough to learn to stop.

Posted by Tyro | April 3, 2008 6:29 PM

[Clears throat],

African-American guy here. In the south. Agree with Matt. To the millions of black, half-black, one-quarter black, one-sixteenths black, one-drop-rule black etc., the whole confederate pride thing offends us about as much as the Nazi flag offends Jews.

It's not as if WWII was any less complex than any "state-rights" BS, so don't give me any "it's all a complex part of our history" talk. I mean we did not fight Hitler to save the Jews and millions of others he was torturing in concentration camps.

I, like many others, would prefer if we could celebrate some aspect of southern history that is not as offensive.

GO DAWGS!!!

Posted by DJ | April 3, 2008 6:32 PM

The slave system did not exist in isolation, but was actually in symbiosis with many business interests in New England, Europe, and Africa. Therefore it is not enough to condemn only "the South" for the moral guilt of slavery; one must also condemn any and all who profited from or cooperated with the "triangle trade" in which the seizure and transportation of slaves was one leg of a system that included molasses, rum, and other raw resources. And, of course, the United States itself, which enshrined slavery in the constitution for its first 75 years.

Posted by david | April 3, 2008 6:33 PM

LP - I'm trying to understand your objection, but I can't. Are you saying that the confederate battle flag is like a "a giant banner of George Washington surrounded by Little Black Sambo caricatures"? Because that seems kinda odd.

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 6:36 PM

this was ALL about slavery.

Secession was, indeed, largely about slavery.

Nineteenth century Southern culture, however, was not all about slavery. It's natural and completely understandable that Southerners today, particularly those with familial ties to the era, would want to celebrate that heritage. While it's a bit disquieting that so much of it focuses on the war effort, there are two pretty obvious explanations for this that have nothing to do with racism: 1) history books, in the north and south, focus disproportionately on the Civil War (and every other war) such that people today are much more knowledgeable about the key figures and details of the era than other, more peaceable times, and 2) people tend to venerate war veterans no matter what.

So, would it be better if there was a better proxy for celebrating Southern heritage than focusing on the Confederacy? Of course it would.

Is the fact that there isn't one obviously due to rampant racism and slavery-nostalgia? No.

Posted by right | April 3, 2008 6:38 PM

There's a lot of nuance in Confederate pride, and to insist that every aspect of it is racial only makes people dig in and have even more pride in their heritage...

For all that nuance, it's pretty striking how unpopular this Confederate heritage stuff is with black southerners. And I doubt if those Confederate pride enthusiasts are holding annual Juneteenth celebrations.

Posted by David | April 3, 2008 6:41 PM

david--
Thanks for explaining why the North constantly celebrates slavery, but I think that's off-topic.

Posted by calling all toasters | April 3, 2008 6:41 PM

There's a lot of nuance in Confederate pride, and to insist that every aspect of it is racial only makes people dig in and have even more pride in their heritage...

For all that nuance, it's pretty striking how unpopular this Confederate heritage stuff is with black southerners. And I doubt if those Confederate pride enthusiasts are holding annual Juneteenth celebrations.

Posted by David | April 3, 2008 6:41 PM

The obvious answer is it could have let them secede.

As I recall, the confederates attacked Fort Sumter, didn't they? Kind of makes a mockery of "letting them" secede. And what happens to Missouri? Kansas?

In any event, "secession" is a polite word for "treason." You don't allow traitors to go on and be happy little traitors - you punish them.

Posted by l2p | April 3, 2008 6:41 PM

right, the Confederacy's main beef in the slavery issue was that of their ability to expand slavery into the rest of the states and territories. Had the US allowed the confederacy to secede "peacefully," they would have been brought into the exact same armed conflict over claims to the territories and, by extension, the spread of slavery into those territories.

I'm not an expert on the history there, but I don't think that's right. As I understand it, the reason the slave states cared about what happened in the territories was a concern (probably justified) that if enough states were added to the union without slavery, Congress would eventually emancipate the slaves. An independent Confederacy would have been more than happy to be side by side with a completely free US.

If anyone has a better history background in this, please chime in.

Posted by right | April 3, 2008 6:44 PM

brad: "all in all, "different cultural connotations" mean nothing. it's all apologetics and resentment of the richer, better educated, more upwardly mobile, yankees. hell, i get called a yankee by the southern transplants i meet in NYC (literally, the home of "the yankees") today. in 2008. cultural connotation? no. intense cultural resentment at being forced to stop owning people at the point of a gun? yes. and it simmers 150 years later. incredible."

I think two things are getting conflated here. One is the practice of celebrating "the Confederacy" and "Confederate Heritage" in a manner that stops just short of an explicit apologetic for slavery, or at least for some argument of the legal soundness and moral virtues of seccession. The second is the much broader, almost universal sense of "Southerness" as opposed to "Northerness". Brad seems to think that this is a direct result of a "cultural resentment of being forced to stop owning people at the point of the gun." This seems unlikely. The majority of the white population did not own slaves and regardless, I think few people look back fondly on their white ancestors "good old days" of slave owning thinking that it all went wrong when their family had to give them up. Rather, there is a cultural resentment and it stems from the premise that seems to lurk behind much of the criticism of the South. I'm not sure Matt holds it (though other posts of his have hinted that he may). Brad certainly does. The premise is that the south resents "the richer, better educated, more upwardly mobile, yankees." This of course entails that the yankees are richer, better educated and more upwardly mobile. I don't want to get into the various arguments that could be made about the truth of that statement (though I will suggest that the standard of living for most people in NYC or DC pales in comparison to much of the standard of living across the South) but I will point out that such an assumed premise is obnoxious, rude and certainly reflects a lack of social decency. That's what Southerners are talking about when they are talking about resenting yankees...

Posted by hodge | April 3, 2008 6:44 PM

As I recall, the confederates attacked Fort Sumter, didn't they?

The Yankees didn't leave - they were occupying Southern territory. The inhabitants of a territory are permitted to attack the occupiers, no?

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 6:46 PM

Unfortunately this falls into the romantic american myth category. Who can visit Antietam or Gettysburg without some sense that great events of history occurred there. The extreme waste of people is directly evident but a perspective a century and half later allows us to see the distances, the terrain, and perhaps imagine ourselves on that battlefield. In that context, it isn't hard to imagine that many of us would be on the wrong side (just the proportion of the US that seceded) -- and who struck the most romantic poses? Pickett's charge, JEB Stuart's rides, Lee's stoic and masterful management of his side's war.

To sum it up, I don't think the rebel flag controversy is necessarily racist but rather the manifestation of a massaged history of a horrible and, perhaps ultimately, a fully avoidable war. I fully understand why many (including me) would be repelled by the "official" uses of the confederate flag.

Posted by mike c | April 3, 2008 6:47 PM

As I recall, the confederates attacked Fort Sumter, didn't they?

Well sure, after the Union refused to leave. If Lincoln was going to let the South secede, he would have abandoned Ft. Sumter. He didn't, so there were hostilities.

In any event, "secession" is a polite word for "treason."

It is now. Back then it was a genuinely unclear issue, legally speaking.

For all that nuance, it's pretty striking how unpopular this Confederate heritage stuff is with black southerners.

Fair enough. I don't blame them. It's a thorny issue all around, which is why it deserves more thoughtful treatment than Matt gives it here.

Posted by right | April 3, 2008 6:49 PM

In any event, "secession" is a polite word for "treason." You don't allow traitors to go on and be happy little traitors - you punish them.

Heh. So, in a war of independence, you're on the side of the colonial powers, eh? A Tory in 1776?

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 6:50 PM

If the appeal of Confederate pride is that it rankles Yankees, forget it. Most of us are in favor of creating a "Red nation" and a Blue nation. You know, we get Boston, NY, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Portland, and Los Angeles.

You get Miss., LA, Houston, and New Orleans!

And you get W! And Phill Gramm!

Enjoy!

Posted by tc125231 | April 3, 2008 6:54 PM

Had their treason succeeded, the confederates would've most likely been overthrown by communists. The famous "Dukes of Hazzard" 1969 Dodge Charger would've been either a Yugo festooned with sickles and hammers, or a Volkswagen festooned with swastikas, depending on whether Stalin or Hitler prevailed in WWII. However, I'm afraid that "Yeeee Hawww" doesn't translate well into Russian or German.

So happy confederate heritage month, comrades.

Posted by Aatos | April 3, 2008 6:59 PM

From the Confederate History Month blog:

"On March 5, 2008, Governor Sonny Perdue of Georgia signed a proclamation declaring April as Confederate History Month. The proclamation specifically recognizes and honors Bill Yopp, a black Confederate from Laurens County, Georgia."

Huh?

Posted by Jim | April 3, 2008 7:00 PM

So, would it be better if there was a better proxy for celebrating Southern heritage than focusing on the Confederacy? Of course it would.

That might have the slightest shred of validity if it were Southern heritage month. It isn't. It's Confederate heritage month.

As I said above, 200+ years of history, and the only thing the South wants to celebrate is the 4 years they were at war.

Posted by McKingford | April 3, 2008 7:01 PM

They were U.S. troops occupying U.S. territory, Al. Go ahead and celebrate this sort of rebellion if you want, but don't dare call yourself at patriot. I assume you refuse on principle to pledge allegiance to the flag of the *United* States of America.

#

To get to Matt's original point, the problem was not only the failure of radical reconstruction but an effort at over-rapid reconciliation that gave southern whites the myth of the noble cause, that gave the two sides of the war a spurious moral equivalence. And it's that moral equivalence to which defenders of the Confederacy have clung tenaciously ever since.

Posted by Colin | April 3, 2008 7:03 PM

The pathology of the south was not simply a demand to "keep outsiders from telling them what to do," it was that they demanded that their value system receive carte blanche to spread and perpetuate itself.

Southern politicians pushed through multiple national Fugitive Slave Acts that forced non-slaving-holding states to return runaway slaves (apparently it was alright to tell Northern states what to do); they tried to force through the Lecompton Constitution in Kansas. But as soon as an anti-slavery president is elected (mainly because the South was too short-sighted to support Stephen Douglas), they care about states rights.

Posted by David | April 3, 2008 7:08 PM

OH YEA!!!!!!!! You northerners are still a bunch of punks. Ya'll had to enslave all the new immigrants coming to america to fight your war of invasion. And now ya'll want to move down to the south and tell us how to think and behave; Come by my house and I will make you my punk. So There!!!!!!!!!1

Posted by B Rad | April 3, 2008 7:11 PM

IF you want to celebrate your ancestors bravery and sacrifice and not secession and slavery get yourself the regimental flag of the unit they served in or one formed in their home state.

I am partial to the following for the Rebs:
the various Irish guards of the 7th, 9th and 13th Louisiana, the 5th Georgia, the O’Connell Guards of the 17th Virginia or the 8th Alabama Emerald Guard.

Posted by The Fighting 69th | April 3, 2008 7:13 PM

I don't know . . . it seems like we celebrate an awful lot of people who were responsible for massacring Indians and stealing their land. Hey, they were basically good people if you ignore the stealing and killing.
Posted by blah | April 3, 2008 5:54 PM

Excellent post. Slavery was not America's only original sin. You're right that most of us still thoughtlessly celebrate the American genocide as "manifest destiny", or "God's grace", or the advance of "civilization". Who knows how long it will last?

But that's not as obvious as Matt's point, or better, DJ's. Celebrating the Confederate flag is as offensive to decency as celebrating the Nazi swastika.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 3, 2008 7:15 PM

Right,

I am a Ph.D. student in American history, so I feel like I am on pretty solid ground here when I say that the future control of the trans-Mississippi West was a crucial contested issue between the North and the South. The West was always at the heart of the contest, as thinking people realized it represented the future of the country.

A number of points in support of this: for one thing, you have the whole notion of a "popular sovereignty" solution to the question of the West. The idea being that each individual territory -- Nebraska, Kansas, Dakota, etc. -- would hold a plebiscite on whether it would be free or slave. This was accepted by moderate forces in the North (abolitionists hated it), but southerners militated strongly against it, both at the political-rhetorical level and with actual violence. It's why you see so many pro-slavery Missourians from the western counties of that state attempting to derail Kansas' admission (via popular sovereignty principles) as a free state; some simply committed voter fraud, slipping over the border for election day only, while others engaged in outright guerilla warfare (to which Free State forces responded in kind). This is the infamous "bleeding Kansas" of the 1850s.

