Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » "Why do people believe myths about the Confederacy?" (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: "Why do people believe myths about the Confederacy?"
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fascinating read on the rewriting of history by the losing side. A testament to the power of small groups of motivated people.

washingtonpost.com

quote:

History is the polemics of the victor, William F. Buckley allegedly said. Not so in the United States, at least not regarding the Civil War. As soon as Confederates laid down their arms, some picked up their pens and began to distort what they had done, and why. Their resulting mythology went national a generation later and persists — which is why a presidential candidate can suggest that slavery was somehow pro-family, and the public believes that the war was mainly fought over states’ rights.

The Confederates won with the pen (and the noose) what they could not win on the battlefield: the cause of white supremacy and the dominant understanding of what the war was all about. We are still digging ourselves out from under the misinformation that they spread, which has manifested in both our history books and our public monuments.

quote:
In fact, the Thin Grey Line came through Montgomery and adjoining Frederick counties at least three times, en route to Antietam, Gettysburg and Washington. Lee’s army expected to find recruits and help with food, clothing and information. They didn’t. Maryland residents greeted Union soldiers as liberators when they came through on the way to Antietam. Recognizing the residents of Frederick as hostile, Confederate cavalry leader Jubal Early demanded and got $300,000 from them lest he burn their town, a sum equal to at least $5,000,000 today. Today, however, Frederick boasts what it calls the “Maryland Confederate Memorial,” and the manager of the Frederick cemetery — filled with Union and Confederate dead — told me in an interview, “Very little is done on the Union side” around Memorial Day. “It’s mostly Confederate.”
quote:
Teaching or implying that the Confederate states seceded for states’ rights is not accurate history. It is white, Confederate-apologist history. It bends — even breaks — the facts of what happened. Like other U.S. history textbooks, “Journey” needs to be de-Confederatized. So does the history test we give to immigrants who want to become U.S. citizens. Item 74 asks, “Name one problem that led to the Civil War.” It then gives three acceptable answers: “slavery, economic reasons, and states’ rights.” If by “economic reasons” it means issues about tariffs and taxes, which most people infer, then two of its three “correct answers” are wrong! No other question on this 100-item test has more than one “right” answer. The reason is not because the history is unclear, but because neo-Confederates still wielded considerable influence in our culture and our Congress until quite recently, when a mass of politicians rushed to declare the Confederate flag unsuitable for display on government grounds.


[ July 01, 2015, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: philnotfil ]

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suppose the interesting part is how quickly a losing side can pivot to reframe the conflict. Any side not ahnialated is going to attempt to influence the narative. I expect the unique part would be the speed at which it was determined a new narative was required and how cohesive it was out the gate.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What else are they going to believe?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is a human need to feel validated in our individual beliefs. The southern conservatives have have a need to have their romantic vision of the "Old South" confirmed. Half or twisted truths become sacred truths and opposing truths become lies when their belief systems are questioned.

Some of my favorites:

Happy Darkies
Kind Slave Owners
The Civil War was not about Slavery.
The Battle Flag is not a racist symbol.
White Males are the oppressed.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think even those who are not invested in romantic "Old South" have trouble contemplating the horrors of slavery. Vox recently ran an article about it.

There are lots of examples there of how people unconsciously look for angles on slavery that make them feel less distressed about it. "Were these good slave masters?" really speaks volumes, if you think about it.

It doesn't help that the American history we are taught is designed to make us feel patriotic. We don't get practice at confronting problems in our own heritage.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I found many people I know were shocked when they watched the movie "12 years a slave". I wondered why they were surprised
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pretty amazing that republicans were so desperate to keep slaves that they tried to defy the federal government and incite the bloodiest war in history,
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nice try, Rafi, but we're all too educated here to fall for that obvious error.

Just remember the old Buick slogan: This is not your father's Republican Party. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Honestly, how many times must it be explained to you that, in the hundred years after the Civil War, the Republican Party switched sides on the issue of civil rights?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More specifically, Rafi, the Republicans incorporated the culture of racism as an intentional strategy - they chose to embody policies and messages that appealed to racists for political gain.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Honestly, how many times must it be explained to you that, in the hundred years after the Civil War, the Republican Party switched sides on the issue of civil rights?

