prinCZess
Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
*American officers. As the war established.
Confederate history month
- Thread starter FriedCFour
- Start date
Abhishekm
Well-known member
I'll be honest, stuff like condemning nations and civilizational events by such petty things like modern convention just makes me bored more and more these days.
Like how do you make things this epic or historical as boring as a mandatory ecology class taken by an idiot who thinks owning a car is as evil as running a gas chamber especially for lost puppies.
Thats becoming a theme in these threads. Just ruins threads dang it.
Like how do you make things this epic or historical as boring as a mandatory ecology class taken by an idiot who thinks owning a car is as evil as running a gas chamber especially for lost puppies.
Thats becoming a theme in these threads. Just ruins threads dang it.
Last edited:
No, the reasons for the Cvil War were very simple; people pretend it's complex to try to make the Confederacy 'less bad'.
The South wanted to keep slavery going, and growing, in the new states that were being added in the West, because the economy and lifestyle of the plantation class depended on it. The North was industrializing fast, was economically outstripping the South, and had a growing abolitionist movement.
Then Lincoln was elected, huffy South states decided to succeed, because of the writing on the wall for slavery under Lincoln's abolitionist views, and fired the first shots at Fort Sumpter when the US wouldn't let the successionists take Federal property.
The grunt on the ground for the Confederacy might get a pass the way many Wehrmacht soldiers did, but like the Wehrmacht, they were not completely unaware of what they were fighting for.
But the CSA leadership, and the cause (or now Lost Cause mythology) it represent, should only be spoken of in shame and as a lesson on what not to do or not to be.
About the only 'positive' thing to come out of the CSA was the limited sub research the had due to the Hunley.
They lost that title, and right to claim any honor related to the US, when they joined the Confederacy.
Confederate officers deserve no honor or respect, unless it's for trying to keep there people in the Union, like Sam Houston did.
Whatever 'healing' people thought happened after the war was an illusion brought about because Lincoln's successor was afraid of an insurgency if he tried to actually pursue a legit case against many in the CSA. Not to mention how Reconstruction was botched badly, and led to fucking Jim Crow laws for decades to come, while former CSA leadership got off with fucking relative slap on the wrist compared to what damage thier cause did to the US.
Bacle the civil war killed entire perentages of america's population.
After the war people for the most part just wanted it to be over, as for me, its been over a hundred years and I have a policy that you should never hold a grudge longer then a 100 years, and yes I know that means in 2045 I will have to forgive germany for the worlds worst camping experience but I consider that a reasonable price for my standard.
We learn from the past, but we shouldn't let it blind us to the present.
After the war people for the most part just wanted it to be over, as for me, its been over a hundred years and I have a policy that you should never hold a grudge longer then a 100 years, and yes I know that means in 2045 I will have to forgive germany for the worlds worst camping experience but I consider that a reasonable price for my standard.
We learn from the past, but we shouldn't let it blind us to the present.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
*Literal traitors who are only famous for the literal treason they committed.
@Bacle They were still soldiers fighting for thier liberty hood or the people who would pay them.
Do you feel sorry for those 16 hear olds forced to fight for Germany in ww2? What about the litersly 11 year oldd who had to fight for both the north and south because of the war.
We should honor the dead CSA and USA. Because they both share one aspect. They are Americans.
Do you feel sorry for those 16 hear olds forced to fight for Germany in ww2? What about the litersly 11 year oldd who had to fight for both the north and south because of the war.
We should honor the dead CSA and USA. Because they both share one aspect. They are Americans.
He specifically excepted the soldiers. But yes, like the Wehrmacht, they weren't innocent babes either. Many CSA soldiers were fighting for slavery, even those who didn't have slaves. This is obviously an evil motive. The officers had an even higher percentage of evil motive and more agency, and this goes all the way up to the top, where the leaders of the CSA itself are not only almost universally scum fighting for one of the evilest causes, but also have the most agency to stop this and didn't. The CSA itself, as a nation deserves no honor, as it was founded by, for, and on evil.
Last edited:
I respect anyone who took up arms for something they beilive in.
The SS did. So did the Khmer Rouge. There's your problem. What they believe in is of paramount importance to the morality of what they do.
Yes and no.
Remeber, history is written by the victors. Do you know who helped those victors? The dead lives.
I will always honor a grave of someone that was a soldier. Even commies.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
You've completely missed the point of what I've said in your attempt to black-and-white the issue.
