The Civil War: A Conspiracy of Amnesia

[Lupino]

On this, the anniversary of the American Civil War, I thought this article appropriate:

The Civil War: ‘A conspiracy of amnesia’

By LEONARD PITTS JR.
lpitts@miamiherald.com
‘‘It is not safe . . . to trust $800 million worth of negroes in the hands of a power which says that we do not own the property . . . So we must get out . . . ”

— The Daily Constitutionalist, Augusta, Ga., Dec. 1, 1860

‘‘[Northerners] have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery  . . . We, therefore, the people of South Carolina . . . have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and other States of North America dissolved.”

— from “Declaration of the Causes of Secession’’

“As long as slavery is looked upon by the North with abhorrence . . . there can be no satisfactory political union between the two sections.”

— New Orleans Bee, Dec. 14, 1860

“Our new government is founded upon . . . the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.”

— Alexander Stephens, “vice president’’ of the Confederacy, March 21, 1861

On Tuesday morning, it will be 150 years since the Civil War began.

The bloodiest war in U.S. history commenced with the bombardment of a fort in Charleston Harbor. President

Abraham Lincoln was careful to define it as a war to restore 11 rebellious southern states to the Union — and only that.

For those 11 states, it was a war for property rights — property being defined as 4 million human beings. They feared the federal government would not allow the business of trading in human beings to expand to the new territories in the West.

By the time the war ended, four years almost to the day later, Lincoln’s view had changed. He had come to see himself and the war he had prosecuted through 48 bitter months of turmoil and tears, as tools of the Almighty’s judgment upon the nation for having allowed the evil of slavery.

The South would change its view as well. It would begin to spin grand, romantic fables of a “Lost Cause’’ that had been fought for “state’s rights’’ or constitutional principle, or any other reason it could invent, so long as it was not slavery. Jefferson Davis, who before the war had flatly declared “the labor of African slaves’’ the cause of the rebellion, would write after the war that slavery had nothing to do with it.

Thus, the South entered a conspiracy of amnesia that, for many, continues to this day. As in Virginia naming April Confederate History Month last year in a proclamation that did not mention slavery. And recent attempts in Mississippi to honor Confederate hero Nathan Bedford Forrest, who led a massacre of unarmed black people and helped found the Ku Klux Klan. And the ‘‘Secession Ball’’ South Carolina hosted in December to, as one man put it, “honor our ancestors for their bravery and tenacity protecting their homes from invasion.”

So this seems an apt moment to speak in memory’s defense. As Confederate battle flags flap from truck grills and monuments, as tourists gather around pigeon-stained statues of dead rebels baking under the Dixie sun, as Southern

apologists seek glory in acts of treason, and as all of the above studiously avoid coming too close to the heart of the matter, to its cause, it is worth remembering that their forebears were not as circumspect.

To the contrary, they said clearly and without shame that they fought for slavery.

If that makes someone uncomfortable, good. It should.

But you do not deal with that discomfort by telling lies of omission about yesterday. You do not deal with it by pretending treason is glory. No, you deal with it by listening to the hard things the past has to say — and learning from them.

This nation took so much from the men and women it kidnapped. It took dignity, it took labor, it took family, it

took home, it took names. In the end, the last thing any of us has is the memory of ourselves we bequeath the future, the reminder that we were here.

And to their everlasting dishonor, some of us want to take that, too.

Miami Herald
So much revisionist and Southern apologist blather is dedicated to turning the war into some sort of noble fight, it's revolting. I suggest people read the actual declarations of secession and say with a straight face slavery wasn't the deciding factor:

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquility.

Oh those treacherous Northerners....

[TheEconomist]

No tl;dr?

[LordofAscension]

No tl;dr?

Honestly, I don't think posts need TL;DR's. If you want to participate in the discussion adequately - then you really need to know what each person has said.

I know people love TL;DR because their time is so damn precious that they can't be bothered to read a few paragraphs. If they aren't willing to put in the time, then they don't really need to participate do they?

I refuse to believe that with the prevalence of mandatory education in much of the world, that young adults don't have the ability to skim through something if they absolutely cannot be bothered to read it.

In short and fully off-topic, I find your post offensive on the OP's behalf.

On-topic:

Lupino, I totally agree. I understand people wanting to celebrate their history and being selective provides them with that luxury. And while I see their point of view, I am apalled at how little attention or recognition is given to the facts. Now, if every one of those repurposed Southern events had moments of silence or some other publically pronounced way of acknowledging the wrong, while celebrating their bygone "nationalism" I would find it a bit more acceptable.

/personal opinion.

