The Lost Cause

It seems there is a desire to 'demonise' those who fought for the Confederacy...mainly relating to the issue of slavery. Perhaps I am mistaken in assuming this. Therefore, if we are going to 'demonise' these men, then it follows we must also 'demonise' those on the Union side who decided Emancipation was not what they were fighting for and laid down their arms accordingly. Maybe the word 'demonise' is too strong a word in context of the discussion. If that is the case, I apologize for the use of the word. I will try more balanced in my rhetoric in future.

How did you get from what I posted to this? This seems to come more from a preset agenda, than to be any kind of analysis of my post, where I provided direct quotes for your perusal and comparison. Is it your opinion that publicly quoting what people published for the public is demonizing? Yankees had zero to do with either the Texas Declarations of causes, or the various inscriptions placed around the State Capital.
 
How did you get from what I posted to this? This seems to come more from a preset agenda, than to be any kind of analysis of my post, where I provided direct quotes for your perusal and comparison. Is it your opinion that publicly quoting what people published for the public is demonizing? Yankees had zero to do with either the Texas Declarations of causes, or the various inscriptions placed around the State Capital.
I think we have misunderstood each other somewhere along the line. I have responded to what was written and you asked me a direct question about what I thought would be the correct position to take. That is how my response has devolved to this point, and placed it in a more general context of attitudes to different sides of the argument. Directly quoting is not the issue here, and preset agendas go both ways. I would like to state that I have no preset agenda, and my previous posts will clearly display that I have attempted to see the arguments from both sides. I hope that will satisfy your concerns.
 
I typed in Neo-abolitionist into my search bar and this popped up from Wikipedia. Guess it is a thing, maybe?
From the article:

"Neoabolitionist (or neo-abolitionist or new abolitionism) is a term used in historiography to characterize historians of race relations motivated by the spirit of racial equality typified by the abolitionists who fought to abolish slavery in the mid-19th century. They write especially about African-American history, slavery, the American Civil War and the Reconstruction Era.

As abolitionists had worked in the 19th century to end slavery and provide equal rights under the
US Constitution to blacks, the new activists worked to enforce constitutional rights for all citizens and restore equality under the law for African Americans, including the practice of suffrage and civil rights.

In the late 20th century some historians emphasized the worlds of African Americans in their own words, in their own communities, to recognize them as agents, not victims. Publishing in the mid-1960s and through the 20th century, a new generation of historians began to revise traditional accounts of slavery in the United States, reconstruction,
racial segregation and Jim Crow laws. Some major historians began to apply the term "neoabolitionist" to such historians, and some of this group identified as such."


 
As I'm reading this topic (and learning new things) I think I'm not liking all the labels being used! UGH! I'm understanding the origin of the Lost Cause thing after the war with Jubal Early and his writings. But, when did the moving of the term forward and into present happen? What about Neo-Confederate? Didn't think there were any Confederates anymore let alone "new" ones? Have these terms always been in use? On the flip side are there any terms like Neo-Abolitionists or Pro Unionist that are used equally? Maybe there are other threads that have addressed this?

I use the term, "Neo-Unionist" sometimes, but only in these forums. Honestly, it's the only way I know to mock the silliness of "Neo-Confederate" and that is my point. They're all dead, AshleyMel and have been for a very long time. There is no "neo" anything with respect to the war. :smile:

I typed in Neo-abolitionist into my search bar and this popped up from Wikipedia. Guess it is a thing, maybe?
From the article:

"Neoabolitionist (or neo-abolitionist or new abolitionism) is a term used in historiography to characterize historians of race relations motivated by the spirit of racial equality typified by the abolitionists who fought to abolish slavery in the mid-19th century. They write especially about African-American history, slavery, the American Civil War and the Reconstruction Era.

Similarly, I would be very cautious of this. "Historiography" should make any thinking person suspicious. The more commonly used term, I think, is "spinning." YMMV.
 
It seems there is a desire to 'demonise' those who fought for the Confederacy

Some do. Most of the time that is privileging the present.

More commonly, people recognize that most of those who fought for the Confederacy did so valiantly and sincerely yet for a cause that was and is wrong.

Honestly, it's the only way I know to mock the silliness of "Neo-Confederate" and that is my point. They're all dead, AshleyMel and have been for a very long time. There is no "neo" anything with respect to the war.

Tell that to the guys with CBF flags declaring the South shall rise again.

If we have ****s why can't we have neo-Confederates?

"Historiography" should make any thinking person suspicious.

Historiography is simply the history of history i.e. how the narrative, emphasis, and conclusions about a person or event have changed over time. Historians who expressed similar views, especially during a particular period of time, are often described as a group. Per the description given, "Neo-abolitionists" in African-American history are a school of historical interpretation similar to how the Dunning School is a school of thought about Reconstruction.
 
I typed in Neo-abolitionist into my search bar and this popped up from Wikipedia. Guess it is a thing, maybe?
From the article:

"Neoabolitionist (or neo-abolitionist or new abolitionism) is a term used in historiography to characterize historians of race relations motivated by the spirit of racial equality typified by the abolitionists who fought to abolish slavery in the mid-19th century. They write especially about African-American history, slavery, the American Civil War and the Reconstruction Era.