It's also important to note the importance of 1857's Dred Scott decision in this question of the West. Dred Scott, under the aegis of Chief Justice Roger Tawney, essentially stated that a runaway slave who escaped to a free state -- which heretofore had meant freedom -- was actually still in a condition of forced servitude, was still a slave, no matter what, and that if the runaway slave's owner sought to recover him, the federal government would have to force the free state to extradite said slave to the slave state. This essentially required that the Northern states consent to a nationalisation of the slave system; while this was less of a concern in places where systems of free labor had already taken route, i.e., New England, the mid-Atlantic, the Great Lakes, it was deeply problematic for the trans-Mississippi West. Because that land was not yet settled by white Anglo-Americans, there was the chance that, under Dred, slavery and the slave system could be de facto extended to states like Nebraska, that were by their own desire free states. The concern, then, is not that Dred Scott makes slavery likely in the North, but in the West. And with Western slavery would come Southern, rather than Northern, hegemony over the country as a whole (indeed, over the Continent).

Besides all this, I think it is particularly galling for the slave states to ask the rest of us to be their slave-catchers (as abolitionists said at the time).

Posted by Ben Cronin | April 3, 2008 7:18 PM

Southerners, I suppose, aren't the only one to partake in celebrating some of the less-proud moments in our nation's history. Go to Salem, Mass during the month of October! They seem to love celebrating the needless death and mental damage of numerous women!

Posted by Brett | April 3, 2008 7:21 PM

"But opposition to white supremacy *is* morally superior to supporting or tolerating it."

But the Civil War wasn't fought between pro- and anti-white supremacy forces. Both sides [the whites at least] were white supremacist; slaveholding remained legal in parts of the Union throughout the war, and even after Appomatox, though blessedly on its way out [The Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in December 1865]. Nor was there any widespread white support for racial equality even during Reconstruction, which was one reason why the North abandoned it [Another reason being that giving the federal government the right to decide if a state was "ready for self-government" was regarded as a pretty damn dangerous thing to do; what if in the future that precedent were used against, say, Illinois?] Finally, this "treason" business only works if you accept the Union side's definition of treason--when in fact the Civil War was fought precisely over the question of whether an individual owed his ultimate loyalty to his state or the Union. During the war Confederates, in fact, referred to southern white Unionists as "Tories"--reflecting their own identification with those slaveholding white-guy "traitors" of 1776. As the [impeccably liberal] historian Kenneth Stampp showed years ago, the question of whether or not the Union was perpetual wasn't a settled issue in 1861--and indeed it never got settled as a matter of law, only on the battlefield. Calling the losing side "treasonous" is just another way of saying "Our side won, nyah, nyah, nyah." It's really tiresome and immature, and makes you "progressives" sound disturbingly like the silly wingnut triumphalists on the other side.

Saying this is not, BTW, to be pro-Confederate. I teach this stuff, and it's impossible to disentangle the Confederate cause from slavery; that was the point of secession. It is to say, though, that Lincoln was right in the Second Inaugural Address. Neither side deserved bragging rights for the role it played in a war that was a bloody, wretched horror, and whose very existence was an admission that Americans couldn't deal with a fundamental issue except by mowing each other down. If the war ended slavery, it wasn't because either side had intended it; it was because the logic of events [or some unseen force, call it God or whatever] brought it on. In fact, slavery was an American sin, not just a southern one; that's why Lincoln trotted out that "In malice toward none, with charity for all" line at the end. Don't be so goddamned smug! he was telling his audience. Y'all might want to take that to heart.

Posted by David in Nashville | April 3, 2008 7:24 PM

Also, Al is being particularly outrageous today. It's all the more infuriating since I seem to recall him as a Garden Stater; his support for the Confederacy is a betrayal of the Great State of New Jersey.

Posted by Ben Cronin | April 3, 2008 7:26 PM

Ressentiment is an inextricable part of 'Confederate Heritage'. It's not the whole part, but you can't take it out. The south's culture goes way beyond that, of course, but slavery and the war to preserve it are the lines beneath the painting.

Lmao, you didn't have to go to school with a lot of transplanted southerners who refuses to accept the real history of the Confederacy.

I think that's established in the school system. Most people I know brought up in the northern states went through the Civil War in history class fairly quickly; those raised in the South literally struggles to get past it, so much time was devoted to covering it and Reconstruction.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 3, 2008 7:29 PM

Quoting Matt:

". . . as best I can tell these days (it was different in the past) most of the folks who like to wave the Confederate flag are perfectly genuine when they get offended that others see them as waving a banner of violent white supremacist ideology."

Having lived in Eastern Kentucky for the last eighteen years and four years in North Carolina before that, I can confidently say that the above statement is nonsense.

The Confederate flaggers play a simple but effective symbolic game. They're racists and they're proud and defiant about their racism. They also identify their regional pride, family pride, and religious pride with their racism and they roll all of it together into the Confederate flag, Confederate celebrations, participation in Civil War re-enactments, and their defense to the death of monuments, school names, and county names that honor the Confederacy.

The flaggers like to claim that the Confederate battle flag just represents "regional pride" but that's a scam. The flaggers view the "regional pride" claim strictly as a form of "plausible deniability" and don't believe it any more than the rest of us should.

If someone wishes to test the sincerity of the "regional pride" arguments, they should ask themselves a simple question. Do the Confederate flaggers ever show any "Southern pride" in black Southerners like Martin Luther King, John Lewis, or the Freedom Riders of the Early Sixties. Did any of the Confederate flaggers feel proud about Rosa Park's defiance of segregation or seek to incorporate the lunch-counter sit-ins into their "non-racial" idea of Southern pride. How many songs from the old African-American blues or jazz masters of the South get played at Confederate celebration events?

The answer is No! None! Hell No! Zero! The idea that the Confederate flag is just a symbol of regional pride is just as knowing a lie as the idea that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11.

We shouldn't be so easily fooled.

Posted by Ric Caric | April 3, 2008 7:36 PM

Ben,

Thanks for responding.

I wasn't trying to dispute the West's importance in the argument between North and South in the years leading up to the war. My understanding was that while, on the margin, the South probably preferred to expand slaveholding areas westward, its real priority was to maintain the practice in the states where it still existed. Southerners viewed the West as likely future congressional and electoral votes that either would be pro- or anti- slavery, so it was in their interest to see that they were pro-slavery.

Had the South seceded peacefully, this would no longer be a concern, so my assumption was that there would be no ongoing conflict with the North over the Western territories (at least regarding slavery; perhaps they would have some plain, old-fashioned territorial disputes).

Does the history support this point of view, or was the South truly committed to pushing slavery West for economic or pseudo-moral reasons?

Posted by right | April 3, 2008 7:36 PM

Quoting Matt:

". . . as best I can tell these days (it was different in the past) most of the folks who like to wave the Confederate flag are perfectly genuine when they get offended that others see them as waving a banner of violent white supremacist ideology."

Having lived in Eastern Kentucky for the last eighteen years and four years in North Carolina before that, I can confidently say that the above statement is nonsense.

The Confederate flaggers play a simple but effective symbolic game. They're racists and they're proud and defiant about their racism. They also identify their regional pride, family pride, and religious pride with their racism and they roll all of it together into the Confederate flag, Confederate celebrations, participation in Civil War re-enactments, and their defense to the death of monuments, school names, and county names that honor the Confederacy.

The flaggers like to claim that the Confederate battle flag just represents "regional pride" but that's a scam. The flaggers view the "regional pride" claim strictly as a form of "plausible deniability" and don't believe it any more than the rest of us should.

If someone wishes to test the sincerity of the "regional pride" arguments, they should ask themselves a simple question. Do the Confederate flaggers ever show any "Southern pride" in black Southerners like Martin Luther King, John Lewis, or the Freedom Riders of the Early Sixties. Did any of the Confederate flaggers feel proud about Rosa Park's defiance of segregation or seek to incorporate the lunch-counter sit-ins into their "non-racial" idea of Southern pride. How many songs from the old African-American blues or jazz masters of the South get played at Confederate celebration events?

The answer is No! None! Hell No! Zero! The idea that the Confederate flag is just a symbol of regional pride is just as knowing a lie as the idea that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11.

We shouldn't be so easily fooled.

Posted by Ric Caric | April 3, 2008 7:36 PM

Quoting Matt:

". . . as best I can tell these days (it was different in the past) most of the folks who like to wave the Confederate flag are perfectly genuine when they get offended that others see them as waving a banner of violent white supremacist ideology."

Having lived in Eastern Kentucky for the last eighteen years and four years in North Carolina before that, I can confidently say that the above statement is nonsense.

The Confederate flaggers play a simple but effective symbolic game. They're racists and they're proud and defiant about their racism. They also identify their regional pride, family pride, and religious pride with their racism and they roll all of it together into the Confederate flag, Confederate celebrations, participation in Civil War re-enactments, and their defense to the death of monuments, school names, and county names that honor the Confederacy.

The flaggers like to claim that the Confederate battle flag just represents "regional pride" but that's a scam. The flaggers view the "regional pride" claim strictly as a form of "plausible deniability" and don't believe it any more than the rest of us should.

If someone wishes to test the sincerity of the "regional pride" arguments, they should ask themselves a simple question. Do the Confederate flaggers ever show any "Southern pride" in black Southerners like Martin Luther King, John Lewis, or the Freedom Riders of the Early Sixties. Did any of the Confederate flaggers feel proud about Rosa Park's defiance of segregation or seek to incorporate the lunch-counter sit-ins into their "non-racial" idea of Southern pride. How many songs from the old African-American blues or jazz masters of the South get played at Confederate celebration events?

The answer is No! None! Hell No! Zero! The idea that the Confederate flag is just a symbol of regional pride is just as knowing a lie as the idea that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11.

We shouldn't be so easily fooled.

Posted by Ric Caric | April 3, 2008 7:37 PM

I consider myself reasonably well educated but I have what may be a pretty stupid question:

What's wrong with the South's decision to secede even if it was to uphold something as unjustifable as slavery. Let me just note: Slavery was clearly an immoral institution and one that the North rightly started doing away with well before the Civil War. I am just not sure why the South was not allowed to go its own way? If the answer is that slavery was an evil that had to be done away with wouldn't that logic apply in certain current situations? Why have we not gone into Africa to stop genocide and ethnic cleansing. Why not go into China to protect against human rights violations.

I am not trying to be difficult and I am not asking rhetorically. Perhaps my history education is pretty lacking.

Posted by rabbit | April 3, 2008 7:39 PM

One of the most interesting aspects of the Southern attitude toward the Civil War is the veneration of leaders like Robert E. Lee. To listen to the present day Confederate pride enthusiasts, one would get the impression that Robert E. Lee was one of the greatest Great Captains of history who lost only because of the inadequacy of Confederate munitions and numbers. Such was not the case at all. Actually, of course, in many respects, Robert E. Lee was one of the most incapable commanding generals in all history.

Posted by SLC | April 3, 2008 7:46 PM

At least Al has pegged himself as a Confederate apologist now. remind him of that next time he pulls out the Byrd KKK bullshit.

Don't you know? Southerners were eeeevil in the 19th century, and looking back on that time period in any positive light whatsoever makes you a bad person.

That's some pretty serious moral relativism. The Southern planters who ran the Confederacy were a nasty lot. If anyone was evil, they were.

That's why Lincoln trotted out that "In malice toward none, with charity for all" line at the end.

Lincoln was probably wrong on that one.

Posted by John Emerson | April 3, 2008 7:53 PM

rabbit,

My interpretation is that once you strip away the romantic ideal of "the union," you're left with the prima facie rejection by Lincoln, the Republicans, and pro-Union Democrats of the idea that the South "decided" or was in any substantial way unified behind the secession cause.

Secession was seen as a boutique fantasy of the southern planter class. Further the reality that those planter held levels of political power and influence radically out of proportion to their numbers. "Secession" was as much or even moreso a regionalized coup d'etat and power grab by political an economic elites as it was an act of separation and independence from the Northern states.

Posted by dry_fish | April 3, 2008 7:55 PM

The Southern planters who ran the Confederacy were a nasty lot. If anyone was evil, they were.

Interesting. How do you feel about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson?