I'm not going to waste my time reiterating this argument with you for the nth time; you've clearly made up your mind, and as best as I can see it is closed to any further thought on the matter.
The confederates were bad people, fighting for an immoral government who's main policy goals were evil, and seen as such at the time, and the union was right to oppose them.
Just a few years later the Union would go on to wage a number of borderline genocidal wars against native american tribes, frequently in direct violation of treaties the United States government had signed in good faith.
History is never as simple as "these were the hood guys, who did good stuff for good reasons for good, and these are the bad guys, that didn't".
No, they're portrayed as complicated because everything is complicated.
And? Let's say that in another timeline, that European Army the EU occasionally talks about has gotten of the ground. When Brexit happens, the UK orders all EU army forces to pack up and leave, and when the foreign army in British terroritory refuses to depart, Britain employs force to make them leave. Is the UK wrong to do that?
At this point, I'm inclined to think the so called "Lost Cause Myth" is just that, a myth. There never was a "grand lost cause of the south" narrative that southern told each other, it's just something people made up to give themselves an excuse to hate. I lived in the south for 20+ years, knew people that flew the confederate flag, and never once heard a word of this so called "Lost Cause". The archetypal lost cause movie, Gone with the Wind, clearly paints the south as a bunch of honor obsessed idiots that ran headlong into an unwinnable war out that thier pride refused to let them see.
I don't thibk there was much in the way of Hunley spin off tech or future development based off her, the design was simply too primitive to have much use.
Now, Ironclads, and the civil war provided a proving ground that would demonstrate and pace the way for the next big leap in naval warship design, yes.
You are projecting a modern understanding of what the US is and what it means onto people of that era, that did not share that perspective. You have no idea what it's like to grapple with the issues of loyalties they did, and even less of a right to condemn them for choosing the "wrong" side. Could you pick up a gun and go to war against your neighbors, your friends and family and home?
This is just naive. We got off lucky the civil war ended with as little recrimination and retributive warfare, and that a mere few decades later, we were able to look on on another as countryman again.
Yes, Johnson was a racist prick thst didn't really care about fighting for civil rights. So were most people back then, which is why Reconstruction actually failed. It's easy to pin all the blame on Johnson, but it's not fair or accurate.
Just a few years later the Union would go on to wage a number of borderline genocidal wars against native american tribes, frequently in direct violation of treaties the United States government had signed in good faith.
History is never as simple as "these were the hood guys, who did good stuff for good reasons for good, and these are the bad guys, that didn't".
No, they're portrayed as complicated because everything is complicated.
And? Let's say that in another timeline, that European Army the EU occasionally talks about has gotten of the ground. When Brexit happens, the UK orders all EU army forces to pack up and leave, and when the foreign army in British terroritory refuses to depart, Britain employs force to make them leave. Is the UK wrong to do that?
At this point, I'm inclined to think the so called "Lost Cause Myth" is just that, a myth. There never was a "grand lost cause of the south" narrative that southern told each other, it's just something people made up to give themselves an excuse to hate. I lived in the south for 20+ years, knew people that flew the confederate flag, and never once heard a word of this so called "Lost Cause". The archetypal lost cause movie, Gone with the Wind, clearly paints the south as a bunch of honor obsessed idiots that ran headlong into an unwinnable war out that thier pride refused to let them see.
I don't thibk there was much in the way of Hunley spin off tech or future development based off her, the design was simply too primitive to have much use.
Now, Ironclads, and the civil war provided a proving ground that would demonstrate and pace the way for the next big leap in naval warship design, yes.
You are projecting a modern understanding of what the US is and what it means onto people of that era, that did not share that perspective. You have no idea what it's like to grapple with the issues of loyalties they did, and even less of a right to condemn them for choosing the "wrong" side. Could you pick up a gun and go to war against your neighbors, your friends and family and home?
This is just naive. We got off lucky the civil war ended with as little recrimination and retributive warfare, and that a mere few decades later, we were able to look on on another as countryman again.
Yes, Johnson was a racist prick thst didn't really care about fighting for civil rights. So were most people back then, which is why Reconstruction actually failed. It's easy to pin all the blame on Johnson, but it's not fair or accurate.
prinCZess
Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
No, they didn't. Point of fact, that's what the war was over. Calling them Americans does more disservice to the Confederacy and its cause of removing that title from themselves in slavery's name than does your insistent labeling of them with their preferred, separate, term for themselves.