As abolitionists had worked in the 19th century to end slavery and provide equal rights under the
US Constitution to blacks, the new activists worked to enforce constitutional rights for all citizens and restore equality under the law for African Americans, including the practice of suffrage and civil rights.

In the late 20th century some historians emphasized the worlds of African Americans in their own words, in their own communities, to recognize them as agents, not victims. Publishing in the mid-1960s and through the 20th century, a new generation of historians began to revise traditional accounts of slavery in the United States, reconstruction,
racial segregation and Jim Crow laws. Some major historians began to apply the term "neoabolitionist" to such historians, and some of this group identified as such."



Wikipedia is written by anyone, not necessarily anyone who has any credibility.
 
Wikipedia is written by anyone, not necessarily anyone who has any credibility

Wikipedia also has pages on the Lost Cause and Neo Confederates. It can be very hard to discern which articles to view as credible but I do think there are other threads on that very topic.
 
Wikipedia also has pages on the Lost Cause and Neo Confederates. It can be very hard to discern which articles to view as credible but I do think there are other threads on that very topic.

I wouldn't trust Wikipedia by itself.
 
The treasure of virtue, if I had to sum it up, is that the North/the Union/the United States gains an almost religious absolution for all the crimes and sins they committed during the war and during Reconstruction (and defenders won't admit that they did anything wrong), because freeing the slaves and making them citizens and giving them voting rights overrides all other considerations. Just as the South will forever be the villains of American history because of slavery, the North will forever be noble and pure because they ended slavery.

It's the counterpoint to the excesses in the Lost Cause. Both sides have some mythology they cling to.

Pure personal opinion though that's the best explanation I've seen. Unfortunately both terms get misused. Much like "Lost Cause" can be unfairly applied "Treasury of Virtue" can often be unfairly applied to anyone being critical of the Confederacy.

Personally one of biggest "tells" in my opinion on either end of people unfairly using those terms is someone who sees criticism of North/South and without asking or discussing applies such a term as if that person must only hold criticisms of one side of that.

Basically it's a "tell" for me when someone treats praising and/or criticizing the North vs. South as a zero sum game.

Someone can be critical of Southern slavery while also being critical of Northern treatment of workers. Additionally if I criticize aspects of how the South progressed towards war that doesn't mean I also don't have praise for them as well.

An additional "tell" (for either side again) is treating the word and idea of slavery as an insult. A good portion of people inside and outside of the South didn't view slavery as a bad thing, or at least deemed it purely acceptable at minimum all the way to a righteous good on the other end.

On one end to point out certain motivations of slavery is not to insult the South. Someone even thinking that is applying modern standards to that time period.

Additionally on the other end to use that term/idea as an insult equally shows applying a modern standard to that time and period and a possible ignorance.

Both sides make it very difficult to talk about slavery in that time period (whether about the Civil War or not) since they can't separate their personal disgust with a system vs the historical context and information of a system for a specific time.
 
I use the term, "Neo-Unionist" sometimes, but only in these forums. Honestly, it's the only way I know to mock the silliness of "Neo-Confederate" and that is my point. They're all dead, AshleyMel and have been for a very long time. There is no "neo" anything with respect to the war. :smile:



Similarly, I would be very cautious of this. "Historiography" should make any thinking person suspicious. The more commonly used term, I think, is "spinning." YMMV.
Is your argument that no poster on this forum wiuld not like to return to the days of ****? Is your argument that no poster on this forum does not defend **** and the Confederacy which tried to form an an independent nation based on racial supremacy? Are you also arguing that their are no **** organisations that fly the CBF?
Leftyhunter
 
from my own post: "both sides would like to consider themselves 'virtuous' (which is probably why they may have coined terms to 'insult' the other as well...just sayin')". On reflection, the word 'characterise' would have been a better one to use here, as opposed to 'insult'. I have been learning about 'loaded' words lately (thanks @JerseyBart :smile: ) and this appears to be one of them. In my haste to respond, I have chosen my words badly. Forgive me.
 
Similarly, I would be very cautious of this. "Historiography" should make any thinking person suspicious. The more commonly used term, I think, is "spinning." YMMV.

Of course, those who actually know what historiography is will disagree with this nonsense.
 
They're all dead, AshleyMel and have been for a very long time. There is no "neo" anything with respect to the war.
If we have ****s why can't we have neo-Confederates?
Godwin Award for you. Congratulations.

You didn't answer the question.

All the Nazis from the 1940s have been dead for a very long time. Yet we have **** groups in Germany and the US.

All the Confederates from the 1860s have been dead for a very long time. Why can't there be neo-Confederates too? Is there a statute of limitations?

Heck, I don't think there are any, but there's no reason we couldn't have neo-Torys in America today (Americans who think the American Revolution was a mistake).

Neo-Ottomanism is a thing and the Ottoman Empire has been gone for nearly a century. There are Neo-Soviets in Russia despite how badly that worked out.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top