Posted by right | April 3, 2008 8:00 PM

It's just how white folks are.

Posted by sherifffriuitfly | April 3, 2008 8:00 PM

rabbit,

To actually answer your question, Lincoln refused to simply "let the south go" because he didn't take secessionists seriously as representatives of anything beyond their own narrow financial interests.

For Northerners, abolishing slavery was much less attractive than reasons of pure nationalism, basic law enforcement, and smacking down loud-mouth agricultural tycoons.

Posted by dry_fish | April 3, 2008 8:04 PM

Jefferson and Washington were ambiguous figures with redeeming qualities. They don't deserve the adulation they sometimes get.

I'm perfectly happy for the Republican Party and the conservative movement to be regarded as Confederates. Perhaps soon we can get someone to say that the KKK wasn't really all that bad.

My heritage is Yankee and Union and they killed Confederates. But not enough of them it seems.

Posted by John Emerson | April 3, 2008 8:08 PM

Lastly, just think of it this way. The election of 1800 is celebrated because it was seen as one of the few times in the history of the world that a political party with control of the executive willing acknowledged the results of an unfavorable election and transferred power to their opponents. What makes the election of 1860 so critical (disputes about the election of 1824 aside) is that it was the first time in US history that the party in power refused to give up power to the winners of the election. Their compromise was that instead of throwing up barricades around the White House (because, really, who gave a flip about Buchanan?), they took their stand back in the states and southern state capitols.

Posted by dry_fish | April 3, 2008 8:18 PM

One of the frustrating things about neo-Confederacy is that it makes the South look bad; in other words, it's this neo-Confederate crap that makes it easy for Northerners to argue that Southerners are a bunch of racist rubes. In fact, the Civil War was mostly about slavery, which is why *many Southerners opposed it*. There were resistance movements throughout the South; the Richmond underground was particularly active and effective. And, of course, black Southerners -- who are, you know, Southerners -- were overwhelmingly on the Union side. A lot of the anti-racism which is one of this country's great gifts to the world came out of the Reconstruction period (which is, of course, a Southern phenomena) when blacks and whites formed some of the first interracial power-sharing governments in the world.

Southerners have a ton to be proud of about race relations. But the neo-Confederate line serves a lot of people, north and south, who would like the south to be proud about pretty much everything wrong, instead of everything right.

Posted by NoahB | April 3, 2008 8:31 PM

General Grant had it right about the South:

"a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."

Posted by macheath | April 3, 2008 8:33 PM

General Grant had it right about the South:

"a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."

Posted by macheath | April 3, 2008 8:33 PM

Well sure, after the Union refused to leave. If Lincoln was going to let the South secede, he would have abandoned Ft. Sumter. He didn't, so there were hostilities.

So your position is that the mere fact of Southern secession divested the United States government of all the military bases, courthouses, garrisons, buildings, and land of any sort that it held in the South?

Another way of looking at this is that the South was itching for a war (something even pro-South tracts like "Gone With the Wind" admit) and knew that firing on the fort would get them one.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 3, 2008 8:36 PM

Confederacy thread ... chum in the water

If there were only a Confederacy/pizza topic.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 3, 2008 8:41 PM

Rabbit: Part of the reason Lincoln (and most of the rest of Republican party of the time) didn't want to let the south go, is because, if they did, the US would be in direct competition with another nation for the lands opening up in the Western territories. And although a lot of political elements in the North didn't like slavery, they were willing to let it ride if the South didn't try to upset the tenuous compromise between slave and non-slave states. Lincoln didn't put emancipation on the table until it was clear that it would directly undermine the planter class who were the main instigators of the rebellion.

May I add, that while some of my Southern friends like to call their war the War of Northern Aggression, I prefer to call it the War of Southern Stupidity. They always seem to forget that the South fired the first shots with the assault of Fort Sumter. My understanding, was that Lincoln was willing to negotiate as long as they weren't in violent rebellion (but I can't find any references sitting in the coffee shop as I write this). But Sumter changed the political landscape for Lincoln (just like 9/11 changed it for Bush).

And to SLC: As for Lee's generalship, he was better than anything the North could throw at him until Grant took the field. I think what really irks the Confederate Pride folks it that Grant was basically a working-class loser before he found his niche as leader of armies. While Bobby Lee was from the epitome of upper-class of Southern gentility. But Grant understood that it all came down to logistics, leverage, and numbers.

Posted by beowulf888 | April 3, 2008 8:52 PM

So your position is that the mere fact of Southern secession divested the United States government of all the military bases, courthouses, garrisons, buildings, and land of any sort that it held in the South?

No, no, you misread me. That was what the Union needed to do to avoid any violent conflict. I definitely think the Union acted correctly.

Posted by right | April 3, 2008 8:59 PM

I was struck by vanya's comment:

Slavery is what muddies the issue, if it weren't for the fact that the Southern states were perpetuating that disgusting and racist custom, the rights of individual states to secede should be at least debatable - the States joined the union voluntarily, why shouldn't they leave if they wanted to? Of course Southerners will do whatever they can to obscure the fact that slavery was the sole motivation for secession - that doesn't make them very sympathetic.

"Muddies" is putting it pretty darned mildly, but the comment does suggest an interesting counterfactual. Imagine an alternate history in which chattel slavery never existed in the United States. Suppose the South had seceded over, say, tariff disputes. Would the South have had a legal or natural right to secede in that case? And, if so, would there still have been a Civil War? Should we root for a Northern victory in this alternative time line?

I think the answers are "no," "yes," and "definitely yes," but taking slavery out of the equation would make the debate much more interesting from both a legal and moral standpoint.

Of course, it's precisely because we can't take slavery out of the equation that things like Confederate Heritage Month are so troubling.

Posted by Bainbridge | April 3, 2008 9:00 PM

it's this neo-Confederate crap that makes it easy for Northerners to argue that Southerners are a bunch of racist rubes.

This suddenly voting for Republicans in 1968 and ever since crap makes it pretty easy too.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 3, 2008 9:06 PM

Re: Another way of looking at this is that the South was itching for a war (something even pro-South tracts like "Gone With the Wind" admit) and knew that firing on the fort would get them one.

You may wish to read Gone With The Wind more closely. It's pro-South only to the extent that its main characters are all Southerners and it's set in the South (mostly in Georgia). It's decidedly not pro-CSA. Scarlet O'Hara and Rhett Butler (and even Ashley Wilkes) see the CSA as a foolhardy enterprise and the war as a colossal mistake. The book is fairly sensible about the war. Where it goes off the rails is in its Reconstruction chapters, some of which read like a neo-racist rant (although the book's POV is anti-KKK too). The book's message would seem to be "The South was wring about secession, but right about Jim Crow".

Posted by JonF | April 3, 2008 9:12 PM

Overheard at Harper's Ferry (near a quote on the wall from a British guy from the Civil War era saying that since Lincoln had made the Emancipation Proclamation the Brits couldn't get on the side of South):

"See, that's what I've always said, if we had just freed the slaves we could have had our states rights."

Posted by Another David | April 3, 2008 9:39 PM

I'm pretty sure that France doesn't have Louis XVI Appreciation Month... Does anyone know of any other losing sides of civil wars that are as popular as the Confederacy?

Posted by Tim | April 3, 2008 9:40 PM

I'm pretty sure that France doesn't have Louis XVI Appreciation Month... Does anyone know of any other losing sides of civil wars that are as popular as the Confederacy?

Posted by Tim | April 3, 2008 9:41 PM

If the appeal of Confederate pride is that it rankles Yankees, forget it. Most of us are in favor of creating a "Red nation" and a Blue nation. You know, we get Boston, NY, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Portland, and Los Angeles.

You get Miss., LA, Houston, and New Orleans!

And you get W! And Phill Gramm!

Posted by tc125231

AS A LATIN AMERICAN, MAY I ASK WHO GETS MIAMI/SOUTHEAST FLORIDA IN THIS SCENARIO?

DOES IT GO TO CUBA OR PERHAPS BECOMES A FREE CITY LIKE DANZIG IN THE INTER WW PERIOD?

Posted by jrvj | April 3, 2008 9:42 PM

@Tim:

White Russians are pretty popular.

Posted by Jeff Lebowski | April 3, 2008 9:49 PM

One of my favorite Roy Blount comments: at a conference of southern writers, the question was posed why there are so many of them. "Because the South lost the Civil War!" was the rallying cry. Until a black woman stood up and said, "Well, I'm a southern writer, and I didn't lose the Civil War." Roy took that as his standard: He didn't lose the Civil War, either.

Posted by Deborah | April 3, 2008 10:01 PM

My mother's mother's father John David Martin - born and raised in east Kentucky - was as an old man still fighting the Civil War - on behalf of the Union. In that time it meant you were a Republican.

His father's father George Martin as well as his mother's father John H.D. Holliday both (like my other maternal 3rd great-grandfathers Andrew B Jones and Kendrick Combs) served in the 13th Kentucky Calvary, Confederate Army. Then - apparently to cover all bases - George and John both served on the Union side. Holliday married a former spy for the Union.

I think a lot of this heritage stuff is about a feeling of racial superiority (or a sense of insecurity about certain people's feelings of racial superiority) but I'm not sure everyone in the south was fighting on behalf of slavery. And it seems unlikely everyone - and probably a great many people - from the north were fighting against it.

Posted by Linus | April 3, 2008 10:10 PM

JonF's right about Gone With the Wind-- it's the Reconstruction chapters that are jarring and polemic, although given that it's actually about the destruction of a small, insular civilization, I guess it had to be pretty crude to get the point across. Haven't read it for several years, but viewing it more as a character study of two pairs of counterparts-- Scarlett & Ashley with their self-absorption and only partial comprehension of events, and Melanie & Rhett with their far more broad, nuanced understanding and vastly different choices-- is usually pretty worthwhile IMO.

Posted by latts | April 3, 2008 10:10 PM

"Southerners, I suppose, aren't the only one to partake in celebrating some of the less-proud moments in our nation's history. Go to Salem, Mass during the month of October! They seem to love celebrating the needless death and mental damage of numerous women!

Posted by Brett | April 3, 2008 7:21 PM"

That's mostly done tongue-in-cheek and self-deprecatingly.

It bears noting that the Battle Flag didn't start appearing on Southern state flags until Brown vs. Board of Education. Confederate pride has always been tied deeply with Jim Crow. If our media wasn't a bunch of pussies, we would ask why Southern flag wavers seem to love the battle flag so much. Loving that cancels out any love you can have for the Stars and Stripes. It's like supporting the Israeli settler movement and Palestinian independence at the same time. It doesn't make any logical sense. Much of what the South has to be proud of - being the home of people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Nina Simone, Zora Neale Hurston, etc. - aren't celebrated by such Southerners for the obvious reason these people are black. It wasn't that long ago that David Duke won the white vote in Louisiana's governor's race. The South was the last place in the country where the majority of people said they could tolerate interracial dating - in 1991. There is a reason why racist Democrats-cum-Republicans were called Dixiecrats.

Posted by Reality Man | April 3, 2008 10:13 PM

Interesting thread. The energy helps explain the Sunni/Shia conflicts or the emotions of the Kosovo Serbs. It seems like it all happened yesterday ...

Posted by Deggjr | April 3, 2008 10:23 PM

digby recently touched on the North-South split in a post ("Courting the Cavaliers by Ed Kilgore") regarding McCain, and Kilgore's point that the Yankee-Cavalier divide has continued to effect American culture and politics:

The core of the northern party (originally Federalists, Whigs and Republicans, and now Democrats) has been citizens of New England ... The culture of these "Yankees" originated in 17th-century English Puritanism. Its legacy remains in a distinct New England Yankee culture which values moral rectitude and social reform.

The historic rivals to the greater New England Yankees in US politics have been the coastal southerners of Virginia, South Carolina, and the Gulf coast region... [they] created a hierarchical, traditional, aristocratic society based on a plantation economy. They have always dominated the southern party (originally Jeffersonian Republicans, then Jacksonian and Rooseveltian Democrats, and now Republicans).

My great-grandfather volunteered at age 17 in 1861 as a dismounted infantryman in the 1st North Carolina Cavalry and fought in most of the Army of Northern Virginia's major engagements until the surrender in 1865, twice wounded. Shortly after the end of the war, he became a Methodist minister, moving west; then served as chaplain to a Territorial legislature, and later two terms as a representative in a State Legislature. He died in the West, just after America declared war on Germany in 1917.

