Slim Majority of Americans Support Preserving Confederate 'Lost Cause' History

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

It can be "preserved" in a museum, absolutely, where that history can be contextualized within the scope of Confederate atrocities.

Angrier about the Civil War than even the men who fought it. I love modern day academic leftists. At all times seething. Raging. They see not only Confederates, but Columbus, Jefferson, Washington, and their blood boils to a degree that would ignite the very sun. One day, you'll get to fell the Washington Monument too, BUT, not today.

What.

I'm starting to suspect this guy isn't planning to vote Obama in 2024.

The left wing in 2012 weren't Jacobin in nature or would be Cultural Revolutionaries who hate not only the bad parts of this country's history, but every facet of it and the entirety of Western civilization's history. Obama by comparison to your average post 2015 leftist looks like Goldwater. Even Bernie is a bit too right wing by the standards of the academic left.

Seek help, genuinely.

Have a visit to Tiktok sometime - And you'll see what I mean.

People who say this are seriously telling on themselves.

TikTok only shows you a mirror of what the algorithm (fairly accurately, sadly, which is why it's so addictive) believes you want to see. If that's what you see on TikTok, cause I certainly don't, then there are reasons...

[Trans Rights Are Human Rights]

Literally angrier than Ulysses Grant was about the rebels. Literally still fighting a war from 150 years ago. It's sad to have left wing views when other leftists are such angry people.

In the immortal words of Kellin Quinn, running from the past is a losing game; it never brings you glory.

[Obama24]

Literally angrier than Ulysses Grant was about the rebels. Literally still fighting a war from 150 years ago. It's sad to have left wing views when other leftists are such angry people.

In the immortal words of Kellin Quinn, running from the past is a losing game; it never brings you glory.

At the same time, obsessing over it and seething over it for eternity brings you no further to the future. The Confederates lost. They lost at great cost both to themselves and to their entire region for almost a century, and at great cost to the North also. That white supremacists decide to use their iconography 150 years later isn't really particularly the fault of the dead, especially when you consider that some of the Confederacy's leading voices did not want memorials or such or in some cases turned against the cause later in life and especially when said groups out to just be marginalized and laughed out rather than given a platform. Let the dead rest.

[Obama24]

It can be "preserved" in a museum, absolutely, where that history can be contextualized within the scope of Confederate atrocities.

Angrier about the Civil War than even the men who fought it. I love modern day academic leftists. At all times seething. Raging. They see not only Confederates, but Columbus, Jefferson, Washington, and their blood boils to a degree that would ignite the very sun. One day, you'll get to fell the Washington Monument too, BUT, not today.

What.

I'm starting to suspect this guy isn't planning to vote Obama in 2024.

The left wing in 2012 weren't Jacobin in nature or would be Cultural Revolutionaries who hate not only the bad parts of this country's history, but every facet of it and the entirety of Western civilization's history. Obama by comparison to your average post 2015 leftist looks like Goldwater. Even Bernie is a bit too right wing by the standards of the academic left.

Seek help, genuinely.

Have a visit to Tiktok sometime - And you'll see what I mean.

People who say this are seriously telling on themselves.

TikTok only shows you a mirror of what the algorithm (fairly accurately, sadly, which is why it's so addictive) believes you want to see. If that's what you see on TikTok, cause I certainly don't, then there are reasons...

However, Tiktok isn't connected to other apps, and I don't use it often enough to build a feed.

Why was I recommended a video by a Black separatist woman who claimed Aunt Jemima was racist and said "YT women can't do things on their own in the kitchen" which led to the rise of "convenience food" and recommended a book called "Slave in a Box"?

I don't subscribe to black separatist content lol.

Some stuff is recommended more than others and Tiktok has its own agenda separate from any algorithm.

[Ancestral Republican]

Literally angrier than Ulysses Grant was about the rebels. Literally still fighting a war from 150 years ago. It's sad to have left wing views when other leftists are such angry people.

In the immortal words of Kellin Quinn, running from the past is a losing game; it never brings you glory.

At the same time, obsessing over it and seething over it for eternity brings you no further to the future. The Confederates lost. They lost at great cost both to themselves and to their entire region for almost a century, and at great cost to the North also. That white supremacists decide to use their iconography 150 years later isn't really particularly the fault of the dead, especially when you consider that some of the Confederacy's leading voices did not want memorials or such or in some cases turned against the cause later in life and especially when said groups out to just be marginalized and laughed out rather than given a platform. Let the dead rest.