And- to be clear and prevent another spurious claim that gets trotted out when this comes up- by Republican part, we mean the actual political party as defined by the politician and leadership, not the voter base that registers to vote with it and pick among the choices that the party leadership presents to them.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Honestly, how many times must it be explained to you that, in the hundred years after the Civil War, the Republican Party switched sides on the issue of civil rights?

Absolutely! I can easily search out and see all during the civil rights movement of the 60's the political affiliations of those that fought against civil rights. Can you?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Nice try, Rafi, but we're all too educated here to fall for that obvious error.

Just remember the old Buick slogan: This is not your father's Republican Party. [Smile]

I'm just curious how far we've gotten down the road of historical revisionism. Looks like we're almost all the way there.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Honestly, how many times must it be explained to you that, in the hundred years after the Civil War, the Republican Party switched sides on the issue of civil rights?

Absolutely! I can easily search out and see all during the civil rights movement of the 60's the political affiliations of those that fought against civil rights. Can you?
Yes, southern democrats were more likely to be opposed to the civil rights act. This was due to the vote being split, not along party lines, but along geographic lines. The southern states were overwhelmingly democrat at the time. They were also overwhelmingly against the civil rights act. Not because they were democrats, but because they were southerners.

Another useful bit of history is that the passing of the civil rights act, perceived in the south as being pushed by northern democrats and republicans, led to the Republicans adopting opposition to such things as a southern strategy and winning big.

The civil rights act (and the voting rights act of the next year) were the last huzzahs of the non-racist Republican party, after which they switched strategies to take advantage of the discontent among southern democrats.

But if it makes you feel better, feel free to ignore that part of the history and just focus on Republican votes for the civil rights act.

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rafi is the first person to mention Republicans or Democrats in this thread.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By the way, I am a big fan of the Republican Party of the 1860's and early 1870's. And I think that they were pretty strong in the era of Teddy Roosevelt, until he broke with the party.

It seems we all agree that those who side with racist elements are in the wrong. Now who would that be today..?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Rafi is the first person to mention Republicans or Democrats in this thread.

Yes, it's true. I'm the first yo specifically mention it out loud. Do you really think this historical revision represenrpted by this thread is not about identity politics and creating a new, actual myth about to divide people?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
By the way, I am a big fan of the Republican Party of the 1860's and early 1870's. And I think that they were pretty strong in the era of Teddy Roosevelt, until he broke with the party.

It seems we all agree that those who side with racist elements are in the wrong. Now who would that be today..?

Who dominates control of a education system that routinely fails the black community and condemns them to illiteracy? Who promotes a entitlement mentality and keeps black Americans mired in poverty? Who promotes the aburdities iof white privelige and micro aggressions to pander to black frustrations? There's your answer...
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you really think this historical revision represenrpted by this thread is not about identity politics and creating a new, actual myth about to divide people?
I don't. Perhaps not everyone is a bad person?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rafi, you are not a credible spokesperson for those subject to racism.

Those racists who glorify the Confederate cause are a powerful force in today's Republican Party. Heck, the #2 polling candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination is wildly racist, and none of the ~20 other official candidates are willing to call him out on it.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To argue that Union fought for "civil rights generally is exactly the same lebel of revisionist history-pimping turd that the modern confederate sheetheads want us to swallow.

No, kate, the civil war has no bearing on same sex marriage or anything else that lefties want to trot out as a civil right.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Rafi is the first person to mention Republicans or Democrats in this thread.

Is it OK to be the second person in the room to piss in the air conditioning vent? Has the standard of Ornerian become: marginally arguably less distorted than Rafi?

[ July 04, 2015, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wha..?? Were we discussing that in this thread?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No idea what you're on about, Pete. Rafi came in reacting to something that nobody said.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
the civil war has no bearing on same sex marriage or anything else that lefties want to trot out as a civil right.

Where did anyone imply this in the thread?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
the civil war has no bearing on same sex marriage or anything else that lefties want to trot out as a civil right.