They were Americans with a differing conception of the state-centered nature of the founding charter and (wider) attachment to slavery as an institution.
The damage their cause did to the country preexisted the CSA and is a common American one (having been promoted, excused and compromised with by Americans through decades before and after the war). Wishing for a better Reconstruction is well and good--it alongside the aftermath of Britain's abolition in the 1830s are few points where a fundamental shift could have taken place. But in both cases it failed because of broad American racism (direct in the South, more indirect in the North), not because of the leniency afforded to the so-called Confederates or a one-man boogeyman of Johnson (such leniency would probably have been necessary in any successful Reconstruction as well in the same way pay-offs were necessary for Britain's abolition despite how distasteful such was. The creation of martyrs who died in custody of an occupying power is more damaging than former 'Confederates' touring preaching reintegration).
Colloquially, sure. *Literally* not actually. Hence the decided lack of treason trials against Confederates (Jefferson Davis most famously as one attempted but abandoned because of the prosecutors decided fear that they'd lose and create a legal opening for secession and undermine everything).
Or, more specifically to officers, hence the post-war change in clauses of the oath of enlistment to reference the US as a federal, unitary entity ('the United States') instead of the confederal assembly of states ('these United States') that had been the point of contention and led to officers abandoning service to the one when the other was no longer among the 'them' being referenced and, under their interpretation, no longer party to the Constitution as a 'foreign entity' because they didn't believe themselves Americans when their states said so.
The war settled that question with them as Americans throughout--their states were just wrong. 14th Amendment and policy post-war settling the question of future secession as treasonous (provided it lacked Congress' consent).
Americans don't apply ex-post facto laws.
This is also correct.
Would that the evils of the policy were more widely seen at the time or before, things may have turned out better for all parties.
The men who actually fought the war and took the surrender of the Confederates thought differently. I think if the guys who actually spent five years killing each other and fighting and losing friends to each other could give the confederates dignity and honor in peace it’s fucking ridiculous that you 160 years later to say they should have none.
The people who took the surrender didn't know about Jim Crow laws or the Klan that would form; we do.
Just because generals and officers were able to reconcile doesn't change the horrors the the CSA's legacy would inflict on the nation for decades to come, or how disgusting the CSA's goals were.
The average CSA grunt might get a pass like Wehrmacht soldiers did, but we should have gone Nuremberg on the officers and political leaders.
segregation wasn’t southern only. The Klan wasn’t everyone or even most people.
The CSAs goals weren’t that disgusting for the time, owning slaves in it of itself doesn’t make you evil or a monster. And the legacy of the Union victory has inflicted probably more damage than allowing the split in how it massively increased the federal governments power and that legacy.
And I think that’s a pretty gross fantasy. Reconciliation with fellow Americans is better and Nuremberg and the damage that occupation has done to Germany itself has been immense.
Did you just fucking say we shouldn't have held the Nuremberg trails?!
Holy shit, just when I thought you could get any scummier.
no I said the legacy of the occupation and Nuremberg trials, mainly DeNazification, has led to future problems with Germany, which you can see within the EU, the refugee crisis, and the treatment of AfD among others. I say that because it also is something that shouldn’t have been done to the CSA who weren’t remotely comparable to Nazi Germany either. I’m generally not a big fan of victors justice and trials after wars and what is and isn’t a war crime is a lot more loose and manufactured than what is and isnt normal crime.
Largo
Well-known member
I mean, I'm generally not a fan of the Nuremberg trials.....and instead prefer Churchill's suggestion that we should have just shot all the top bastards after the war.
And while I think reconciliation was better than going Nuremberg, that doesn't mean that I think it's a good solution. From my perspective, it's little better than acknowledging that we cannot eradicate the Taliban entirely and so have to negotiate something with them, and I don't see much difference between the Confederate leadership and those people.
And while I think reconciliation was better than going Nuremberg, that doesn't mean that I think it's a good solution. From my perspective, it's little better than acknowledging that we cannot eradicate the Taliban entirely and so have to negotiate something with them, and I don't see much difference between the Confederate leadership and those people.
They weren’t that different in legacy or ideology. Confederates were Americans and hailed from much the same places and cultures that produced our founding fathers. The idea that they are as foreign as the Taliban to the Americans is bizarre to me.