You are seriously unqualified to speak on this. a) There's a difference between "being obsessed" and not wanting monuments to traitorous murders and b)very few Confederates "turned against the cause" - most of them continued litigating the war for decades afterwards, fighting Reconstruction, passing racist laws and joining up with the KKK to terrorize freed blacks by burning their homes and murdering them to steal their property.

[Badger]

The “Lost” cause is used to disparag southerners and those of us who are against totalitarean forms of government. FACT: The South succeeded because of slavery. FACT: The north invaded a soverein nation and started the civil war.

Pound salt, you traitor slavery apologist. God bless the UNITEDS States of America.

Literally angrier than Ulysses Grant was about the rebels. Literally still fighting a war from 150 years ago. It's sad to have left wing views when other leftists are such angry people.

It's Neo Confederates who refuse to give up on their Lost Cause ideology and insist the war had nothing to do with slavery. Slapping down such ignorance affects us today. And is quite worthwhile.

[Obama24]

Literally angrier than Ulysses Grant was about the rebels. Literally still fighting a war from 150 years ago. It's sad to have left wing views when other leftists are such angry people.

In the immortal words of Kellin Quinn, running from the past is a losing game; it never brings you glory.

At the same time, obsessing over it and seething over it for eternity brings you no further to the future. The Confederates lost. They lost at great cost both to themselves and to their entire region for almost a century, and at great cost to the North also. That white supremacists decide to use their iconography 150 years later isn't really particularly the fault of the dead, especially when you consider that some of the Confederacy's leading voices did not want memorials or such or in some cases turned against the cause later in life and especially when said groups out to just be marginalized and laughed out rather than given a platform. Let the dead rest.

You are seriously unqualified to speak on this. a) There's a difference between "being obsessed" and not wanting monuments to traitorous murders and b)very few Confederates "turned against the cause" - most of them continued litigating the war for decades afterwards, fighting Reconstruction, passing racist laws and joining up with the KKK to terrorize freed blacks by burning their homes and murdering them to steal their property.

No one wants monuments to them, even Robert E. Lee didn't. But I don't feel it ends there.  Andrew Jackson is being removed of the $20, there are serious calls to rename Columbus Circle and other areas with his name, the statue of Jefferson was removed from City Hall here, and so on. I don't know that it ends with the Confederates but rather merely begins with them as low hanging fruit and ends with a total rewrite of the history of this country, only emphasizing the bad. As to the second point, some did, some didn't. The Klan of the 1870s was relatively short lived, pretty much disbanded by Grant when he was President, and not nearly as big or as vicious as the Klan of the 1920s.

[Ancestral Republican]

Literally angrier than Ulysses Grant was about the rebels. Literally still fighting a war from 150 years ago. It's sad to have left wing views when other leftists are such angry people.

In the immortal words of Kellin Quinn, running from the past is a losing game; it never brings you glory.

At the same time, obsessing over it and seething over it for eternity brings you no further to the future. The Confederates lost. They lost at great cost both to themselves and to their entire region for almost a century, and at great cost to the North also. That white supremacists decide to use their iconography 150 years later isn't really particularly the fault of the dead, especially when you consider that some of the Confederacy's leading voices did not want memorials or such or in some cases turned against the cause later in life and especially when said groups out to just be marginalized and laughed out rather than given a platform. Let the dead rest.

You are seriously unqualified to speak on this. a) There's a difference between "being obsessed" and not wanting monuments to traitorous murders and b)very few Confederates "turned against the cause" - most of them continued litigating the war for decades afterwards, fighting Reconstruction, passing racist laws and joining up with the KKK to terrorize freed blacks by burning their homes and murdering them to steal their property.

No one wants monuments to them, even Robert E. Lee didn't. But I don't feel it ends there.  Andrew Jackson is being removed of the $20, there are serious calls to rename Columbus Circle and other areas with his name, the statue of Jefferson was removed from City Hall here, and so on. I don't know that it ends with the Confederates but rather merely begins with them as low hanging fruit and ends with a total rewrite of the history of this country, only emphasizing the bad. As to the second point, some did, some didn't. The Klan of the 1870s was relatively short lived, pretty much disbanded by Grant when he was President, and not nearly as big or as vicious as the Klan of the 1920s.

....So, you (a) are scared of change and (b) didn't pay attention in history class. Just say that next time.

