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.

larry_cockerham

Southern Gentleman, Lest We Forget, 2011
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
10,182
Location
Nashville
The 'Lost Cause' mythos allows southerners to celebrate, the CW and their ancestors' participation in it, with a clear conscience.
I can't buy that one either, if you're tring to sell it. Lost Cause rarely, close to never, is discussed here in Tennessee. Our cause, that of merely trying to keep the memory of the civil war alive, lest we repeat it, ain't lost by any means. Just an opinion, but one shared by hundreds of thousands of other Southerners.
 

bama46

Captain
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
6,369
Location
Alabamian, living behind enemy lines in Illinois
I can't buy that one either, if you're tring to sell it. Lost Cause rarely, close to never, is discussed here in Tennessee. Our cause, that of merely trying to keep the memory of the civil war alive, lest we repeat it, ain't lost by any means. Just an opinion, but one shared by hundreds of thousands of other Southerners.

Larry,
I completely agree...
Our ancestors fought their war, we do not need to refight it, our task to keep the memories alive..


Ed
 

Elennsar

Colonel
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,818
Location
California
When that goes beyond honoring their courage and sacrifices into the issue of the Cause, it is...well, going beyond merely honoring brave men for their bravery.

It is not necessary to say that one's ancestors (and I mean that in general) were morally acceptable to say that they were brave and endured much hardship and that those are things you are proud of/impressed by.

So why does this go beyond honoring those traits into presenting them as "gallant and honorable souls, akin to the knights of old" and going on about how they fought for their wives, daughters, mothers, sisters and all that other chivalrous stuff (to use the style of language used by some early praisers)?

One can admire courage and dedication without admiring what that was done for. So why does it go beyond that?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,394
Location
Near Kankakee
Time out. Revisit this thread tomorrow. Any more today gets it closed.

Ole
 

OpnDownfall

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

Among most Southerners, who care about the CW and their ancestors, the 'Lost Cause' mythos is accepted dogma and their discussions are all from the same book (many probably not even aware that their beliefs and proofs are from the mythos) But let another express another view and you hear the myths from the 'Lost Cause' handbook.
The 'Lost Cause' is about the cause for which the southern ancestors fought, suffered and died for.
Merely remembering that their ancestors fought, suffered and died in a Cw, is not enough, if it were, there would be no need for a legend of a 'Lost Cause'.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,491
Location
Right here.
Well, I guess when you leave out adjectives like "aggressive" and "unwarranted" you have a point.
Can you show me an objective way to determine which wars are "aggressive" and "unwarranted?"


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.
But the central point is that the violence against members of those groups is perpetrated because they are members of those groups and for no other reason, not because they happen to live on the territory that's desired. There is no fundamental difference between the definition you posted and the definition I posted.


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.
I'm afraid you are misusing the definition of genocide.


Certainly it's not from the persepctive of self-justifying oligarchies.

It would depend on the particulars of the given situation.
No, any killing done as part of warfare is not murder. Killing may be done during a war that is not part of the warfare. That may be considered murder. But that is quite different from killing done as a part of warfare.

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."
It seems to me they could read the confederate constitution as well as anyone else could.


Except that he made the might-makes-right remark in 1862, AFTER Lincoln's proclamation of selective emancipation.
I was speaking of his judgment concerning the confederate proposal.


He was stating his opinion as the Emperor of France.
But was he telling the truth?

Regards,
Cash
 
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.
Probably?
Since it didn't actually happen, we're dealing with probabilities, are we not?

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.
Other than the fact that the theoretical emancipation favored by the few in the confederacy was born of desperation in the final months of a war started to perpetuate slavery.

Regards,
Cash
 

Elennsar

Colonel
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,818
Location
California
Other than the fact that the theoretical emancipation favored by the few in the confederacy was born of desperation in the final months of a war started to perpetuate slavery.
A crucial distinction. A willingness to sacrifice slavery to produce soldiers and a belief that slavery must be ended as a moral wrong are two very, very different things.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

EricJacobson

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
563
Location
Spring Hill, TN
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.
Well said, especially in use of the term "political hacks."
 

EricJacobson

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
563
Location
Spring Hill, TN
Larry,
I completely agree...
Our ancestors fought their war, we do not need to refight it, our task to keep the memories alive..


Ed
Ed and Larry,

Agreed. However, many folks right here in Tennessee, and many other places in the South, love to try and refight the war on a regular basis by way of justification. What gets me in a twist is when it is done in a way that somehow makes Federal soldiers into villains or the Union into a monster state.

Eric
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
69
Location
Alabama
Can you show me an objective way to determine which wars are "aggressive" and "unwarranted?"
I think any war initiated for the purpose of acquiring territory and/or wealth would objectively qualify aggressive and unwarranted. The Anglo-French “Second Opium War” and Hitler’s war come immediately to mind here.

But the central point is that the violence against members of those groups is perpetrated because they are members of those groups and for no other reason, not because they happen to live on the territory that's desired. There is no fundamental difference between the definition you posted and the definition I posted.
“For no other reason” is your insertion. The UN definition merely states with “intent to destroy.” “Intent to destroy” would include the deliberate killing of combatants and civilians in aggressive wars. (The UN Charter also recognizes the right of national self-determination. It therefore at least implicitly recognizes a nation’s right to defend itself from foreign aggression.)