My great-aunt, who had known him as a young girl, once said he had taken slavery for granted as a teenager, resoundingly rejecting it as a man and a Minister. He was deeply disturbed that Reconstruction and reconciliation had been largely a failure, and that (primarily to allow for economic exploitation) the North did not make any lasting effort to reintegrate the South into the Union.

He worried that as a result, future generations in the South would forget the "stain" of slavery, fuse nostalgia with anger over the war, and maintain their regional differences as Southerners with that carefully-nursed grudge as the common thread.

He thought, my aunt recalled, that "they would attach fresh reasons" to their anger which had nothing to do with the war -- and (like many generational hatreds) obscure the past origins of their emotions and make it almost impossible for anyone -- Southerner or Yankee -- to see them clearly in the present.

I think he was right.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | April 3, 2008 10:55 PM

What a wonderful time for us Yankees to remember the War of Southern Treason, and for true patriots to thank the brave souls who died keeping the Union together that all may be free.

Or something like that. Whatever. As long as it pisses off my redneck neighbors.

Posted by Angry Sam | April 3, 2008 11:29 PM

I wonder which caucasian Southrons would headline at a non-pro-Confederate Southerner Heritage Month. Sam Houston? George Henry Thomas? David Farragut? The 1st Alabama Cavalry? West Virginia and East Tennessee?

Posted by Quietus | April 3, 2008 11:34 PM

The saddest part about the Civil War was that it took a war at all to free the slaves. Most other countries emancipated their slaves without wars.

Why again were the Democrats against the war? Was it because they worried that if the slaves were freed they would compete with Northern labor for jobs, lowering their wages?

Posted by Steve D. | April 3, 2008 11:35 PM

Some of the appeal of Confederate pride is precisely because it rankles New York-born, Harvard educated Yankees...There's certainly an element of "you may run everything in fact, but you still can't tell me what to do..." You find this a lot in what people call "black culture" too, although you don't see the Yglesias' of the world touch that with a ten-foot pole...
There's a lot of nuance in Confederate pride, and to insist that every aspect of it is racial only makes people dig in and have even more pride in their heritage...
Posted by P

Pretty much on mark. It's the oppositional culture thing.
And the more preening liberals tell the South they are inferior, evil, and the whole antebellum culture and Southern tradition aren't worth shit, the more the South will dig in.

And there is the whole glass houses thing.

We celebrate Jewish Heritage Month and Black Heritage Month despite those groups major flaws:

1a. Blacks have killed 7X the number of Americans, raped 7X the number of Americans white Southerners ever did.
1b. Blacks have destroyed many times the number of US towns and cities the Confederates ever did.

2a. Jews, leaving aside their ancient crimes involving Jesus Christ and collaboration with Muslims against Christians, were major players in the Communist mass murders, which killed more people than the Nazis did. As direct participants in developing the Gulag system, subordinating law to social justice as Justice Abromoff did, financing the Soviet state, remining being Stalin's favorite executioners after Jewish dominance of the Bolshevik-designed Red Terror ended. Or, indirectly, as trainers of State Security methods to the Chicoms, NORKs, and new E Europe communist regimes....

2b. Jews were major players in the slave trade. As shippers, shipping underwriters, plantation owners, rum and cotton merchants..financiers of the whole "Slave Triangle".

2c. Jews acted as the Confederacy's main financiers. See Judah Benjamin and the Euro Jews ownership of major investments in slave-generated goods and lands in Mississippi, Louisiana.

2d. Blacks waged a long and bitter struggle against Jewish economic exploitation of black ghettos and control of black schools, black unions, black legal services, and black special interest groups like the NAACP.

2e. Celebrating Jewish heritage and accomplishment is in some ways as much of an insult to blacks as waving the old cross and bars at them.

2f. Jews in the media remain the main celebrators and enablers of black "oppositional" behavior, culture, music.

Posted by chris ford | April 3, 2008 11:39 PM

Matt, it's time to pull a Ross Douthat and MLaJ this fella.

Posted by Quietus | April 3, 2008 11:43 PM

The Yankees didn't leave - they were occupying Southern territory. The inhabitants of a territory are permitted to attack the occupiers, no?

In other words, Al believes that the attack on the soldiers in Lebanon was justified. The hostages in Iran? Their capture was justified. The death of every American soldier in Iraq? Justified.

What a piece of shit Al is.

Posted by Seitz | April 3, 2008 11:44 PM

I asked him what "right" he thought the "states" were fighting for, and he obviously didn't have much of an answer.

Tariffs! They just didn't want Northern manufacturing interests to put a tariff in place! They died over tax policy!

But the Civil War wasn't fought between pro- and anti-white supremacy forces. Both sides [the whites at least] were white supremacist;

This is anachronistic and basically sophistry. You're saying that because the slaveowning South and Republicans like Lincoln were both racist by today's standards, there is no difference between the two. But there was an enormous difference. Lincoln summed it up nicely well before the war in the first Lincoln/Douglas debate:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races....but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man.I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.]

In other words, slavery is wrong, period. From the sixth Lincoln/Douglas debate:

I suggest that the difference of opinion, reduced to its lowest terms, is no other than the difference between the men who think slavery a wrong and those who do not think it wrong. The Republican party think it wrong-we think it is a moral, a social and a political wrong.... Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy that shall deal with it as a wrong. We deal with it as with any other wrong, in so far as we can prevent its growing any larger, and so deal with it that in the run of time there may be some promise of an end to it....I will say now that there is a sentiment in the country contrary to me-a sentiment which holds that slavery is not wrong, and therefore it goes for the policy that does not propose dealing with it as a wrong. That policy is the Democratic policy, and that sentiment is the Democratic sentiment."

Confederate sympathizers endlessly try to make hay out of the fact that Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist. But Republican policy of forbidding the territorial expansion of slavery was clearly and explicitly intended to begin the process of getting rid of slavery ("putting it in the course to ultimate extinction", as Lincoln liked to put it). This was clearly understood by everyone at the time, Lincoln said it over and over again, and it's why the South seceded when he was elected.

Saying this is not, BTW, to be pro-Confederate. I teach this stuff, and it's impossible to disentangle the Confederate cause from slavery; that was the point of secession.

Good you understand that, but it would be a shame if you confuse your students by teaching them that the slavery issue was something that the North somehow blundered into, as opposed to the understood ideological cause of the war. Lincoln intended to get rid of slavery from the start, this is the major issue on which he was elected and its why secession happened. It's crystal clear in the record.

It is to say, though, that Lincoln was right in the Second Inaugural Address. Neither side deserved bragging rights for the role it played...If the war ended slavery, it wasn't because either side had intended it;

You're right that neither side deserved to do bragging, and that Lincoln was dead on and brilliant in the Second Inauguaral. But that line about neither side intending the war to end slavery is deceptive -- the North didn't intend *the war itself* to end slavery, but the North *did* intend to restrict the territorial enlargement of slavery, and by doing to to eventually end the institution. Lincoln also states this clearly in the beginning of the Second Inauguaral.

Posted by mq | April 3, 2008 11:47 PM

Most people who have always lived in the south, like me, have never heard of Confederate Heritage month, have never owned a Confederate flag, and would be horrified at the thought of celebrating slavery.

But some people do romanticize the past and pretend there was a noble calling in fighting a civil war. North or south.

A lot of people like to feel proud of their heritage regardless of the terrible events that are part of that heritage. Many Americans take great pride in waving the American flag and celebrating our history despite the mass genocide in our history, the interment of American citizens in WWII, and other horrors from our past. Don't most people on this thread like to celebrate the 4th of July? Does that mean you are celebrating the genocide of Native Americans?

Some folks think we Americans never did anything bad. Others are able to accept that terrible things did happen but that there are events and people that were good and worthy of honoring. Southerners are able to do this as well.

Posted by eve | April 3, 2008 11:48 PM

1a. Blacks have killed 7X the number of Americans, raped 7X the number of Americans white Southerners ever did.
1b. Blacks have destroyed many times the number of US towns and cities the Confederates ever did.

Wow. Glad you've come across the offical listing of how may slaves died during capture, transportation and eventual generations of servitude and measured that against the number of deaths and rapes attributable to "blacks." That type of logic must be backed up by facts............

Posted by Andrew | April 3, 2008 11:49 PM

Chris, despite your best efforts to make it appear so, the South isn't inferior. The South was home to Martin Luther King, Elizabeth Van Lew, the Lovings, and a lot of people who gave a lot more for the cause of racial equality than most Northerners ever dreamed of. It's you who spit on that legacy when you apologize for the nationwide racism so many courageous Southerners fought and died for.

Posted by NoahB | April 3, 2008 11:50 PM

Chris wrote:
1a. Blacks have killed 7X the number of Americans, raped 7X the number of Americans white Southerners ever did.
1b. Blacks have destroyed many times the number of US towns and cities the Confederates ever did.

Good grief. Here we an example of someone so full of crap they have no room for brains.

Posted by eve | April 4, 2008 12:00 AM

MQ,

"Confederate sympathizers endlessly try to make hay out of the fact that Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist. But Republican policy of forbidding the territorial expansion of slavery was clearly and explicitly intended to begin the process of getting rid of slavery ("putting it in the course to ultimate extinction", as Lincoln liked to put it).

Thanks for elevating the quality of the discourse with your comment. The excerpt I italicized above reminds me of Jonathan Rauch's essay about John McCain in the current Atlantic. Rauch's point was that McCain was a conservative in the Burkean sense, and it seems like the same could be said of Lincoln's initial, incremental approach to phasing out slavery.

Chris Ford,

"Celebrating Jewish heritage and accomplishment is in some ways as much of an insult to blacks as waving the old cross and bars at them."

There has been a lot of hostility directed at Jews by blacks in the last 40 years, but that isn't because most of the offenses against blacks by Jews that you allege are true -- they aren't (incidentally, some of these are preposterous, like blaming Jews for taking over the NAACP when they started the organization to begin with). There are a few main reasons for the anti-Jewish sentiment in the black community post-MLK. One was the rise of the black pride movement. Proud people often resent those who have helped them, because it reminds them of their past weakness. That's why the old saying (Ben Franklin's?) is that if you want someone to be your friend, ask him to do you a favor, don't do one for him.

The second reason was the rise of black nationalism/liberation theology and how this coincided with the paradigm shift in the Middle East. Pre-1967, the Mideast conflict was seen by most in the West as one between plucky little France-backed Israel versus its giant Arab neighbors; post 1967, it became big America-backed Israel versus the plucky Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza which Israel had just captured. Once the Palestinians became recognized as a national liberation movement, blacks who shared that ideology were aligned with them, and against Israel (and by extension, against Jews).

The third reason for the black hostility is related to the second: Leftism became more prominent in the black community at the same time Western lefties switched their allegiance from Israel to the Palestinians and their quasi-Marxist PLO.

The fourth reason was the rise of Black Islam. That one probably doesn't require much elaboration.

Posted by Fred | April 4, 2008 12:14 AM

"Don't most people on this thread like to celebrate the 4th of July? Does that mean you are celebrating the genocide of Native Americans?

Some folks think we Americans never did anything bad. Others are able to accept that terrible things did happen but that there are events and people that were good and worthy of honoring. Southerners are able to do this as well.

Posted by eve | April 3, 2008 11:48 PM"

There is a difference between the Confederacy and the South. The Confederacy lasted less than a decade and was based on slavery, whoops, I mean "states' rights" (somehow the Confederates never seemed to notice that in the Constitution states have powers and individuals have rights). Celebrating Southern culture that includes King and other Southern African-Americans is fine. The problem is that so much of this "the South shall rise again" crap is only for white people. After all, it was in South Carolina where McCain got race-baited for his adopted daughter being brown.

Posted by Reality Man | April 4, 2008 12:35 AM

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

--Letter [from Abraham Lincoln] to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862

(Though I have do doubt that Lincoln hated slavery, and deeply wanted to see an end to it.)

Posted by Nell | April 4, 2008 12:44 AM

They were U.S. troops occupying U.S. territory, Al. Go ahead and celebrate this sort of rebellion if you want, but don't dare call yourself at patriot. I assume you refuse on principle to pledge allegiance to the flag of the *United* States of America.