[Obama24]

Literally angrier than Ulysses Grant was about the rebels. Literally still fighting a war from 150 years ago. It's sad to have left wing views when other leftists are such angry people.

In the immortal words of Kellin Quinn, running from the past is a losing game; it never brings you glory.

At the same time, obsessing over it and seething over it for eternity brings you no further to the future. The Confederates lost. They lost at great cost both to themselves and to their entire region for almost a century, and at great cost to the North also. That white supremacists decide to use their iconography 150 years later isn't really particularly the fault of the dead, especially when you consider that some of the Confederacy's leading voices did not want memorials or such or in some cases turned against the cause later in life and especially when said groups out to just be marginalized and laughed out rather than given a platform. Let the dead rest.

You are seriously unqualified to speak on this. a) There's a difference between "being obsessed" and not wanting monuments to traitorous murders and b)very few Confederates "turned against the cause" - most of them continued litigating the war for decades afterwards, fighting Reconstruction, passing racist laws and joining up with the KKK to terrorize freed blacks by burning their homes and murdering them to steal their property.

No one wants monuments to them, even Robert E. Lee didn't. But I don't feel it ends there.  Andrew Jackson is being removed of the $20, there are serious calls to rename Columbus Circle and other areas with his name, the statue of Jefferson was removed from City Hall here, and so on. I don't know that it ends with the Confederates but rather merely begins with them as low hanging fruit and ends with a total rewrite of the history of this country, only emphasizing the bad. As to the second point, some did, some didn't. The Klan of the 1870s was relatively short lived, pretty much disbanded by Grant when he was President, and not nearly as big or as vicious as the Klan of the 1920s.

....So, you (a) are scared of change and (b) didn't pay attention in history class. Just say that next time.

Why do we have to remove literally every figure from American history? It's not about being 'scared of change', it's about not wanting a Chinese style Cultural Revolution here. Your side will win. The Washington Monument will be demolished as will the Jefferson Memorial, and probably the Lincoln Memorial too. We may even see Washington dropped from DC. Your side has won, for all eternity, and you know that. Social media means what is current today, shall be current forever.

But the question is, why? Why can we not have nuance? Why must it all be stripped away, tossed into the ash heap of history rather than having a nuanced take on things.

[Ancestral Republican]

Literally angrier than Ulysses Grant was about the rebels. Literally still fighting a war from 150 years ago. It's sad to have left wing views when other leftists are such angry people.

In the immortal words of Kellin Quinn, running from the past is a losing game; it never brings you glory.

At the same time, obsessing over it and seething over it for eternity brings you no further to the future. The Confederates lost. They lost at great cost both to themselves and to their entire region for almost a century, and at great cost to the North also. That white supremacists decide to use their iconography 150 years later isn't really particularly the fault of the dead, especially when you consider that some of the Confederacy's leading voices did not want memorials or such or in some cases turned against the cause later in life and especially when said groups out to just be marginalized and laughed out rather than given a platform. Let the dead rest.

You are seriously unqualified to speak on this. a) There's a difference between "being obsessed" and not wanting monuments to traitorous murders and b)very few Confederates "turned against the cause" - most of them continued litigating the war for decades afterwards, fighting Reconstruction, passing racist laws and joining up with the KKK to terrorize freed blacks by burning their homes and murdering them to steal their property.

No one wants monuments to them, even Robert E. Lee didn't. But I don't feel it ends there.  Andrew Jackson is being removed of the $20, there are serious calls to rename Columbus Circle and other areas with his name, the statue of Jefferson was removed from City Hall here, and so on. I don't know that it ends with the Confederates but rather merely begins with them as low hanging fruit and ends with a total rewrite of the history of this country, only emphasizing the bad. As to the second point, some did, some didn't. The Klan of the 1870s was relatively short lived, pretty much disbanded by Grant when he was President, and not nearly as big or as vicious as the Klan of the 1920s.

....So, you (a) are scared of change and (b) didn't pay attention in history class. Just say that next time.

Why do we have to remove literally every figure from American history? It's not about being 'scared of change', it's about not wanting a Chinese style Cultural Revolution here. Your side will win. The Washington Monument will be demolished as will the Jefferson Memorial, and probably the Lincoln Memorial too. We may even see Washington dropped from DC. Your side has won, for all eternity, and you know that. Social media means what is current today, shall be current forever.

But the question is, why? Why can we not have nuance? Why must it all be stripped away, tossed into the ash heap of history rather than having a nuanced take on things.