Where did anyone imply this in the thread?
HHere, where Kate referred to Civil Rights as a single "issue" which according to Kate, was championed in its entirety by the 1860 martial law declaring Republicans, and is championed today by the 1st and 2nd amendment denying, patiot act renewing Democrats.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I firmly believe that out of the Union rank and file who were not fighting out of fear of being shot for desertion, the vast majority were fighting to end slavery, and that this was as righteous a cause as has ever been fought over since the dawn of history. But the idea that a single american political party has ever unequivocally represented "THE ISSUE OF CIVIL RIGHTS" is more kool aid than i can swallow.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anybody else think that is what I was talking about?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not me, but to be fair Pete did just get back. Internet forum version of jet lag. [Smile]
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Rafi is the first person to mention Republicans or Democrats in this thread.

Yes, it's true. I'm the first yo specifically mention it out loud. Do you really think this historical revision represenrpted by this thread is not about identity politics and creating a new, actual myth about to divide people?
Well at lest you're honest about your motivations here, which is more than can be said for others pushing the Southern Strategy style revisionism that you arguing from.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you sure he's pushing that? As your statement seems to include him as a subset. Calling attention to hypocrisy, even if it's subconscious (which is likely the norm when considering revisionist history) does not throw you automatically into the other camp.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
the civil war has no bearing on same sex marriage or anything else that lefties want to trot out as a civil right.

Where did anyone imply this in the thread?
HHere, where Kate referred to Civil Rights as a single "issue" which according to Kate, was championed in its entirety by the 1860 martial law declaring Republicans, and is championed today by the 1st and 2nd amendment denying, patiot act renewing Democrats.
Could you quote the post where that is said? I scanned through the thread and couldn't find it.

Edit:
We appear to have two choices
quote:
What else are they going to believe?
and
quote:
Honestly, how many times must it be explained to you that, in the hundred years after the Civil War, the Republican Party switched sides on the issue of civil rights?
I'm not sure how any of what Pete wrote above could be drawn from either of these quotes. Could someone help me understand this better?

[ July 06, 2015, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: philnotfil ]

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
quote:
Honestly, how many times must it be explained to you that, in the hundred years after the Civil War, the Republican Party switched sides on the issue of civil rights?
I'm not sure how any of what Pete wrote above could be drawn from either of these quotes. Could someone help me understand this better?
I would suggest it's this quote, and that Pete was suggesting that when Kate said that Republicans switched sides on "the issue of civil rights" she appeared to be lumping all civil rights into the mix. Maybe she should have specified that they switched sides on the issue of civil rights in regards to racism. I think it would be fair to say that the GOP has remained consistently over time in favor of certain kinds of civil rights (for better or worse) such as the 2nd Amendment for example, even if they jumped ship on others.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suppose it's fair to say that the Republicans remain as opposed to quartering troops in their homes as they ever were.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring is correct. Republicans jumped ship on some civil rights e.g. racial issues, but stayed consistent on others (2nd amendment) and remain consistently opposed on others (the GOP's anti first amendment position On flag burning is consistent with 1870s Republican national jingoism).

My point with ssm was to illustrate that Kate's depiction of civil rights as a single monolitic issue that parties had traded places on, was a gross dicto simpliciter.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In a thread specifically about the Confederacy, in a response to "Rafi" talking about the Republicans ending slavery, I assumed you could figure out whose civil rights I was talking about from context.

[ July 07, 2015, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I suppose it's fair to say that the Republicans remain as opposed to quartering troops in their homes as they ever were.

I realise this is a humorous remark but feel I must point out that it should be "property" and not "homes" least we start another myth.
Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The text of the amendment says "house".
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
In a thread specifically about the Confederacy, in a response to "Rafi" talking about the Republicans ending slavery, I assumed you could figure out whose civil rights I was talking about from context.

No. Which modern Republican leaders do you claim seek to restore slavery? Or Polygamy? (The other "relic of barbarism" which the Republican party was founded to oppose).
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which Republican leaders do you think continue to fight for the oppressed and downtrodden?
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1