I certainly do pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

But if you think the South had no right to secession, then I assume that you salute the flag of Great Britain. I mean, to you, obviously the 13 original colonies had no right to secede from the British empire.

Let's face it, only hypocrites would deny the South the right to secede from the North, but celebrate the 13 colonies' secession from Great Britain.

Of course, saying that the South had the legal right to secede doesn't mean that it was morally right to do so. It wasn't.

Posted by Al | April 4, 2008 1:12 AM

In terms of Fort Sumter, I think the key issue to remember is that only the Deep South had seceded at that point. Jefferson Davis and the other leaders of the new CSA knew that their state was ultimately untenable unless the other slave states, and particularly Virginia, could be persuaded to join. Provoking a contest of arms was the best way to do this, and by not abandoning Sumter, Lincoln gave them the opportunity to put this into action.

Basically, it wasn't simply that they wanted a war. It was that they knew that a war was the only way to create a viable state. Without the war, all they have is a banana republic in the cotton country of the Deep South.

Another point worth noting is that in terms of slavery expansion, a big issue is the internal slave trade. The biggest industry of Upper South states like Maryland and Virginia (especially Virginia) was not corn or tobacco, or whatever, but slaves. In the Deep South, work was hard enough that slaves tended not to replace themselves, so it was necessary to import Blacks from somewhere. With the African slave trade shut down, the upper south states were the obvious place to look. After secession, with Virginia in a different coutnry from Mississippi, this becomes very problematic, for both sides.

Posted by John | April 4, 2008 1:16 AM

So your position is that the mere fact of Southern secession divested the United States government of all the military bases, courthouses, garrisons, buildings, and land of any sort that it held in the South?

Why wouldn't it?

Did the 13 colonies Declaration of Independence divest Great Britain of all Britain's "military bases, courthouses, garrisons, buildings, and land of any sort that it held" in the colonies?

Does Serbia have the right to send its troops into Kosovo to reoccupy all of the "military bases, courthouses, garrisons, buildings, and land of any sort that it held" in Kosovo?

Posted by Al | April 4, 2008 1:17 AM

At least Al has pegged himself as a Confederate apologist now.

In what way? I think the Confederacy's secession was morally reprehensible, since it was based on slavery.

Whether people can appropriately celebrate parts of the Confederacy that were not based on slavery, such as the valor and bravery of the men who fought for it, separately from the morally repugnant premise of the Confederacy itself is a different matter.

Posted by Al | April 4, 2008 1:25 AM

The comparison doesn't hold up, Al--the South wasn't a colony of the U.S., with its citizens not having the same legal rights as those in the North. Remember "no taxation without representation"? The South was well-represented in our legal institutions, with several presidents having come from the South! The only way the analogy would make even approach making sense is if an American had been king of England at some point--simply ridiculous.

And about the South's "valor and bravery" in fighting an entirely unnecessary war that was for evil ends, do you similarly celebrate the Nazis that fought so valiantly for Hitler or the brave hijackers of 9/11? Yeesh, get some historical perspective

Posted by blahblah | April 4, 2008 1:38 AM

blahblah - The comparison doesn't hold up, Al--the South wasn't a colony of the U.S., with its citizens not having the same legal rights as those in the North.
Not true, as the States seceeded from the Articles of Conferation because that compact failed to work, and took a 2nd shot with the Constitutional Republic. As that was being hashed out, there was considerable debate - AND assent - about the right of States to seceed from the Republic and try something new on a 3rd attempt if that too proved unsatisfactory to the People of the States.

As for "no right to seceed if you have the same legal rights" theory, lets just say with Texas, most Latin American countries, all the splitoffs from the Soviet Empire, Bangladesh, Yugoslavia - that the "same legal rights" are meaningless if they are shitty or some other people within the same national Union has all the power.

As for dissing Jewish Heritage and Black Heritage month along with people dissing Confederate Heritage Month - it is quite easy to show that all groups have their dark side - and picking out flaws in white Southerners is as easy as picking out, sometimes even more significant flaws, in the historical beliefs and actions of Jews, Russians, Cossacks, Japanese, Mexicans, Turks, Maori, Arabs, Bantus, American blacks, even the frickin Belgians (Congo).

So to Jews and blacks, especially, fuck off. Self-righteous outrage against Dixie is akin to complaining about the mote in another's eye while ignoring the logs in their own kind's eyes. Complain as you wish, but don't seek to pile shame on others when you refuse to apologise for the Jewish Bolshevik communist democide or black-destroyed cities and schools and astronomical black crime rates...

Posted by chris ford | April 4, 2008 2:20 AM

Does anyone know of any other losing sides of civil wars that are as popular as the Confederacy?

The English Royalists (and, by extension, the Jacobite Stuarts). They're into re-enactments, too.

Somehow, I think it'll be hard for the keyboard commandos of the great War On Terrah! to re-enact their posting glories.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 4, 2008 2:24 AM

If anyone ever tells you that the civil war was not about slavery, you should point out to them that the vice-president of the Confederacy declared that the Confederacy was founded upon the idea of white supremacy (heard of the "Cornerstone Speech"?). There's no evidence that Jefferson Davis or anyone else ever explained to him that the Confederacy was really about states' rights and in fact had nothing to do with slavery.

A lot of off-the-mark comments:

"[Lincoln:] 'My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery'"

Why is this seen so often as a bad thing? Because Lincoln should have tried to destroy slavery forcibly and at all costs, even if one of the only liberal democracies in the world would have been destroyed? I have no idea how this more radical anti-slavery plan would have worked. John Brown didn't really have a plan so much as a bloody mind about abolition. Maybe we should only nominate Democrats who agree to protect the right to an abortion at all costs, even if it means tearing the country apart in violent conflict.

"it seems like we celebrate an awful lot of people who were responsible for massacring Indians and stealing their land."

If you're referring to all of the founders or something, you're not correct. Perhaps you're referring to Andrew Jackson or something. Yes we may celebrate some of these people, but we don't celebrate *the very fact that they killed and robbed from the Indians*. People who wave the Confederate flag celebrate the very fact that they revolted against the constitutionally elected government of the U.S. Since the federal government was not tyrannizing the South (not to mention the fact that their rebellion was aimed at preserving a wicked institution), I find their rebellion pretty repugnant.

"Let's face it, only hypocrites would deny the South the right to secede from the North, but celebrate the 13 colonies' secession from Great Britain."

Secession is not the same as justified rebellion against the government. The South claimed that it had a Constitutional right to secceed when they pleased. This is not the argument of the Declaration. The former is an interpretation of the Constitution, the latter is an argument about natural rights and the legitimacy of government. To argue that the Civil War is really the same thing as the War of Independence is pretty preverted from an American perspetive (I guess the tyrants won the second time around, no?), but it's also revisionist, since the South didn't see their argument as being the same.

Posted by Colatina | April 4, 2008 2:35 AM

"So to Jews and blacks, especially, fuck off."

Well played, that'll show 'em

Posted by blahblah | April 4, 2008 4:04 AM

It must not be forgotten that the current craze for the Confederate flag is not something that has run unabated since 1865.

It is something that sprang up out of near-nonexistence as a response to the civil rights movement.

I would say that cultural acceptance of it as a phenomenon -- the Confederate Battle Flag in the back window of a pickup, say -- peaked around the time of Dukes of Hazzard. Ever since it's been fighting a losing battle, on state capitol after state capitol, state flag after state flag, and school dress policy after school dress policy. And the right wing's favorite victimhood whine has never been aged to this much perfection.

Posted by Dan Hartung | April 4, 2008 6:05 AM

Anyway we could ban Chris Ford? He's so far off the charts these days that's he's beyond merely annoying. He's even revived that medieval "Christ killer" trope, something that's been rejected and denouced by every major Christain church.

Posted by JonF | April 4, 2008 6:19 AM

"Let's face it, only hypocrites would deny the South the right to secede from the North, but celebrate the 13 colonies' secession from Great Britain.

Of course, saying that the South had the legal right to secede doesn't mean that it was morally right to do so. It wasn't.

Posted by Al | April 4, 2008 1:12 AM"

Add in the fact that in a few Southern states, black slaves were the majority of the population and that muddies the water on this a bit.

Posted by Reality Man | April 4, 2008 6:40 AM

Anyway we could ban Chris Ford? He's so far off the charts these days that's he's beyond merely annoying. He's even revived that medieval "Christ killer" trope, something that's been rejected and denouced by every major Christain church.
Posted by JonF | April 4, 2008 6:19 AM

Hehe, I'm cool with Chris, as long as he doesn't assassinate anyone.

But I do wish Matt would restore the posters' names headings that you still see when you preview your comment. I always recognize Chris's weird style, but there are other lunatics here whose posts I'd also like to skip over.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 4, 2008 6:53 AM

Look, Chris Ford is so stupid he can't tell the difference between a political entity - the Confederacy and an ethnic group - "Blacks" and Jews. Really he should be ignored, or maybe pitied.

Posted by vanya | April 4, 2008 7:29 AM

Heehee! Watch the loony grubs crawl from the woodwork!

Posted by Angry Sam | April 4, 2008 7:39 AM

If the south woulda won we woulda had it made.
I'd probably run for president of the southern states.
The day Elvis passed away would be our national holiday.
If the south woulda won we woulda had it made.

I'd make my surpreme court down in Texas and we wouldn't have no killers getting off free.
If they were proven guilty then they would swing quickly,
instead of writin' books and smilin' on T.V.
We'd all learn cajun cookin' in Louisiana
and I'd put that capital back in Alabama.
We'd put Florida on the right track, 'cause we'd take Miami back
and throw all them pushers in the slammer.

Oh if the south woulda won we woulda had it made.
I'd probably run for president of the southern states.
The day young Skynyrd died, we'd show our southern pride.
If the south woulda won we woulda had it made.

I'd have all the whiskey made in Tennessee
and all the horses raised in those Kentucky hills.
The national treasury would be in Tupelo, Mississippi
and I'd put Hank Williams picture on one hundred dollar bill.

I'd have all the cars made in the Carolinas
and I'd ban all the ones made in China.
I'd have every girl child sent to Georgia to learn to smile
and talk with that southern accent that drives men wild.
I'd have all the fiddles made in Virginia, 'cause they sure can make 'em sound so fine.
I'm going up on Wolverton Mountain and see ole Cliften Clowers and have a sip of his good ole Arkansas wine.

Hey if the south woulda won we'd a had it made.
I'd probably run for president of the southern states.
When Patsy Cline passed away that would be our national holiday.
If the south woulda won we'd a had it made.
Olay he hee hee . I said if the south wouda won we would a had it made!

Posted by Norway | April 4, 2008 7:43 AM

Anyway we could ban Chris Ford? He's so far off the charts these days that's he's beyond merely annoying. He's even revived that medieval "Christ killer" trope, something that's been rejected and denouced by every major Christain church.
Posted by JonF

You should be happy to have educated posters helping you realize your stunted ignorance and need to improve your mind.

What the Churches did was say the Jews condemning Christ was not to be considered by good Christians to be a collective stain that passed on to every Jew, across generations. In keeping with the Christian maxim about not punishing the son for the sins of the father. However, like Germany will never see others forget the Nazis, an act like killing Christ makes for some persistent history affixing itself to the Jewish people....

...And the Churches while doctrinally eliminating blood guilt - have never said the Gospels were wrong and Christ's death was all the Roman's doings. And the Bible is backed by 3 written records, inc. two old Talmuds, that say "Yeah, we had the Romans whack him" or "We killed him ourselves like the hundreds of other heretics - by stoning, maybe hanging. The Christians are wrong..he wasn't killed by Romans, but by us."

From the Gospels, it is quite clear that the leaders of the Jews, the Sanhedrin, induced Jesus's betrayal by Judas by bribery, captured him, then condemned Christ to death. However, under Roman occupation, the right to execute heretic Jews by stoning had been taken away. Hence the Jews marching Christ to the Romans and informing them that Christ had been condemned for violating sacred law, and demanded that the Romans do their duty and execute him. Of course, the Counsil famously then asked the crowd of Jews if they agreed with their leaders, if not, lieniency was possible. The crowd rejected Pilate, so he had no choice...