Seek help, genuinely.

[Obama24]

Literally angrier than Ulysses Grant was about the rebels. Literally still fighting a war from 150 years ago. It's sad to have left wing views when other leftists are such angry people.

In the immortal words of Kellin Quinn, running from the past is a losing game; it never brings you glory.

At the same time, obsessing over it and seething over it for eternity brings you no further to the future. The Confederates lost. They lost at great cost both to themselves and to their entire region for almost a century, and at great cost to the North also. That white supremacists decide to use their iconography 150 years later isn't really particularly the fault of the dead, especially when you consider that some of the Confederacy's leading voices did not want memorials or such or in some cases turned against the cause later in life and especially when said groups out to just be marginalized and laughed out rather than given a platform. Let the dead rest.

You are seriously unqualified to speak on this. a) There's a difference between "being obsessed" and not wanting monuments to traitorous murders and b)very few Confederates "turned against the cause" - most of them continued litigating the war for decades afterwards, fighting Reconstruction, passing racist laws and joining up with the KKK to terrorize freed blacks by burning their homes and murdering them to steal their property.

No one wants monuments to them, even Robert E. Lee didn't. But I don't feel it ends there.  Andrew Jackson is being removed of the $20, there are serious calls to rename Columbus Circle and other areas with his name, the statue of Jefferson was removed from City Hall here, and so on. I don't know that it ends with the Confederates but rather merely begins with them as low hanging fruit and ends with a total rewrite of the history of this country, only emphasizing the bad. As to the second point, some did, some didn't. The Klan of the 1870s was relatively short lived, pretty much disbanded by Grant when he was President, and not nearly as big or as vicious as the Klan of the 1920s.

....So, you (a) are scared of change and (b) didn't pay attention in history class. Just say that next time.

Why do we have to remove literally every figure from American history? It's not about being 'scared of change', it's about not wanting a Chinese style Cultural Revolution here. Your side will win. The Washington Monument will be demolished as will the Jefferson Memorial, and probably the Lincoln Memorial too. We may even see Washington dropped from DC. Your side has won, for all eternity, and you know that. Social media means what is current today, shall be current forever.

But the question is, why? Why can we not have nuance? Why must it all be stripped away, tossed into the ash heap of history rather than having a nuanced take on things.

Seek help, genuinely.

Essentially: "Any attempt at dialog will be shut down and your sanity will be questioned."

Very Soviet of you.

[Fuzzy Bear]

This book explains the "Lost Cause" idea better than anything I've read.

There would have been no Secession without slavery.  On the other hand, there would have been no Civil War if the North had allowed the Southern states to leave the Union peaceably.  And that was certainly a possibility at the time.  At the time of Secession the question of whether or not a State could leave the Union, and what that would require, was NOT defined.  

It's one thing to hate slavery, and it should be hated.  It's another thing to claim that the average Confederate soldier was fighting for "slavery".  Most of the Confederate troops did not own slaves; they were fighting the war of the planter class.  They were also fighting to defend THEIR homes, their families, and what was now THEIR country.  Secession may have occurred as a result of slavery and the Governing Class's collective judgment that Lincoln would move to abolish slavery if he could, but the average Confederate soldier only saw (A) that he was conscripted, (B) the Union Armies were invading their state/county/town, and (C) they were expected to defend their homeland for an enemy.

The young men that fought for the Confederacy were not traitors.  They were doing what young men would do in the situation, and what their government expected them to do.  I am not for maintaining statues of Confederate politicians in places of honor, but I view Confederate soldiers differently.  They were doing their duty, and they should not be dishonored for that.  

Jefferson Davis was a scumbag on a number of levels.  If you want to call him a "traitor", what would make him on was routing munitions and resources to Southern forts and arsenals to ensure that the South had adequate military resources to wage war if necessary.  He did this as Buchanan's Secretary of War, and he grossly abused his position (to be kind).  But he was not found guilty of treason for advocating secession, facilitating secession, or serving as President of the CSA and helping to prosecute the Civil War in that capacity.  Indeed, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton opted to simply free him and not bring him to trial.  The reason for that was simple; a trial was not an open-and-shut case.  Americans, North and South, had a different idea of the nature of their Union, and it was NOT established that a state was not entitled to secede.  If Davis were to be acquitted at trial (which was a real possibility), it would make the War, itself, to be illegitimate; it would frame the Civil War as the North unleashing the First Modern War on the South for doing something (secede) that they were legally entitled to do.  Stanton acted to drop the charges because he did not want that outcome.  