~LoA

[Roland]

Living in the deep south, there are several people in my neighborhood. It is just some kind of delusional sub-national pride. Swastikas are banned in Germany, even though they were a big symbol for Germany before WW2, I wish Confederate flags could be banned in America. Anyone I've asked has said something about being Southern (and thereby Confederate) first and American second, but I can't imagine how anyone could thing it's not extremely offensive, even if being offensive isn't your intent.

I also knew a kid in high school who wore a big Confederate Flag belt buckle. He said he just "Had a problem with authority."

[TheEconomist]

That's it. I'm putting a "The above post is likely a joke. Lighten up." in my signature. Too many problems.

LoA, I understand where you're coming from and "tl;dr" annoys me as well sometimes but that was basically the joke. It's such a common joke I assumed people here would get it. I'm used to posting on forums as System Wars, GiantBomb, and GameFAQs where people are more current with memes and assume a post is a joke until proven otherwise.

I wish Confederate flags could be banned in America

Seriously bro?

You really find it that offensive?



What is the word coming to?

[DemolitionSquid]

History has always been written more by the wealthy than the winners.

[almostfamous]

...have you been to the South? Wealthy isn't exactly how I would describe it

[Roland]

Seriously bro?

You really find it that offensive?

I'm not black, so I don't know, but I would call it abuse of free speech. It's like the Westborough Baptist Church, which pickets at military funerals with signs like This.

According to the 1860 census there were almost 4 million slaves just prior to the Civil War, that's not including all slaves in generations before the Civil War, so all in all I'd say American Slavery was equitable to massive genocide, you just limit people's lives to a few tasks and work them to death instead of killing them straight up. The Confederate flag does represent that, and it wasn't about anything except slavery, as the OP article pointed out, which is why I equated it to swastikas in Germany after WW2. Historically, it seems like the most morally bankrupt thing America ever did, it shouldn't be glorified or celebrated, or distorted by misinformation at all.

[Jconant]

I think the OP abstracts the situation that instigated the war in the first place. Southern pride doesn't directly correlate to favoring slavery.

This is not to say that slavery isn't immoral, or that it didn't have a part as to why the war began in the first place; the argument of slavery and inequality of blacks was present even during the revolution and continued after the war ended. To say the Civil War was over slavery only is a misconception.

When the argument to outlaw slavery became heated, it reached a point that the southern states wanted to secede from the united states. We have a people that thought that the passing of such a law was unfair, tried to redress it civilly, and when they wanted to go their separate ways, they are told by the federal government they can't secede and must obey their law.

Anyone who touts this flag has some understanding that this was the core incident which began the war and thought it was just to fight for the right that a state, if it really wanted to, could leave the union.

[TheEconomist]

I would call it abuse of free speech

*sigh*

Quite a lot of misinformation you seem to have been afflicted with. It's sad you're supposedly from the south but don't know much about the south.

Namely, the fact that most people don't only think of the Confederate flag as a symbol for slavery; only overly sensitive people, like you, do. When they glorify the Confederate flag, it's only to say that they're proud to be from the south. And, not even politically, just means, I like my culture. In America, the South is looked down upon for being ignorant, lazy, backwards, and the major cause of the high obesity rate in America. So, to counter that, they "glorify" the Confederate flag simply to feel united. A relatively few people wear it to me "rebel" and they're usually just harmless rednecks who don't actually rebel since drinking and smoking is common place now.

In fact, something that might come as a surprise to you, but, shit tons of black people "glorify" the Confederate flag as well. To them, it represents how far they've come and the fact that they're free to carry such a flag and not be killed.



I know, I've lived in the deepest parts of the south. Black people generally don't have a problem with the flag unless its obvious they're "glorifying" it for "offensive" reasons, so why the hell should you be? Too many white people trying to make assumptions about what is offensive to other people and go wwwaaaaaayyyy overboard. If it were so offensive, please tell my why I personally know about at least a dozen black southern rappers who show the confederate flag prominently (even carrying it themselves) in their videos? From Pastor Troy, to David Banner, to Outkast, to UGK, they all "glorify" the Confederate flag.

Listen to this song, it's ENTIRELY about being proud of the Confederate flag. The lyrics will tell you why it's important to him and, no, he's not pro-slavery, obviously. Yes, notice his skin color.



FYI, this was THE first crunk album from way back in 1998. So, basically, as long as southern rap has been prominent, the confederate flag has been prominent. Catch my drift?
It means many, many, many different things to different people, the least common of which being pro-slavery.

So, then, what the fuck are you so upset about? Anyone who is so overly sensitive as to find something so usually harmless to be banneably offensive .... *sigh* .... such utter weakness makes me sick. Honestly.

-- And, to counter your baptist church argument, what you're proposing is essentially like banning the cross because the KKK uses it inappropriately. Despite the fact that it is a religious symbol of extreme nonoffensive importance to a number of people, just because its been misused a few times somehow makes it all bad. Make any sense to you? Sigh, probably does.