The point remains the same, many of the groups condemning white Southerners for pride in their heritage have their own pretty bad skeletons in their closets. So before condemning others for daring to be proud of their ancestors, remember the glass house rules.

Posted by chris ford | April 4, 2008 7:47 AM

But Sadr is still cool, right? Because nuanced multi-sided analysis of the civil war in Iraq is still in even though facile self-righteous oversimplification of the American civil war is the order of the day. Right?

Posted by Haukur | April 4, 2008 7:47 AM

There has been a lot of hostility directed at Jews by blacks in the last 40 years

I think that is overstating things quite a bit. It seems to me that the most black people think of Jewish people as just white people without making any distinctions. There has been hostility between black people and whoever happened to own the local stores in black neighborhoods. That, however, is regardless of what ethnicity or religion the owners were, even when expressed using coded terms. Most black people with knowledge of the civil rights movements recognize the very important role that Jewish people played. The black muslim movement has been such a small, though vocal, part of the black community that it seems unfair to place such views as predominant within the black community.

Posted by bperk | April 4, 2008 8:04 AM

Why is this even an argument?

If it was "Southern Heritage Month" no one would be bothered in the least. As someone who grew up in the South, I know there is a great deal about Southern heritage to celebrate.

The Confederacy? No redeeming value whatsoever. The apologogists are simply racists or intellectually superficial in the extreme.

Posted by greg budzban | April 4, 2008 8:05 AM

Chris Ford, Al: anti-Semites, Confederates, and typical Republicans.

The South is Republican now, but Lincoln is still hated there. When a Lincoln statue was put up in Virginia awhile back to match the dozens and hundreds of Confederate memorials there, it was promoted mostly by transplanted northerners and received stiff (though ultimately unsuccessful) resistance from the locals. It's still probably the only Lincoln statue in the Republican Party's Confederate heartland.

Posted by John Emerson | April 4, 2008 8:07 AM

The point remains the same, many of the groups condemning white Southerners for pride in their heritage have their own pretty bad skeletons in their closets. So before condemning others for daring to be proud of their ancestors, remember the glass house rules.

None of the other groups are celebrating their skeletons in the closet. Black folks don't have a week when we celebrate the LA riots.

Posted by bperk | April 4, 2008 8:13 AM

In a televised ceremony on April 5, 2003, surrounded by protestors and attended by three former and current governors, a descendant of slaves, and about 800 onlookers, Kline helped unveil a life-size bronze statue of Lincoln and his son, Tad. David Frech, a sculptor from Newburgh, N. Y., made the statue. Historians believe it is the first public statue of Lincoln to exist in any of the 11 former Confederate states.....

Despite threats, the ceremony, held on a sunny spring day, went on relatively uninterrupted. The 50 or so protestors, led by the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other groups, stayed outside the park’s gates with Confederate flags, banners, and signs. At one point, a small airplane flew overhead trailing a red banner that read: "Sic Semper Tyrannis," Latin for "Thus Always to Tyrants." Those are the words John Wilkes Booth yelled from the stage of Ford’s Theater after fatally shooting Lincoln.

Posted by John Emerson | April 4, 2008 8:18 AM

Re beowulf888

"And to SLC: As for Lee's generalship, he was better than anything the North could throw at him until Grant took the field."

Unfortunately, that isn't saying much. The statement about General Lees' incapability came from a book written by J. F. C. Fuller, "Grant and Lee, a Study in Personality and Generalship," page 8 in the 1957 edition. General Fullers' assessment is mostly based on the following two items.

1. General Lee was totally incompetent as a quartermaster general. As a for instance, his troops were barefoot much of the time while warehouses in Richmond bulged with shoes.

2. General Lee was no strategist. He concentrated solely on the situation in Virginia to the exclusion of events taking place west of the Appalachians. This despite the fact that he was supposed to be President Davis' primary military adviser, in addition to commanding the Army of Northern Virginia.

If Mr. beowulf888 doesn't care for the assessments of British major generals relative to American military leaders, I would refer him to the following publications.

1. Thomas Connelly, "Lee, the Marble Man;"

2. Grady McWhinney, "Braxton Bragg and Confederate Defeat;"

3. Edward H. Bonekemper, "How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War."

One of the most interesting false claims about General Lee vs General Grant is that the latter was a brute butcher while the former was a great tactician. As General Fuller demonstrates by an assessment of the casualties suffered in the commands of the two men, this is completely fallacious. In fact, as a percentage of men engaged in all battles commanded by the two men, General Lees' casualty rate was some 50% higher then General Grants' and more then twice General Shermans'.

Posted by SLC | April 4, 2008 8:27 AM

I love it when conservatives defend the Confederacy. It's almost too good to be true.

Pour it on Al.

Posted by Otey2 | April 4, 2008 8:34 AM

there were more slaves in New York at the time of the Civil war t,then almost the entire south put together. Let us not forget the real racists in this country live in the north. This is now and has always been so. Detroit,Boston etc.... Just a few facts for you people thyat are not smart enough to realise that the South now actually controls most of the nations wealth and also its brightest people.

Posted by yolo | April 4, 2008 8:41 AM

"For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it’s still not yet two o'clock on the July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it’s all in the balance, it hasn’t happened yet…." -- William Faulkner

Posted by David | April 4, 2008 8:43 AM

America's brightest people, such as Yolo and Roscoe Purvis Coltrane.

Posted by John Emerson | April 4, 2008 9:01 AM

There were racists in the North as well as the South. But if northerners must complicate their feelings about the confederacy, so should southerners.

If you have time, please read the cornerstone speech given by Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens in Savannah, Georgia, March 1861. The speech was meant to explain to people the fundamental premises of the new government, and the reasons for the war that had just begun. He begins with some economic and political issues, but builds toward its end to the most important point - that "its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition." He goes on to explain, among other things, that abolitionism was a form of "insanity."

I can understand why some Southern whites want to focus on the heroism and endurance of white soldiers and the suffering visited upon the countryside. Northerners are wrong to ignore that, or to ignore the racism of many northern whites. But those who defend the confederate flag and talk of states' rights are rarely willing to acknowledge that it was not just any right that motivated the rebellion - it was the right to keep African-Americans as slaves. Once you see that, it is hard to see the rebel flag as a symbol that people can wave with pride. To the extent there is pride, it must be complicated by this fact, and waving the flag enthusiastically, without any reservations, seems exactly wrong.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=76

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

Posted by TedL | April 4, 2008 9:16 AM

I can't believe this thread has gotten this far, we're already discussing the Jews killing Jesus, and Godwin's law still hasn't been invoked?

Let me go right ahead and do that then. I assume Chris Ford and Al would have no problem with
Germans celebrating a National Socialism Heritage week? After all, killing Jews was only a means to an end for Hitler, not an end in itself. Really Germany was just trying to protect its ancient traditions and folkways from the outside corruptions of both American-style capitalism and Bolshevist-style Communism. And certainly many soldiers in the Wehrmacht displayed valour and bravery under fire (arguably the average German soldier in WWII was a far better fighting man than the toothless hillbillies that made up most of the Confederate ranks). And Lee was a clown next to real leaders like Rommel or Guderian.

Actually, why am I asking this? Chris Ford probably already celebrates National Socialism heritage week.

Posted by vanya | April 4, 2008 9:26 AM

Whether people can appropriately celebrate parts of the Confederacy that were not based on slavery, such as the valor and bravery of the men who fought for it, separately from the morally repugnant premise of the Confederacy itself is a different matter.

How, pray tell, is this any different than celebrating parts of apartheid South Africa that were not based on apartheid, such as the valor and bravery of the men who fought to uphold apartheid South Africa...

Or, celebrating parts of the Third Reich that were not based on racism, extermination, and expansion - such as the valor and bravery of the men who fought for it...

Posted by McKingford | April 4, 2008 9:28 AM

Whether people can appropriately celebrate parts of the Confederacy that were not based on slavery, such as the valor and bravery of the men who fought for it, separately from the morally repugnant premise of the Confederacy itself is a different matter.

Next up from Al: Medals of Honor for Suicide Bombers!!

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 4, 2008 9:47 AM

Al -- "Are you saying that the confederate battle flag is like a "a giant banner of George Washington surrounded by Little Black Sambo caricatures? Because that seems kinda odd."

You're the one who tried to analogize celebrating Washington's Birthday to celebrating Southern Heritage by flying the battle flag, Al, and that's kinda silly.

The similarity is that Sambo caricatures and the Confederate Battle Flag are considered highly offensive by a large number of people. Neither one is an essential part of honoring the achievements and sacrifices of our forefathers, unless your actual goal is to provoke people.

People who fly the confederate flag may or may not be doing so to signify that they are racists. But there is no question whatsoever that they are doing this to piss off liberals. They'll generally tell you that, to your face, if you ask.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 4, 2008 9:52 AM

I grew up in Georgia, stayed there until I was about 21. I think the attitude of those who celebrate "Confederate Heritage Month" is summed up in the anthem that all good (good and drunk, that is) Southerners love to sing: Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Sweet Home Alabama." The supposed coup de grace of that song -- the retort to Neil Young's rather devastating indictment in "Southern Man" -- is this:

Well I hope Neil Young will remember,
A Southern Man don't need him around anyhow.

Nyah nyah! Completely unable to respond on the merits, it's a retort worthy of a fifth grader. And it's perfectly representative of what most Confederacy fetishizers feel. They know deep down it was a horrible stain on their "heritage", but they get to feel pride in telling those Yankees, "who needs you?"

Posted by Glenn | April 4, 2008 10:51 AM

Ooooooh!
The 'enlightened' Yankees are telling Southerners how bad they are for flying a Confederate flag.

Get this- We don't give a fat rats behind what you think.

Posted by Jeff Davis | April 4, 2008 10:52 AM

LFProgressive The similarity is that Sambo caricatures and the Confederate Battle Flag are considered highly offensive by a large number of people. Neither one is an essential part of honoring the achievements and sacrifices of our forefathers, unless your actual goal is to provoke people.

Hard to claim that the battle flag they fought and died under is not an essential part of honoring the heritage.

Of course, Lefties have big problems honoring not just Confederates but Americans who fought in "genocidal" war against Native Americans, "imperialistic wars" against Mexico, against Spain, in the Philippines, and various inteventions in Latin America and the Caribbean when US interests or people were threatened. And of course, the distaste of honoring men who served in the "evil" wars of Vietnam, the War All About the Oiiiillll!, and the War of the Secret Conoco Pipeline (Afghanistan), and the Great Oil-Driven Evil War of Iraq where American Evildoers in uniform oppress the Innocent Brown Peoples...

As for blacks, grievance politics forces them to deny their astronomical crime rate and instead blame the sorry lot of their underclass on Whitey. And along the way, various poverty pimps and race hucksters manufacture tremendous offense out of minor incidents that passed unnoticed in the past - until such activists realized they could "explode in rage" and everyone would then pay attention to them. And have whitey mau-mau'd into offering them ice cream, lolly pops, money - anything to stop the temper tantrums, and peel the hysterical or faking hysteria blacks off the ceiling - while cynically realizing deep down half of the recent "noose incidents", cross burnings, racist graffitti, "teacher called me nigger!", PO-lice brutality incidents, phony victims like Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum (the Duke Lacrosse false accuser), are manufactured by blacks to stoke up the Political Grievance Machine and desperately believed by black followers and guilty white liberals.

Posted by chris ford | April 4, 2008 11:00 AM

Al says "The Yankees didn't leave - they were occupying Southern territory. The inhabitants of a territory are permitted to attack the occupiers, no?"

With that logic one would say that Cuba is perfectly within their right to attack Gitmo. Are you in favor of this too?

Posted by freddiemac | April 4, 2008 11:12 AM

There is no such thing as "Confederate Heritage." The Confederacy was a political movement, not a culture or nationality. One might as well talk about Whig Heritage Month.

Now, Southern Heritage would be a meaningful term; but then, the history of the South goes back from the settlement of Jamestown until the present, and includes Martin Luther King, John Brown, and Frederick Douglass just as much as Robert E. Lee.

And yet, people who wish to talk about the South's heritage only focus on a four-year period when it was at war with the United States of America.

It's no different from people who talk about "White heritage" as being the equivalent of "Black heritage." No, black heritage actually exists. So does Italian heritage, Scots-Irish heritage, and German heritage. "Confederate" and "White," on the other hand, are purely political groupings, not genuine expressions of one's upbringing and background.

