Why do present-day Southerners have such passion for the 'Lost Cause?'

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Status
Not open for further replies.

OpnDownfall

Cadet
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
2,871
Why do present day Southerners have such passion for the 'Lost Cause'?

A stone-cold, professional hitman, can have a sense of honor and die bravely in a shootout with the police. Is it really enough for the rest of the world to know only that he was honorable and died bravely?
 

Baggage Handler #2

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
3,225
Location
Old Northwest Territory
A stone-cold, professional hitman, can have a sense of honor and die bravely in a shootout with the police. Is it really enough for the rest of the world to know only that he was honorable and died bravely?
Personally, if he was Mossad,KGB, MI 5, or similar, then maybe yeah. If he was a freelancer or that stereo type thing, then not so much.
Remember, we honor the veterans and dead of a number of American foreign policy adventures- actions held in pretty low esteem elsewhere.

While the CS may not have had a country recognized by law, they had sufficient apparatus to act as one.
There is an unnavigable chasm between the CS soldier and JW Booth We shouldn't slander the soldier by forgetting the difference.
 

Glorybound

Major
Retired Moderator
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
9,063
Location
Indiana
A stone-cold, professional hitman, can have a sense of honor and die bravely in a shootout with the police. Is it really enough for the rest of the world to know only that he was honorable and died bravely?
What was the cause for which the shooter placed himself in harm's way? He was a compensated killer who harmed others for money, made a living at it, hardly comparable to a man fighting, killing, and dying for his home, family, and the preservation of the customs, pleasures, and sense of well-being that were drawn from generations of ancestors before him, knowing it was all soon coming to an end.

I'd say that should the world know the circumstances under which this hit-man was whacked by the cops, he would turn out to be less of a sympathetic figure. (less honorable at least in my own sight) Whatever justification he used, if any, for his own false sense of honor may have satisfied him, but not the rest of us.

Perhaps I'm not following your premise well enough. I'm not sure what's being asked I guess. Whatever you asked, that's my answer. :smile:




Lee
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Elennsar

Colonel
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,818
Location
California
For what its worth, my perspective as someone who has no fondness for "the Confederate soldier" but even less fondness for refusing to pay just respect.

You can honor someone as brave, you can honor someone as determined, you can honor someone as capable - etc., etc. - and all of those are generally counted as things worth praise - and still condemn what he fought for.

Its why I have a problem with calling sucidal terrorists "cowards". There are scores of words that can be used to condemn people who blow themselves and others up for their cause. Cowardly isn't one of them.

I wouldn't compare the Confederate soldier to a suicide bomber, but I would point out that you can acknowledge both were brave and self sacrificing and still condemn them aside from that.
 

bama46

Captain
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
6,369
Location
Alabamian, living behind enemy lines in Illinois
For what its worth, my perspective as someone who has no fondness for "the Confederate soldier" but even less fondness for refusing to pay just respect.

You can honor someone as brave, you can honor someone as determined, you can honor someone as capable - etc., etc. - and all of those are generally counted as things worth praise - and still condemn what he fought for.

Its why I have a problem with calling sucidal terrorists "cowards". There are scores of words that can be used to condemn people who blow themselves and others up for their cause. Cowardly isn't one of them.

I wouldn't compare the Confederate soldier to a suicide bomber, but I would point out that you can acknowledge both were brave and self sacrificing and still condemn them aside from that.
I find no reason to condem the confederate soldier
 

Elennsar

Colonel
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,818
Location
California
It will never cease to amaze me that arguing that he was a traitor and that that's something wrong is accepted about as willingly as arguing that he sacrificed babies to the Devil would be if someone had the...I'm not sure what the appropriate word would be, but "gall and ignorance" will have to do, to do it.

And I thought I was in the group (as a person who proudly considers themselves to be politically left wing and strongly internationalist) that undervalued patriotism and loyalty.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

johan_steele

Regimental Armorer
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
14,957
Location
South of the North 40
I'm with you Will & Bama. The average CS soldier has a lot to look at w/ pride. And like anyone else he has his warts too. I'll honor the CS soldier the same way I do the US soldier. Now the political hacks that sent him off to war are another matter.
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
69
Location
Alabama
I will assume that by "aggressive warfare" you mean war started by one nation to seize territory from another nation. Is that accurate?

If so, that is not genocide. In fact, IIRC, the term didn't even exist in the 19th Century. Genocide's definition is the systematic extermination of a national group, a political group, or a cultural group. A war to seize territory does not do that. Those groups would still exist, though under the control of another.



Why could it not have been a recognition that such an offer was illegal by the confederates' own constitution, and thus of no legal value? Why could it not have been a recognition that the confederacy was going to lose and was thus going to fail a fundamental test of independence as a nation?

Regards,
Cash
By “aggressive warfare” I mean the deliberate, unwarranted MASS killings of people for either territorial gain or some other form of perceived gain.

The term didn’t exist until after WW2, if memory serves. However, what’s now known as genocide was practiced by the 19th-century imperialist powers.