Was that the right decision?  It has, more or less, settled the question of Secession.  The North won the War and by virtue of its victory, Secession is no longer a legitimate option.  The North's victory brought with it a presumption of Rightness for the Northern cause of preserving the Union.  As for the slavery question; this was resolved by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments once and for all.  This allowed for a Reconstruction that, however incomplete, allowed for the South to remain in the Union and be restored as a part of a Union and not as a rebelling region or a conquered legion.  That the Nation grew weary in well-doing and discontinued Reconstruction too early does not mean that the decision not to go through with a trial for Jefferson Davis was not the right one.

[Ferguson97]

It's one thing to hate slavery, and it should be hated.  It's another thing to claim that the average Confederate soldier was fighting for "slavery".  Most of the Confederate troops did not own slaves; they were fighting the war of the planter class.  They were also fighting to defend THEIR homes, their families, and what was now THEIR country.  Secession may have occurred as a result of slavery and the Governing Class's collective judgment that Lincoln would move to abolish slavery if he could, but the average Confederate soldier only saw (A) that he was conscripted, (B) the Union Armies were invading their state/county/town, and (C) they were expected to defend their homeland for an enemy.

The young men that fought for the Confederacy were not traitors.  They were doing what young men would do in the situation, and what their government expected them to do. I am not for maintaining statues of Confederate politicians in places of honor, but I view Confederate soldiers differently.  They were doing their duty, and they should not be dishonored for that. 

Do you view German soldiers in WWII the same way?

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's one thing to hate slavery, and it should be hated.  It's another thing to claim that the average Confederate soldier was fighting for "slavery".  Most of the Confederate troops did not own slaves; they were fighting the war of the planter class.  They were also fighting to defend THEIR homes, their families, and what was now THEIR country.  Secession may have occurred as a result of slavery and the Governing Class's collective judgment that Lincoln would move to abolish slavery if he could, but the average Confederate soldier only saw (A) that he was conscripted, (B) the Union Armies were invading their state/county/town, and (C) they were expected to defend their homeland for an enemy.

The young men that fought for the Confederacy were not traitors.  They were doing what young men would do in the situation, and what their government expected them to do. I am not for maintaining statues of Confederate politicians in places of honor, but I view Confederate soldiers differently.  They were doing their duty, and they should not be dishonored for that. 

Do you view German soldiers in WWII the same way?

The Nazis were far more evil than confederacy and second we did not punish the average German solider after the war .

[Ferguson97]

The Nazis were far more evil than confederacy

Why do you believe this?

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Nazis were far more evil than confederacy

Why do you believe this?

Um cause the entire premise of the Nazis was to commit mass genocide on an industrial scale in a way that had never happened before and after in human history  . The confederacy was evil but their evil is more on par with other evils throughout human history.

In fact the confederate evil was more comparable to the Russian Empire at the time(yes I know Russia backed the Union but still) while the Nazis were far more evil than even Stalin’s USSR

[Ferguson97]

The Nazis were far more evil than confederacy

Why do you believe this?

Um cause the entire premise of the Nazis was to commit mass genocide on an industrial scale in a way that had never happened before and after in human history  . The confederacy was evil but their evil is more on par with other evils throughout human history.

In fact the confederate evil was more comparable to the Russian Empire at the time(yes I know Russia backed the Union but still) while the Nazis were far more evil than even Stalin’s USSR

Why do you view genocide as more evil than slavery?

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Nazis were far more evil than confederacy

Why do you believe this?

Um cause the entire premise of the Nazis was to commit mass genocide on an industrial scale in a way that had never happened before and after in human history  . The confederacy was evil but their evil is more on par with other evils throughout human history.

In fact the confederate evil was more comparable to the Russian Empire at the time(yes I know Russia backed the Union but still) while the Nazis were far more evil than even Stalin’s USSR

Why do you view genocide as more evil than slavery?

By this logic , you could argue  Stalin was just as evil as Hitler too which wasn’t the case

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's one thing to hate slavery, and it should be hated.  It's another thing to claim that the average Confederate soldier was fighting for "slavery".  Most of the Confederate troops did not own slaves; they were fighting the war of the planter class.  They were also fighting to defend THEIR homes, their families, and what was now THEIR country.  Secession may have occurred as a result of slavery and the Governing Class's collective judgment that Lincoln would move to abolish slavery if he could, but the average Confederate soldier only saw (A) that he was conscripted, (B) the Union Armies were invading their state/county/town, and (C) they were expected to defend their homeland for an enemy.

The young men that fought for the Confederacy were not traitors.  They were doing what young men would do in the situation, and what their government expected them to do. I am not for maintaining statues of Confederate politicians in places of honor, but I view Confederate soldiers differently.  They were doing their duty, and they should not be dishonored for that.  

Do you view German soldiers in WWII the same way?

German soldiers were conscripts.  Bravery in battle by ordinary soldiers should be honored if that's what ordinary German citizens want in certain cases.  I obviously don't view the German Military Leadership in the same light, and Honor for them would not be appropriate.  For the most part, the German General Staff escaped Judgement at Nuremberg (unlike Admiral Yamamoto and the Japanese military), so I generally believe that those folks already have their statue in the form of not being executed or imprisoned.

The difference between German and the Confederates is that the South sought to secede, which was not expressly forbidden, and the North was coming to THEIR towns and cities.  They viewed (with justification, given the time and general understanding) the CSA as "their" country, and to dismiss that is to see those days from these days.  The Germans were invading other countries.  Obviously, I consider the German "cause" less defensible.  

The "Lost Cause" is propaganda that was made up after the fact, mostly by Jefferson Davis, who needed a job and discovered the hustle of speaking at large meetings in which the Confederate Dead were memorialized.  Indeed, the last years of Davis's life was to bring honor and remembrance to the Confederate Dead.  This fell to Davis and not many of his cohorts because most of his cohorts signed loyalty oaths to be restored as citizens, and many of them became elected officials post-war.  Davis adamantly refused to do that, and he adamantly refused to take charity when others in the South were far more financially destitute than he was.  But in his memorializing the Confederate Dead (which did bring some closure to families and whole towns that grieved for years), he did get into the Lost Cause narrative, along with insinuations that the South would, one day, rise again (although he was vague as to what he actually meant by that).

I DO consider calling the Confederates "traitors" as both inaccurate and not helpful.  It is inaccurate because the government had an opportunity to try Davis for Treason and War Secretary Stanton decided not to, because a guilty verdict was far from a given and an acquittal would have delegitimized the North's military action to preserve the Union if a Court found that the South, by virtue of acquitting Davis, was justified in seceding.  It is not helpful because it rips open wounds that should have been long healed.  One can teach the truth of the Civil War without calling those who fought for the South "traitors".  Indeed, doing so itself is revisionist history, and not consistent with the end legal result in Jefferson Davis's treason case.

[Obama24]

It's one thing to hate slavery, and it should be hated.  It's another thing to claim that the average Confederate soldier was fighting for "slavery".  Most of the Confederate troops did not own slaves; they were fighting the war of the planter class.  They were also fighting to defend THEIR homes, their families, and what was now THEIR country.  Secession may have occurred as a result of slavery and the Governing Class's collective judgment that Lincoln would move to abolish slavery if he could, but the average Confederate soldier only saw (A) that he was conscripted, (B) the Union Armies were invading their state/county/town, and (C) they were expected to defend their homeland for an enemy.

The young men that fought for the Confederacy were not traitors.  They were doing what young men would do in the situation, and what their government expected them to do. I am not for maintaining statues of Confederate politicians in places of honor, but I view Confederate soldiers differently.  They were doing their duty, and they should not be dishonored for that. 

Do you view German soldiers in WWII the same way?

Yes. Your average German soldier was a young kid who was fighting for their homeland. Like any stupid kid fighting for any stupid war. Nazi Germany is also unique in that an entire generation was groomed by the Hitler regime, as well.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As stated above, if their sons were dying over an Apartheid cause and the Dixiecrats were Apartheid back then, that's why we use Secular of Liberal to describe Labor Ds, there were no labor unions back then; consequently, then they would feel totally opposite.

No one dies but selected servicemen in battle anymore, back then before WWI there wasn't any anesthesia. They were miracle servicemen back then

But , they didn't have much to do on form of entertainment, so men fought in wars and women had kids

If you watched a Western movie you would see that men went to war because there was nothing to do aside from farming. That's why they had Indian Wars. It was like the 1980s without cell phoned

[LBJer]

It's one thing to hate slavery, and it should be hated.  It's another thing to claim that the average Confederate soldier was fighting for "slavery".  Most of the Confederate troops did not own slaves; they were fighting the war of the planter class.  They were also fighting to defend THEIR homes, their families, and what was now THEIR country.  Secession may have occurred as a result of slavery and the Governing Class's collective judgment that Lincoln would move to abolish slavery if he could, but the average Confederate soldier only saw (A) that he was conscripted, (B) the Union Armies were invading their state/county/town, and (C) they were expected to defend their homeland for an enemy.

The young men that fought for the Confederacy were not traitors.  They were doing what young men would do in the situation, and what their government expected them to do. I am not for maintaining statues of Confederate politicians in places of honor, but I view Confederate soldiers differently.  They were doing their duty, and they should not be dishonored for that. 

Do you view German soldiers in WWII the same way?

Members of the military were (and in most places still are) expected to fight for their country, whether that country has a good government or not.  To condemn German soldiers, sailors and airmen simply for fighting in WWII is to retroactively impose a morality on the past that's it's not even clear is shared by most people in the present. 

[Alben Barkley]

My 8th Grade US History Teacher, in suposdely liberal California, said the Civil War was about states's rights, not slavery and had the confederate flag up.


And he went to a public university for his undergrad, San Diego State.

I’ve noticed a lot of history teachers can be weirdos. Wehraboos and such too.

The Lost Cause mythology was the default historiography of the Civil War for most of the 20th century, even outside of the South.

Honestly this is fairly impressive, given the vague poll wording and the fact that taking down statues tends to be unpopular. Tbh, I don't really get people who want to keep Confederate statues up; they generally are artistically dull and were typically erected as part of the instantiation of Jim Crow. Nothing appealing about them!

The fact that this is true yet Lincoln was also lionized, even in the South eventually as they continued to vote firmly against his party, has always struck me as an odd bit of doublethink. I guess people preferred to think of the Civil War as a tragic “many fine people on both sides” situation rather than accept that many of their fellow countrymen were willing to kill them to protect an evil institution.

I don't think this view is obviously false.  Yes, slavery itself was definitely "evil."  But that's not how most Southern whites saw it at the time--they were living in a culture that had become highly dependent on it and, as a reaction against increasing criticism, had become very self-righteous and strident in defending it.  There was virtually no counter to this in the South by the time of the Civil War.  That's quite different from the world neo-Nazis rioting in the early 21st century have lived in. 

Additionally, I find the "were willing to kill them" misleading.  It sounds like those who fought for the Union were sitting around their dinner tables or sleeping in their beds while Confederates walked up and shot them.  This was a war. In war people on each side try to kill or wound those on the other (although in this case, those on the Union side were doing so for morally much better reasons than those on the Confederate side).

I have little tolerance for the "Lost Cause" apologia.  But it shouldn't be replaced by a blanket demonization of everyone who fought for or otherwise supported the Confederacy.  Such an approach is itself inaccurate.

I’m aware that the average Confederate soldier was not necessarily bad or believed he was fighting for slavery. After all my relatives fought for them. I was exaggerating a bit to make the point that it was easier to pretend both sides were more or less equally noble and flawed on the whole when that wasn’t the case. And also wasn’t how it was seen in the years immediately following the war.

[Ferguson97]

It's one thing to hate slavery, and it should be hated.  It's another thing to claim that the average Confederate soldier was fighting for "slavery".  Most of the Confederate troops did not own slaves; they were fighting the war of the planter class.  They were also fighting to defend THEIR homes, their families, and what was now THEIR country.  Secession may have occurred as a result of slavery and the Governing Class's collective judgment that Lincoln would move to abolish slavery if he could, but the average Confederate soldier only saw (A) that he was conscripted, (B) the Union Armies were invading their state/county/town, and (C) they were expected to defend their homeland for an enemy.

The young men that fought for the Confederacy were not traitors.  They were doing what young men would do in the situation, and what their government expected them to do. I am not for maintaining statues of Confederate politicians in places of honor, but I view Confederate soldiers differently.  They were doing their duty, and they should not be dishonored for that. 

Do you view German soldiers in WWII the same way?

Yes. Your average German soldier was a young kid who was fighting for their homeland. Like any stupid kid fighting for any stupid war. Nazi Germany is also unique in that an entire generation was groomed by the Hitler regime, as well.

"Fighting for your homeland" is not an inherently noble or defensible action, if that homeland is committing evil acts.

[cuomofan]

Americans are championing the legacy of slavery, yet they attack the Global South for fighting against racism and imperialism? Too rich!