Posted by joe from Lowell | April 4, 2008 11:21 AM

Ah, the War of Southern Rebellion.

You know, in the Ghost in the Shell universe, after WW3 the Deep South states split off to form the American Empire.

Posted by MNPundit | April 4, 2008 11:22 AM

I don't understand why it's not "southern" heritage month instead of "confederate." The south has all kinds of distinct culture and traditions that are outside of slavery and rebellion, and yet they observe it by pointing to the confederacy. For all southerners who are so up in arms about northerners' superiority and equating the south only with the confederacy, tell us why you chose to celebrate the confederacy, whatever that means, instead of just traditions you think are distinct to the south.

Posted by rapid | April 4, 2008 11:23 AM

"Hard to claim that the battle flag they fought and died under is not an essential part of honoring the heritage."

Chris, you are really tiresome. Germans have managed to celebrate their history by accentuating the regional, cultural, and positive political aspects of the early 20th century without either using the Nazi flag or the flag of Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm...

As to the rest of your post, as is obvious to almost everyone here: You are the "racial huckster" Chris.

Posted by Another David | April 4, 2008 11:25 AM

With that logic one would say that Cuba is perfectly within their right to attack Gitmo. Are you in favor of this too?

No, we have a valid, perpetual lease of Guantanamo Bay, granted by the government of Cuba.

Posted by Al | April 4, 2008 11:28 AM

Hey, Jeff Davis, be a good little loser and and shut up. You were the worst president of the Confederacy, anyways. Breckinridge could have done a better job than you.

Posted by Quietus | April 4, 2008 11:32 AM

Chris Ford's job is to make Steve Sailer look like the sane reasonable guy.

Posted by vanya | April 4, 2008 11:35 AM

No, we have a valid, perpetual lease of Guantanamo Bay, granted by the government of Cuba.

The agreement was with Batista.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 4, 2008 11:36 AM

The similarity is that Sambo caricatures and the Confederate Battle Flag are considered highly offensive by a large number of people. Neither one is an essential part of honoring the achievements and sacrifices of our forefathers, unless your actual goal is to provoke people.

I agree that, as a matter of courtesy to those who are (legitimately) offended by the confederate battle flag, it ought not be flown. But the manner in which they celebrate their ancestors is separate from whether it is legitimate to celebrate them at all.

As far as I can tell, Matthew is arguing both they should not celebrate their ancestors who fought in the Civil War at all, and that (if they do celebrate) they shouldn't celebrate with the confederate flag. I agree with Matthew on the latter, and only disagree with him on the former.

Posted by Al | April 4, 2008 11:40 AM

The agreement was with Batista.

No, it wasn't.

Posted by Al | April 4, 2008 11:44 AM

Yay! Confederate Al finally got something right.

Minnesota has a Confederate battle flag in the state capitol, captured from a Virginia unit at Gettysburg. That's how the Confederate heritage should be honored. Virginia asked for it back recently, and Jesse Ventura told them to come and fight for it.

I was taught in middle school that Minnesota single-handedly won the Battle of Gettysburg. Not quite true, but maybe we should have continued to teach children that, so that they would appreciate their Yankee heritage more and be less tolerant of the slaveowning traitors and their troublemaking admirers. There are lots of Union veteran graves down at the cemetery here too, since this town was first settled right after the Civil War.

Posted by John Emerson | April 4, 2008 12:05 PM

My city's Civil War monument consists of a wing'ed Nike holding out a laurel wreath, as if to place it on the brow of the downtown area.

Now THAT is how Americans should commemorate the Civil War.

Posted by joe from Lowell | April 4, 2008 12:24 PM

Chris Ford is Steve Sailer.

Posted by V.D. Dare | April 4, 2008 12:39 PM

Did the 13 colonies Declaration of Independence divest Great Britain of all Britain's "military bases, courthouses, garrisons, buildings, and land of any sort that it held" in the colonies?

No, Al, it didn't. The Treaty of Paris resolved the issue-- and not entirely in the United States' favor.

If you win a war, you get to negotiate with the other party as to how to dispose of property claims. It is complicated and different treaties handle the claims in different fashion. But no, simply declaring independence doesn't permit the theft of the sovereign's property.

More importantly, the South knew this and fired on Fort Sumter anyway. They wanted a war.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 4, 2008 12:43 PM

some things never change.
i've stayed away from the comments here for a while, because unfortunately, the same slimey characters keep crawling out from underneath their pile of rocks.
you know who they are - chris ford, among others - so i don't need to name them.
they simply refuse to answer some basic questions that are posed.
such as: would ex-nazis or neo-nazis celebrate the holocaust?
what would be the reaction IN THIS COUNTRY if german groups IN GERMANY attempted to celebrate their nazi past using the exact same logic used by confederate apologists in this country?
we know what the reaction would be. 24/7 coverage and condemnation of the attempt.
but because this country, well at least a certain segment of our population, has no sense of its own real history and its impact on its own country, we see the travesties that matt writes about.
folks like chris ford don't surprise me or make me upset or mad. our country has always had folks like him. it's part of our dna.
what is unfortunate is that his ilk has now been legitimized and provided sanction and a prominent platform.
it's called the republican party.

Posted by frankie d | April 4, 2008 12:56 PM

Much of the modern Confederate nostalgia was the product of late 19th and early 20th century organized white supremist triumphalism by Southern white elites.

After their successful destruction of the democratic gains of Reconstruction by terrorism, coup d'etat, and guerrilla warfare against Black Republicans and white Populists, public commemorations of their triumphs over democracy and political freedom were required to consolidate their victory.

Hence the state-sponsored (and not simply popular) commemoration of the religion of the Lost Cause.

For white elites, the restoration of white supremacy and the end of political democracy in the South was something to be not only celebrated but culturally reinforced.

A lot of those Confederate memorials I grew up around were the product of the early 20th Century, and had more to do with objections to New South and fears of the increase of federal power -- and the white supremist elites were correct to be fearful, since in the middle of the 20th century the planters' heirs lost their ability to enforce racial segregation in the face of a huge and peaceful African American resistance movement and legal battle, and basic political democracy was restored to the nation's Southern portion.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reconstruction/plantation/sf_myths.html

Posted by El Cid | April 4, 2008 1:04 PM

Arrrrggggh Chris Ford! Me shadow, me nemisis. Ying to me yang, poon to me tang. I respect yer rage. Ye rampage acrost the internets like a great conflagration er hatred and self-loathing. And yet, yer thinkin organs can't muster the candlepower er an anorexic debutant's mildest flatuation. I'm pictuin right now ye sittin in yer chair aponst yer ghost white buttocks, hunched over yer keyboard, an unnoticed string er drool connectin yer tremblin lower lip to the letter N as ye peck out yer rascist screed, and by Zues's blind eye, I find meself slightly aroused. Not sexually, nae, but due to an odd-feelin combination er pity and an urge towards order. Yer an abomination--the planet itself is ashmed er creatin the conditions that lead to yer birth--and yet yer sufferin is obvious behind yer words. Say the word, and I'll end it for ye. Crush yer hairless dome like the rotten egg it so closely resembles. Yer travails would be over and the world's honor restored. Think on it. I'd be gentle.

Posted by ol one eye | April 4, 2008 1:21 PM

No, Al, it didn't. The Treaty of Paris resolved the issue-- and not entirely in the United States' favor.

If you win a war, you get to negotiate with the other party as to how to dispose of property claims. It is complicated and different treaties handle the claims in different fashion. But no, simply declaring independence doesn't permit the theft of the sovereign's property.

So, which Forts did the British retain within the 13 colonies after the end of the Revolutionary War?

Oh, right, none.

Posted by Al | April 4, 2008 1:22 PM

SLC, re: on "General Lee was totally incompetent as a quartermaster general.As a for instance, his troops were barefoot much of the time while warehouses in Richmond bulged with shoes."

If I recall my Catton correctly, Col. Lucius Northrop was the Army of Northern Virginia's quartermaster until almost the end of the war, and as such deserves much of the blame for its woeful logistics.

And re: "General Lee was no strategist. This despite the fact that he was supposed to be President Davis' primary military adviser, in addition to commanding the Army of Northern Virginia."

I had the impression Jeff Davis was Jeff Davis' primary military adviser. And regarding what we could consider one of the most vital military decisions during that war on the Confederate side, whether or not Johnston should be replaced as he prepared for battle in Atlanta, the South would have been better off if Davis took the hint from Lee's non-recommendation of Hood.

And chris ford, re: "Of course, Lefties have big problems honoring not just Confederates [but also]... "imperialistic wars" against Mexico, against Spain, in the Philippines..."

Those [I]were[/I] imperialist wars.

Posted by j. reyes | April 4, 2008 2:15 PM

Confederate Al, you're lost in the weeds. Right now you're approximately at "Jefferson Davis was the George Washington of the Confederacy". This can only get better!

Posted by John Emerson | April 4, 2008 3:48 PM

A lot more heat than light in this thread. Where to begin?

I guess we can start chronologically, with Jesus. Yes, Chris Ford, some Jews did ask the Romans to kill him*. Sorry about that. But of course some other Jews were Jesus' supporters and friends (disciples, even), and Jesus himself was a Jew. And I imagine the majority of Jews were just trying to get through the day in Roman-occupied Judea, and had no role in it either way. In any case, after a thousand years or so of pograms in Europe, wouldn't it be Christian of you to move on? WWJD?

As for the Communists who happened to be Jews, again, sorry about that. After a thousand years of being persecuted for killing Jesus and being excluded from most parts of Christian European society it's hard to believe some Jews would be attracted to an anti-religious political system, but go figure. You might have noticed that there were prominent capitalist and anti-communist Jews too. Heck, if killing Jews weren't a major platform of the Nazi party, there would have been Jews prominent in it as well -- after all, there were Jews prominent in Italy's fascist party before Hitler brought Mussolini on board with his anti-Jew obsession.

Eh, defending a people that has been hated for thousands of years, for different and often contradictory reasons is a little tedious. I'll let someone else takeover.

*Mahmoud Abbas might object, since he denies that Jews have any historic links to the Holy Land, but I don't Palestinians taking credit for getting Jesus killed.

Posted by Fred | April 4, 2008 4:17 PM

So, which Forts did the British retain within the 13 colonies after the end of the Revolutionary War? Oh, right, none.

The Treaty of Paris embodied a compromise where Britain could seek compensation from the states for expropriated property. I am not steeped enough in the history to know to what extent such claims were paid, but I can tell you, Al, that they were paid at the end of other conflicts. It is a matter of negotiation between the parties.

I can also tell you that the British government and its subjects did get some of their property back at the end of the war pursuant to the Treaty of Paris' provisions. The US government did not take the position that anything that was on American soil was divested at the time of the revolution.

Your claim-- that property rights divest as soon as someone declares independence-- is not recognized by any organ of international law and in fact just shows that you don't know what you are talking about. The property rights remain, and at some point at the end of the war have to be settled. Often, they are settled through some measure of compensation or a mutual release of claims. But they don't disappear, and the South's secession, even if legal, did not give it the right to demand that the US give up Fort Sumter.

As I said, the South knew this, understood the US government's position (which, by the way, was taken by PRO-SLAVERY President James Buchanan), and fired. They wanted a war, period.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 4, 2008 4:24 PM

Thanks for elevating the quality of the discourse with your comment. The excerpt I italicized above reminds me of Jonathan Rauch's essay about John McCain in the current Atlantic. Rauch's point was that McCain was a conservative in the Burkean sense, and it seems like the same could be said of Lincoln's initial, incremental approach to phasing out slavery.

No one's reading this any more, but you're welcome. It's interesting comparing Lincoln to Burke. It's the difference between American constitutionalism (conscious, written, based in a self-aware political philosophy) and British (inchoate, emerging from unwritten tradition). Lincoln was a procedural legalist, although not in a shallow or narrow way. He believed certain radical guiding principles were incorporated into the American written legal tradition, most notably the "all men are created equal" section of the Declaration of Independence (strictly speaking not a legal document at all). Yet he also believed in strict adherence to written law (such as the explicitly anti-equality Constitution) as a way of moderating the potentially disruptive radicalism of America's guiding principles. The balance between those two ideas in the Republican political platform of the late 1850s, the way it avoided abolitionism while still taking a strong stand against the slave power, was a masterpiece.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. (etc.)