Your definition of genocide doesn’t agree with the definition of Article 2 of the United Nations’ “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”. It states the following:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
(emphasis added)

Under these terms, then, the British and French imperialists, in addition to others, practiced genocide.

At the very least, however, aggressive warfare can only amount to mass murder. So whether it’s labeled “mass murder” or “genocide” is, IMO, a point of very superficial distinction.

Article I of the Confederate constitution denied to Congress the authority to interfere with slavery in the states. The individual states, however, retained the right to emancipate. Now, Article IV would’ve required any free Confederate state(s) to have recognized the property “rights” of sojourning slave owners from other Confederate states. Just the same, the Confederate constitution most certainly didn’t prohibit emancipation. Of course, the Confederate constitution was also amendable.

The idea that ANY state has a right to exist only if it has the ability to defend its borders is a complete rejection of the concept of international law as an entity of civilized jurisprudence. It’s akin to arguing that trial by combat has a place in the present legal system.

“We must continue to be lookers-on till the war shall have taken a more decided turn.” - British Prime Minister Palmerston, October 22, 1862 (emphasis added)

Lincoln’s proclamation of selective emancipation was known in Britain at the time Prime Minister Palmerston made that clearly and unmistakably “might makes right” policy declaration. Some qualified judge (of international “law”) he was to give the Confederate emancipation-recognition offer a “fair and impartial” hearing!

Napoleon III also told Minister Slidell that slavery had never been the issue for France.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
69
Location
Alabama
It would have been exactly the same as if nothing happened. The Corwin Amendment did nothing more than codify what was the accepted constitutional interpretation of the time. It did nothing about the extension of slavery into the territories, which was the crux of the argument. The prevailing belief was that without territories to expand into, slavery would perish. Lincoln's goal was the peaceful extinction of slavery. And it doesn't completely rule out a national consensus, to necessarily include some of the slave states, to abolish slavery.

The Corwin Amendment was supposedly itself unamendable, but scholars cast considerable doubt on assertions that anything in the Constitution is really unamendable. All it would take is another amendment repealing the Corwin Amendment and then a follow-up amendment to abolish slavery.



School histories as a whole tend to be incomplete and watered down to virtual uselessness. If we're going to make them complete, why stop at the confederacy's emancipation debate? In 180 days per year, with history taking less than 150 minutes per week on the average, there isn't enough time to fill in all the gaps that need to be filled in. What exists today is the bare minimum to ensure a very basic historical literacy. Nothing more. If you want more, then accept the higher taxes that go with an extended school year and extended school day and paying teachers more for advanced history education.




November of 1864 was very, very late in the war, and it was indeed a last ditch attempt. I disagree that continued slavery would be unenforceable.

Regards,
Cash
I didn’t say that slavery couldn’t conceivably have gradually died out under a regime based on the Corwin Amendment; I said that Southern blacks would’ve had to have suffered slavery for generations longer under such a system. In any case, it wouldn’t “have been exactly the same” had that constitutional entrenchment become law. Such an obstacle to emancipation, even if not theoretically unassailable, would’ve still had to have been removed. At what point in that alternate time line would the collective national will to emancipate have asserted itself as an irresistible force? Well, given that Lincoln, nearly two years into the war (i.e., months after the proclamation of selective emancipation) proposed a gradual emancipation to 1900, I don’t see anything unreasonable in speculating that a United States with the Corwin Amendment, a United States with the planter aristocracy’s position not having been undone by secession, could’ve taken its time….at the terrible expense of the blacks.

I never said that the process of radically upgrading the schools’ curricula should stop with the Confederate emancipation debates.

I agree with William C. Davis’s characterization of Davis’s Danville speech as a call for a partisan-style war.

A government in hiding somewhere in Appalachia would’ve been in no position to have enforced slavery where it was a significant presence. Besides, Davis stated outright his belief in a continuation of the conflict apart from all material considerations (including the continued existence of the Southern people).
 

larry_cockerham

Southern Gentleman, Lest We Forget, 2011
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
10,182
Location
Nashville
I'm with you Will & Bama. The average CS soldier has a lot to look at w/ pride. And like anyone else he has his warts too. I'll honor the CS soldier the same way I do the US soldier. Now the political hacks that sent him off to war are another matter.
Even I can't argue with that. Thank you, Sir.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,491
Location
Right here.
By “aggressive warfare” I mean the deliberate, unwarranted MASS killings of people for either territorial gain or some other form of perceived gain.
Doesn't all warfare involve mass killings of people?


Your definition of genocide doesn’t agree with the definition of Article 2 of the United Nations’ “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”. It states the following:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
(emphasis added)
My definition: "Genocide's definition is the systematic extermination of a national group, a political group, or a cultural group." I see no fundamental difference between the two.

Under these terms, then, the British and French imperialists, in addition to others, practiced genocide.
No, they didn't, since their goal was territory and the existence or nonexistence of population groups in those areas was irrelevant.

At the very least, however, aggressive warfare can only amount to mass murder. So whether it’s labeled “mass murder” or “genocide” is, IMO, a point of very superficial distinction.
By definition warfare is not considered murder.

Article I of the Confederate constitution denied to Congress the authority to interfere with slavery in the states. The individual states, however, retained the right to emancipate.
True. But Davis could not guarantee the action of the individual states.


The idea that ANY state has a right to exist only if it has the ability to defend its borders is a complete rejection of the concept of international law as an entity of civilized jurisprudence. It’s akin to arguing that trial by combat has a place in the present legal system.

“We must continue to be lookers-on till the war shall have taken a more decided turn.” - British Prime Minister Palmerston, October 22, 1862 (emphasis added)
It is a part of international law, not a rejection of it.


Lincoln’s proclamation of selective emancipation was known in Britain at the time Prime Minister Palmerston made that clearly and unmistakably “might makes right” policy declaration. Some qualified judge (of international “law”) he was to give the Confederate emancipation-recognition offer a “fair and impartial” hearing!
I suppose he knew that Davis' offer was illegal, and at best impractical.

Napoleon III also told Minister Slidell that slavery had never been the issue for France.
Was he telling the truth?

Regards,
Cash
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,491
Location
Right here.
I didn’t say that slavery couldn’t conceivably have gradually died out under a regime based on the Corwin Amendment; I said that Southern blacks would’ve had to have suffered slavery for generations longer under such a system.
Certainly longer than having slavery snuffed out as a result of a war. Not any longer than any other scenario that was likely to happen.


In any case, it wouldn’t “have been exactly the same” had that constitutional entrenchment become law. Such an obstacle to emancipation, even if not theoretically unassailable, would’ve still had to have been removed.
Nope. The gradual extinction of slavery would most probably have been done on a state-by-state basis. Near the end the pace could theoretically be quickened by repealing the Corwin Amendment and then ratifying an amendment to abolish slavery. Exactly what would probably happen with no war and no Corwin Amendment with the exception of not having a need to repeal a nonexistent Corwin Amendment.

Regards,
Cash
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Freddy

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
3,315
Location
Worcester, MA
In 1865 when the Confederate government narrowly approved a law to allow Black enlistment it was voluntary, but it required of the slave owner to free his slave for military duty in the Confederate Army. How many slaves were freed by their masters for enlistment?

This was a last ditch and desperate effort to save a sinking ship at best. The war was lost when Lee could not stop Grant from moving South. If the war had been going well for the Confederacy these ideas of Black Emanicpation and Black Enlistment would never have been debated.

See Confederate Emancipation : Southern Plans to Free and Arm Slaves during the Civil War by Bruce C. Levine.
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
69
Location
Alabama
Doesn't all warfare involve mass killings of people?
Well, I guess when you leave out adjectives like "aggressive" and "unwarranted" you have a point.



My definition: "Genocide's definition is the systematic extermination of a national group, a political group, or a cultural group." I see no fundamental difference between the two.
The UN version broadens the definition to include the partial destruction of groups. Its definition also encompasses the destruction of groups via oppression. I welcome it.

No, they didn't, since their goal was territory and the existence or nonexistence of population groups in those areas was irrelevant.
Allowing for the extraordinary possibility that those powers embarked on campaigns of territorial expansion without believing that large-scale death and destruction would inevitably result, they would still have been guilty of genocide at the point they chose to perpetuate conflict after it had become apparent that their policies were producing large numbers of deaths.


By definition warfare is not considered murder.
Certainly it's not from the persepctive of self-justifying oligarchies.

It would depend on the particulars of the given situation.



True. But Davis could not guarantee the action of the individual states.
The discussion with the Europeans never got that far. Besides, the Europeans could at most only have allowed for the possibility of either Davis's inability to persuade the states to emancipate or his unwillingness to carry out an extra-constitutional measure. Therefore, had they been "fair and impartial" judges on the matter, they could only have given the Confederates a conditional "yes" or "no."



I suppose he knew that Davis' offer was illegal, and at best impractical.
Except that he made the might-makes-right remark in 1862, AFTER Lincoln's proclamation of selective emancipation.



Was he telling the truth?
He was stating his opinion as the Emperor of France.
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
69
Location
Alabama
Nope. The gradual extinction of slavery would most probably have been done on a state-by-state basis. Near the end the pace could theoretically be quickened by repealing the Corwin Amendment and then ratifying an amendment to abolish slavery. Exactly what would probably happen with no war and no Corwin Amendment with the exception of not having a need to repeal a nonexistent Corwin Amendment.
Probably?

Now that you mention it, there wasn't exactly a galaxy full of differences between theoretical emancipation under a regime based on the Lincoln-endorsed Corwin Amendment and theoretical emancipation in the Confederacy.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

OpnDownfall

Cadet
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
2,871
Why do present day Southerners have such passion for the 'Lost Cause'?

The 'Lost Cause' mythos allows southerners to celebrate, the CW and their ancestors' participation in it, with a clear conscience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top