The UN was correct to raise the standard very high in this regard. The only alternative would be to argue that Western expansionism isn’t morally contrastable. I doubt there are very many genuinely egalitarian movements in the world that would have much interest in taking that line.

It seems to me they could read the confederate constitution as well as anyone else could.

The Confederate constitution invests in the states the authority to emancipate. Therefore, it would’ve been understood by them that Davis would either have had to sell his emancipation proposal to the states or act unilaterally. Again, the most that the Europeans could therefore have done, had they been genuinely neutral brokers (i.e., qualified to sit in a court of civilized jurisprudence), would’ve been to have responded to the Confederate emancipation-recognition offer with a conditional “yes” or “no.”

I was speaking of his judgment concerning the confederate proposal.

That’s true. That’s why I mentioned his amoral might-makes-right policy statement that was made after Lincoln’s proclamation of selective emancipation.

But was he telling the truth?
He’d played it warm with the Confederates prior to their emancipation offer. He also told Minister Slidell that his recognition policy was tied to Britain’s.

More to the point, however, his aggressive wars against the Chinese and Mexicans negate his bona fides as both a humanitarian and a respecter (i.e., qualified judge) of sovereignty.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Elennsar

Colonel
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,818
Location
California
Again, the most that the Europeans could therefore have done, had they been genuinely neutral brokers (i.e., qualified to sit in a court of civilized jurisprudence), would’ve been to have responded to the Confederate emancipation-recognition offer with a conditional “yes” or “no.”
Or to recognize, as they did historically, that recognition is granted on the basis of whether or not a nation is in fact a legitimately independent nation - emancipation of its slaves would not grant the Confederacy that status.

The Confederacy appealed to a trial by combat in order to establish its status as a nation. If it could not succeed at that test, there was no basis to recognize it, however much one respected or disrespected it as a matter of principle.

Insisting that they should have done any more is trying to make recognition purely a political matter, which is contrary to the idea of judging it objectively.
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
69
Location
Alabama
Since it didn't actually happen, we're dealing with probabilities, are we not?
We're dealing with possibilities only.


Other than the fact that the theoretical emancipation favored by the few in the confederacy was born of desperation in the final months of a war started to perpetuate slavery.
Theoretical emancipation under both the Corwin Amendment and the Confederate government would've had to have been carried out on a state-by-state basis, short of constitutional amendments.

Emancipation in the Confederacy would've encompassed a much greater degree of social change. Therefore, while it's correct that an undetermined number of Confederates were willing to trade away/risk slavery for independence primarily in the late-war period, failure to take into consideration the relative magnitude of the social adjustment required in the South (as opposed to the North) can only produce a distorted image of the political environment in which ardent Confederates had to struggle.

Besides, the Union wasn't exactly merciful when the Native Americans stood in the way of its perceived interests.
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,394
Location
Near Kankakee
Besides, the Union wasn't exactly merciful when the Native Americans stood in the way of its perceived interests.
We haven't forgotten the "Trail of Tears," have we?

I don't like this thread. Haven't, since it was opened. Just another smidgeon and it goes away, permanently.

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

larry_cockerham

Southern Gentleman, Lest We Forget, 2011
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
10,182
Location
Nashville
Ed and Larry,

Agreed. However, many folks right here in Tennessee, and many other places in the South, love to try and refight the war on a regular basis by way of justification. What gets me in a twist is when it is done in a way that somehow makes Federal soldiers into villains or the Union into a monster state.

Eric
Yes, Sir. That resentment to Union "occupation" as you know, remains strong. Since I have ancestors who served in both armies, I'm somewhat caught in the middle. It's a bit difficult for me to fault the US Army for contesting an army that was attempting to destroy them. I do feel some sympathy for US soldiers trying to kill their own kin. Thinking about it, this war was a bit silly.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,115
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
We haven't forgotten the "Trail of Tears," have we?

I don't like this thread. Haven't, since it was opened. Just another smidgeon and it goes away, permanently.

Ole
Ole,

I started this thread YEARS ago to find out why our then present members of the Southern view, felt the way the did about the period, and not as a way to hammer them.

I was truly curious about THEIR reasons and views, and not my own.

To be frank, I was surprised when this old thread resurfaced. But I hope it remains true to its original intent, to let those freely express why they feel the way they do and not to be condemned for it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
69
Location
Alabama
We haven't forgotten the "Trail of Tears," have we?
The Trail of Tears was perpetrated by Confederates?

As I indicated, I was comparing governments.

Ruthless greed has tragically never been confined to any one corner of the world. I don’t think a claim to the contrary was implied in the mere request that the two governments be understood in some kind of realistic context.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,394
Location
Near Kankakee
As I indicated, I was comparing governments.
Besides, the Union wasn't exactly merciful when the Native Americans stood in the way of its perceived interests.
Doesn't look like a comparison of governments. Open another thread if you want to talk about Native Americans.

Ole
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
69
Location
Alabama
Doesn't look like a comparison of governments. Open another thread if you want to talk about Native Americans.

Ole
The original quote was ONE sentence of a post that had to do with the Corwin Amendment.

No, responding to a comment isn't the same thing as taking over a thread. The alternative would've been let your characterization go unchallenged. I don't think that's an acceptable standard for a democratic forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top