One of the very favorite Lincoln statements of Confederate apologists. Once again, this is completely beside the point. The propaganda value for the Confederate types works only because modern readers don't understand that there was a strong anti-slavery position at the time which was not abolitionist. All Lincoln is saying here is that he was not an abolitionist. But by taking his consistent stand against the expansion of slavery, he was actively and radically anti-slavery. The war began because the Republican platform took a firm, no-compromises stand on stopping the territorial spread of slavery completely and forever. As both Lincoln and the Southerners at the time believed, this was slow-motion abolitionism that would eventually, over the generations, lead to the end of slavery. (But do so within the original framework of the Constitution). Again, this is completely obvious from the pre-war and wartime record, so obvious that I've come to feel people who cite this stuff must be Confederate sympathizers or duped by them in some way.

You really can fault this morally from a pro-Abolition standpoint, say that Lincoln was willing to sacrifice black lives to save the original racist Constitution. And you'd be right. But you can't point to it to say that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, because it was.

Posted by mq | April 4, 2008 4:27 PM

Re j. reyes

1. Mr. reyes states that Col. Lucius Northrop was Lees' quartermaster general for most of the war. The question then becomes why didn't Lee fire his ass early on? The reason was that Lee did not understand the importance of logistics in warfare. In fact, one of the reasons for the two invasions of the North was because Lees' army could not subsist in the region between Richmond and Washington. One need only compare Lees' performance in this area to that of Grant and Sherman who know where every side of beef was.

2. The replacement of Johnston by Hood was, indeed, one of the biggest mistakes made by the incompetent Davis in the war. Of equal stupidity was Davises' infatuation with Braxton Bragg, the subject of Prof. MacWhinneys' book. Bragg was not only incompetent but was insufferable. He alienated his subordinates with his irascible temper, thus reducing their effectiveness in carrying out those of his orders that actually made some sense. His failure to complete the victory at Chickamauga, allowing Thomas' Army to escape rivals the incompetence of McClellan at Antietam in allowing Lees' Army to escape.

3. Davis did not always disregard Lees' advice. Lee sold him on the campaign that eventually led to the Battle of Gettysburg on the premise that the threat posed to Washington would cause Lincoln to recall portions of Grants Army which was then encircling the Confederate bastion at Vicksburg, and thus lift the siege of that place. The accuracy of this advice can be easily seen in two numbers. When Grant crossed the Mississippi, he had 39,000 men. When Vicksburg surrendered, he had 72,000 men. Such was the quality of advice Lee gave to Davis.

Posted by SLC | April 4, 2008 4:55 PM

"some Jews did ask the Romans to kill him"

Sure, if you believe preposterous hate literature that was written over a century after the alleged facts, which no one who was alive at the time even noticed.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 4, 2008 4:59 PM

Re: So, which Forts did the British retain within the 13 colonies after the end of the Revolutionary War?
Oh, right, none.

Wrong!
They held onto to Detroit (and maybe one or two other "western" forts) until the Treaty of 1794.

Chris Ford:
To recap the Gospels (which are not difficult to read for yourself) a very tiny cabal of Judean Elite connived at Jesus' death-- basically, a majority of the Sanhedrin (with some dissenters like Joseph of Arimathea). Jesus was otherwise quite popular with the average Jew-on-the-street. Read the Palm Sunday account.

Re: The accuracy of this advice can be easily seen in two numbers. When Grant crossed the Mississippi, he had 39,000 men. When Vicksburg surrendered, he had 72,000 men.

The Gettysburg Campaign began well after the Siege of Vicksburg had commenced. In other words, Grant was reinforced before Lee invaded Pennsylavnia (and the invasion was defeated so quickly, there was no time for the Union to withdraw Western troops back East.)

Posted by JonF | April 4, 2008 11:43 PM

the confederacy morally reprehensible? hey, you uneducated yankee scum!! where in the world do you think the institution has it's origins? look to your dutch forebears, oh new amsterdam. not one of the three national flags of the csa, nor the battleflag of the army of northern virginia, did ever fly over a slave ship, not once. but your candy stripped rag flew over all of them after 1781. bow your head, oh new york, with your vile sister boston. twas ye that were the slave trade centers of this country. try to understand your history, oh massaes swayed by the ignorance of your populast column writers.look to the newly discoyered mass grave of slaves on western long island. weep, sactimonious hypocrites, as your sister new jersey finally admits her crimes. oh, didnt know there were four union states that were exempted for the emasculation proclomation, did you?
'its hard to find good help these days'.... do you know who coined that little pearl, and why? here's a hint...who's buried in grant's tomb?
now, research the rest of the puzzle, that a new samson does not come and carry away your philistine gates!!
'you can't know where you're going, if you don't know where you've been'....robert nestor marley. wisdom for the ages.
learn about your hero lincoln, and what his plans for freedmen were. learn about what our founding fathers intended for this country, and where it's true decline started. learn about the compromises on both floors of congress, that were designed to abolish slavery in a phasing out, and the plan for freedmen to own and work their own land, to prevent a slave uprising. learn how lincoln was condemned by all of europe,the other signatories of the first geneva convention, as they held their breathes, waiting for a slaughter that did not come, because the real truth is, that most slaves were part of extended families, thru the landowners, that 350,000 black, latino, and native americans fought willingly for the confederacy, and were not tricked into service with false promises, then tossed into the bitter fires of combat, like so much cannon fodder, that a cherokee chieftan was the last confederate general to surrender.
bow to your federal gods , and when they have finally finished placing the new chains of economic and electronic servitude around your necks, perhaps then, maybe, you'll understand, that there is still a battle for equal rights and justice being waged in this country, and it is being waged on your behalf, by your cousins, sons, and daughters, of the confederacy.
sic semper tyrannus
Deo vindice

Posted by scott | April 5, 2008 10:50 AM

Way to go Scott!

I only want to make one point. That point is the first official shots fired in the conflict occured in Baltimore, Md. prior to the firing on Fort Sumter. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and had the Maryland legislature held hostage.He did this to prevent the Md.legislature from voting to secede with the rest of the South. If Md had seceded , then Washington DC would have been surrounded geographically by the CSA. The people in Baltimore rioted in protest when federals arrested the legislature. Unarmed citizenry were shot and some were killed. Afterwards, Jefferson Davis and other CSA officials sought a truce so talks could be held to avert the coming war. Lincoln and Seward especially would have no part of talks other than the South to rejoin.
I honestly feel that the South in time would have freed the slaves. I also feel that Lincoln was a tyrant of the worst sort. Karl Marx admired him as letters from Marx reveal this. Lincoln began the empire that we as Americans have to endure today. I honestly feel we are in for a rough go of it economically . The Soviet empire crumbled under economic and social pressure. We Southerners are of a different culture. We will have our own nation again.Other areas of the usA will also form new nations. We will engage in trade and in cooperation with our northern and other regional friends and neighbours.

Posted by Ronnie Abrams | April 5, 2008 12:30 PM

Re: I honestly feel that the South in time would have freed the slaves.

It is grotesque to imagine American slavery lasting into the 20th century, but I have a hard imagine the fiercely pro-slavery South abandoning its peculiar institution without some serious compulsion.
Harry Turtledove's alternate history series in which the CSA wins the War in 1862 suggests a second North-South war in 1880 where the South (still weaker on the whole that the North) agrees to free its slaves as a condition of alliance with France and Britain. I'm not so sure even that would have worked; I can see riots and public revolts if the CSA leadership had attempted such a thing. The racism of the old South admitted of no compromise. Several states had even changed their laws to prevent slave-owners from voluntarily freeing their slaves.

Posted by JonF | April 5, 2008 2:18 PM

JonF,

I don't think it was in any way a sure thing that slavery would not have survived if the South had won the war. I think the whole argument about slavery being economically inefficient isn't the whole truth. There were advanced industrial powers in the 20th century that made extensive use of forced labor or its near equivalent- e.g. Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, and apartheid South Africa, and all three in their day boasted impressive economic growth rates. The oppression and exploitation of bonded African laborers would not have continued in exactly the same form, but it would very possibly have continued in some form or another.

Posted by Hector | April 5, 2008 2:27 PM

Yeah, the South sure is proud of that second place finish in a 2-sided contest.

Posted by Jason | April 5, 2008 3:48 PM

Re scott & Ronnie Abrams

Save your confederate money boys, the South shall rise again (snark)!

Posted by SLC | April 5, 2008 9:05 PM

UNITED WE STAND ALL THAT B.S. RIGHT? YEAH,WHATEVER. IT IS AMAZING TO ME THE HISTORICAL IGNORANCE OF PEOPLE. AS THE "LIBERATING" YANKEES WERE URINATING IN THE HOLY VESSELS IN COLUMBIA,S.C. AND CURSING THE MOTHER SUPERIOR WHILE BURNING THE CHURCH ONE FINE "LIBERATOR" SAID,"NOW WHO IS MORE POWERFUL,SHERMAN OR YOUR GOD?" AIN'T A WHOLE LOT CHANGED HAS IT? THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE WHO CAN'T JUST LEAVE US ALONE. WELL IN A CITY LIKE NEW YORK,WHERE THERE IS NEVER EVER ANY RACISM OR BIGOTRY I GUESS IT IS EASY TO ATTACK PEOPLE YOU HAVE NEVER BOTHERED TO TRY TO KNOW OR UNDERSTAND.

Posted by sonofsouth | April 7, 2008 9:49 AM

Hector:

Remember, one brick wall in front of the Confederacy later ridding itself of slavery is that they wrote it into their Constitution (not indirectly, like the original US Constitution, but directly, in the form a provision that prohibited the abolition of slavery).

So it would have been very difficult for the Confederacy to ban it later.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 7, 2008 1:21 PM

Matt,

If you'd simply said, we should stop celebrating war, then I'd completely agree, but to pick out one side is to glorify the other. After all, is violence is always the best way of accomplishing one's political objectives? I wonder what would happen if, say, George Bush decided to deploy troops against other Americans to enforce his own unique concepts of "family Values". Imagine if Roe v. Wade was overturned, and New York State decided to continue allowing abortions. Would it be the right thing to send troops in to force the state to comply?

The truth is that no side in the Civil War can claim to have absolute moral superiority. Sure, the North eliminated slavery on the books... by torching cities, raping, pillaging and killing. Meanwhile, children were still dying in northern factories under conditions no better than that of Slavery. This double standard continues to this day in the form of Wal-Mart and other companies overseas. The U.S. didn't eliminate slavery, we outsourced it. I also find it horrific to celebrate a man like George Armstrong Custer, who willingly was an agent of the genocide of Native Americans.

Economics is an extremely powerful tool. I really questions how long the south would have survived it the North had simply placed an embargo on them. They could have passed a law that the U.S. that prohibited interstate commerce of products made by slave labor. After all, what's the point of growing cotton if no one will buy it?

To this day Americans automatically assume that any act of war is justified to enforce our own notions of ethics. It's therefore not surprising that our reaction to coal miners striking in West Virginia was to drop bombs on them. (After all, they were rebels too, right?) Nor is the current conflict in Iraq very surprising. After all, wasn't it justified to remove an evil dictator and free the Iraqi people? There can be no "higher ground" when violence is used to accomplish one's political aims, no matter what the objective. Even when necessary, it should never be glorified. Besides, the real Civil War wasn't won by the likes of Custer, it was won by people like Martin Luther King Jr., who was born in heart of the South. Now that is part of our Southern heritage worth celebrating

As for celebrating Confederate history, I would take issue with the term "celebrate", but I do think there are good reasons for remembering this bloody conflict, and the role of Confederate Soldiers. After all, they were real flesh an blood people like you and me. This conflict split my state down the middle, and put brothers against brothers. To simply sweep this history under the rug and dehumanize those people, is to set up the conditions for repeating this tragic chapter in our nation's history.

Posted by Lonnie | April 8, 2008 2:04 PM

There's nothing worse than someone who denies the ability of others to celebrate their heritage except someone who believes their view of that heritage is the only one that has worth.

Posted by retiredvet | April 14, 2008 2:30 PM

Heritage

Comments (188)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories