closet confederate

January 20, 2003 7:44 AM

closet confederate?
george bush junior revives tradition, abandoned by bush senior, honoring confederate leader. anyone suprised about this one? via talkingpointsmemo
posted by specialk420 (90 comments total)

While I wasn't surprised by hisaffirmative action stance, the increased funds for certain schools was definitely a surprise, but now this.

That and I am at work today, bask in the irony...
posted by Big_B at 7:55 AM on January 20, 2003

He wasn't so much honoring a confederate leader (Davis) as he was honoring the confederate dead (who after all were still Americans) on Memorial Day. Davis's birthday just happened to fall six days later which is when the Daughters of the Confederacy made their statement.

And if Bush is a closet confederate then every president before 1990 is one too I guess.
posted by PenDevil at 8:07 AM on January 20, 2003

he was honoring the confederate dead (who after all were still Americans

So, by that token, he should send a wreath to Timothy McVeigh's grave?
posted by rushmc at 8:12 AM on January 20, 2003

I don't know.

To me, the Confederates were Americans. Americans who turned their back on their own country and committed treason for the sake of preserving slavery.

Yeah. Let's honor the people who died trying to do that.

America has to be the only country in the world where it's ok to fly a flag that meant "I believe in committing treason for slavery."

Plus there's that whole "the Confederacy lost" thing. That should count for something too. Losers shouldn't get to fly their battle flag after a civil war, or have ceremonies to honor their treasonous war heroes.
posted by geekhorde at 8:16 AM on January 20, 2003

I'm looking forward to the return of the traditional July 4th toast "to honor His Majesty, George the Third".
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:17 AM on January 20, 2003

To me, the Confederates were Americans. Americans who turned their back on their own country and committed treason for the sake of preserving slavery.

You should know your topic before making that kind of statement.

I agree with your opinion "the Confederacy lost" issue though. They did lose, and as such, the CSA ceased to exist.

But, not to get into a huge debate over history, and the ramifications of historical events, I will leave this thread now.
Happy Monday to all.
posted by a3matrix at 8:21 AM on January 20, 2003

Civil Wars are that way for a reason it's a family affair with brother against brother you can't not recognize the other side when it comes to war dead, it's politically smart to keep them happy lest we end up with another hoot and hollerin war. The current PC mantra about fighting for slavery was true of the leaders but most of the soldiers were poor redknecks who had no slaves they were fighting for other reasons.
posted by stbalbach at 8:27 AM on January 20, 2003

Now if it were the grave of Robert E. Lee, or even better, that of his horse Traveller, I would be fine with it, but Jefferson Davis?
posted by Poagao at 8:27 AM on January 20, 2003

Americans who turned their back on their own country and committed treason for the sake of preserving slavery.

You're a complete idiot. Please do not comment on this topic again, as you've just brought down the collective IQ of anyone with any hopes of accurately discussing history.
posted by dhoyt at 8:27 AM on January 20, 2003

Is Timothy McVeigh's grave enshrined in a memorial in Arlington National Cemetery?
posted by PenDevil at 8:27 AM on January 20, 2003

Well, actually, I'm quite aware of the topic. Growing up in the South and being a student of history, you can't help but be aware of the topic.

Look at it this way. The economic structure of the South before the Civil War was dependent on the existence of slavery. To say that it wasn't is to ignore the facts.

Now, apologists and revisionists for the Confederacy will tell you "it was about States Rights, not slavery."

Bullcrap. That is such utter bullcrap.

States rights to do what, exactly? To continue to own and use slaves. To treat fellow human beings as chattel.

The very fact that there are still people in America who try to ignore the slavery issue is sad and pathetic.
posted by geekhorde at 8:30 AM on January 20, 2003

the fact that he revived a practice abandoned by his father (for whatever reason) seems like it deserves question - especially in light of his disgust with trent lotts comments and the subsequent bush/rove engineered coup de etat in the senate.
posted by specialk420 at 8:31 AM on January 20, 2003

Man, the Democrats better bring this up in 2004, not like they did last time and pussy-footed around exposing Bush for his past. The GOP does it all the time to the other sides.


posted by CrazyJub at 8:32 AM on January 20, 2003

dhoyt,

It doesn't do anyone any good for you to simply insult someone. Americans who turned their back on their own country and committed treason for the sake of preserving slavery seems pretty spot on to me. If you're going to make a comment like that then you have a responsibility to back it up with something substantive.
posted by xammerboy at 8:33 AM on January 20, 2003

"You're a complete idiot. Please do not comment on this topic again, as you've just brought down the collective IQ of anyone with any hopes of accurately discussing history."

Yes, personal attacks. The hallmark of a sane and rational discussion.

So you're saying that when the Confederates rebelled that that wasn't treason? What was it then?

Or are you under the mistaken impression that the central issue wasn't slavery? It wasn't about culture, unless you mean a clash between a culture that did believe in slavery and one that didn't.

I've lived in the South all my life. I've heard the same revisionist, "the South was a victim of Northern aggression" bull all my life. I've studied history. The South was wrong. A state doesn't have the right to allow something as horrible as slavery to exist when the Union has outlawed the practice.
posted by geekhorde at 8:36 AM on January 20, 2003

xammerboy: So are all German soldiers who fought in WW2 war criminals?
posted by PenDevil at 8:43 AM on January 20, 2003

what a3matrix means is the cival war was not about slavery, but states rights.
posted by Mick at 8:43 AM on January 20, 2003

"The current PC mantra about fighting for slavery was true of the leaders but most of the soldiers were poor redknecks who had no slaves they were fighting for other reasons."

I see your point there. I still think the central issue was slavery for most people, though. Or rather, the right for the practice to exist. "Our peculiar institution," is how I think some people put it.

I think the majority of the non-slave owning public in the South got used by their economic/political leaders. They were cannon fodder, basically.

My grandfather was a rather poor sharecropper, and his father was too, in northern Mississippi. The history of the South is not just about slavery and a civil war. It's a long history of economic exploitation of people.

Good point though. People will often pick up arms to defend their friends and neighbors.
posted by geekhorde at 8:47 AM on January 20, 2003

Sure, but both dhoyt & a3matrix are guilty of an agressive dismissal of another poster, without backing up their positions; maybe geekhorde's right, maybe not. Care to cite any additional information backing up your positions? Or just post inflammatory crap?
posted by jonson at 8:48 AM on January 20, 2003

Let's have some light along with that heat. How was secession not treason?
posted by alumshubby at 8:50 AM on January 20, 2003

Man, time to add another meme to the list of "things sure to sink any thread"...

PenDevil: xammerboy: So are all German soldiers who fought in WW2 war criminals?

No, but their leaders were. So was Jefferson Davis.
posted by mkultra at 8:56 AM on January 20, 2003

the cival war was not about slavery, but states rights

of course, and Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign was about a strong defense and the fight against communism. and if you ask me, if the whole MeFi community would have followed Missississippi's lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either

Historical footnote: Ronald Reagan was a big J Davis fan, he even said (in Atlanta) that Davis was "a hero of mine"


dhoyt
a civil war with so many casualties is a painful enough topic, please don't turn this thread into a useless Usenet flame war. Otherwise, it'll end up in a "fuck you" "no, fuck you" deleted thread

Me, I'm saddened and horrified by the bloodshed, and I feel compassion for all those dead men, and I feel that they all deserve my respect. I'm just very, very, VERY happy that the Union won, that's all
posted by matteo at 8:56 AM on January 20, 2003

The issue is not whether they were war criminals, but whether they were treasonous to the United States. I do not see how taking up arms against the United States can be anything other than treasonous.

geekhorde made a good point, even if you claim the war was about state's rights, which right was really at issue?
posted by caddis at 9:00 AM on January 20, 2003

I do not see how taking up arms against the United States can be anything other than treasonous.

Uh, did the founding fathers of the US not call for this in cases where the govt became unresponsive to the populations (ie cancelling elections, removing civil liberties etc).
posted by PenDevil at 9:04 AM on January 20, 2003

By all accounts, Union soldiers were generally ignorant of the specifics of Confederate slavery and were essentially fighting to preserve the Union and stave off the financial disasters of secession. In fact, many Union soldiers benefitted from slavery.

Similarly, most Confederate soldiers were poor, didn't own slaves, and were fighting what they perceived as aggression. Sure, people make light of the "Northern Aggression" phrase today, but try and give equal understanding to both sides before jumping on the easiest answer "it was all about slavery". It's akin to "it's all about oil" for those reductive thinkers out there.
posted by dhoyt at 9:05 AM on January 20, 2003

The founding fathers did contemplate insurrection, hence the second amendment. Nevertheless, those who committed such insurrection faced charges of treason (of course, only if they lost). Treason was a charge bandied about quite casually in the early days of the republic.
posted by caddis at 9:07 AM on January 20, 2003

(And by the way, it's awfully convenient that those of you who are usually so indignant about current issues regarding patriotism are suddenly so concerned about treason against one's country)
posted by dhoyt at 9:09 AM on January 20, 2003

"In Charleston on December 20, 1860, the convention unanimously voted an Ordinance of Secession, declaring the state's ratification of the Constitution repealed and the union with other states dissolved. A Declaration of the Causes of Secession reviewed the threats to slavery, and asserted that a sectional party had elected to the presidency a man 'whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery,' who had declared 'Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,' and 'that the public mind must rest in the belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."

-pg.s. 685-686 American- a Narrative History by Tindall and Shi

Italics are mine.

That's where it began.
posted by geekhorde at 9:11 AM on January 20, 2003

This whole MetaFilter thing reminds me of TV scenes where someone throws chunks of raw, bloody meat into shark infested waters just to watch the sharks attack the meat... and themselves! The topic is the meat, and you fools are the sharks.

Get off the computer and get back to work you slackers, and you loosers with nothing better to do - get a life for Christ's sake!

Here sharkie sharkie...
posted by LowDog at 9:12 AM on January 20, 2003

Mmmmmm. This shark chum tastes delicious.
posted by caddis at 9:15 AM on January 20, 2003

Geekhorde, your mistake was characterizing all Confederate soldiers, when you could have just criticized their leadership.
posted by dhoyt at 9:15 AM on January 20, 2003

geekhorde, since you are a self-professed expert on the subject, please provide us with references to the laws that made secession illegal, since that is your basis for calling Confederate Southerners "treasonous"...

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but in the North, we were taught that the South was exercising a right that was commonly held to be theirs, even if the legal ramifications were at best ambiguous. That isn't any kind of " multicultural PC bullshit"; I learned that in the seventh grade in 1972. Nothing bound the States together other than their desire to stay together, and your pompous, ignorant dismissal of their right to make their own determination regarding their destiny says far more about you than it does about them. What would have had them do? Simply abolish slavery, wholesale, throwing the entire economy of the Southern states into utter ruin? Had they done what you seem to be suggesting, I wonder if there would even have been a "South" for you to grow up in...
posted by JollyWanker at 9:16 AM on January 20, 2003

Union soldiers were generally ignorant of the specifics of Confederate slavery and were essentially fighting to preserve the Union

At the time the Union was fighting to defend its self from the aggresions of the south. Remember it was the South who fired the first shot and that was the excuse Lincoln needed (and arguably orchestrated) to call up a draft -- defense of the homeland and country from the aggresor south.
posted by stbalbach at 9:20 AM on January 20, 2003

Today's my day off.

The slavery question is not about reductive reasoning.
It's about causation. It was a direct threat to the institution which caused the Southern seccession.

And the South was wrong. Look at it this way, if a state today had a majority of its citizens in favor of human sacrifice, would we allow that state to make that practice legal? No. What if they insisted? Then the Union would insist that they are wrong, and must desist.

The real tragedy about the Civil War is that the question wasn't resolved sooner in our history.
posted by geekhorde at 9:20 AM on January 20, 2003

How was secession not treason?

It was treason. So was our Declaration of independence from Britain. The founding fathers were a bunch of traitors. But, I don't think anyone would question us honoring the Revolutionary War dead. (Many of the founding fathers were also in favor of slavery but that's another discussion).

The argument is a semantic one: it was about a state's right to have slavery. Both are right, to a degree.

The saddest thing about it was that technical innovation was about to unseat slavery in an economic way. Not too many years after when the civil war took place slavery would have solved itself because it would have become cheaper and primarily *MORE EFFICIENT* to allow technology to do it. The morality would have never entered into it. Even thousands of slaves could not keep up with tractors and combines. One day, it would simply have become too expensive to keep slaves and they would have all been dumped out in the cold to fend for themselves. Kinda like what happened after the Civil War.

Slavery is wrong, anytime, anywhere, by any culture. The Egyptians were wrong doing it, the South was wrong doing it. I'm sure someone somewhere is doing it now, and it's wrong.

But, the general view that is (finally) emerging is more or less close. The leaders wanted to assert the south's right to do as they pleased without federal interference (we are a republic after all, right conservatives?). Slavery was something the dumb redneck could relate to even if he was not a participant.

It was marketed as the North telling the South what to do. The fact that most americans (north and south, but especially the south) considered blacks to be sub-human only made for a convenient rallying cry and an easy sell.

If you abstract out a level it's really no different from what is going on today. You still hear "state's rights!" and such rabble except it is on much more civilized topics than enslaving a race.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:21 AM on January 20, 2003

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation" Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution, paragraph 1

"No State shall, without Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution, paragraph 3
posted by geekhorde at 9:28 AM on January 20, 2003

Well said Ynoxas.

Since I doubt anyone has much to add after Ynoxas, how about the original topic - why did Bush change the policy?
posted by caddis at 9:35 AM on January 20, 2003

White house claims that Clinton White House also sent the wreath. Confederate Memorial Association seems to think it isn't so.
posted by swell at 9:37 AM on January 20, 2003

"your mistake was characterizing all Confederate soldiers, when you could have just criticized their leadership."

Sorry, that doesn't fly. Were the soldiers free of responsibility? Yes, the Southern leadership was wrong. But the soldiers followed. They're as guilty as the leaders, in my view.
posted by geekhorde at 9:37 AM on January 20, 2003

"why did Bush change the policy?"

Possibly to curry favor in the South? Stratemagy.
posted by geekhorde at 9:41 AM on January 20, 2003

"why did Bush change the policy?"

Possibilities:
a) he's a racist
b) to get votes
c) both a and b
posted by Outlawyr at 9:53 AM on January 20, 2003

I agree with PenDevil that the article is misleading, because Bush sent the flowers on Confederate Memorial Day, not on Jefferson Davis' birthday. It's still not OK.

How was secession not treason?

That was one of the fundamental causes of the war, and your question was answered by the outcome of the war. The southern states' position was that since the individual states existed as separate entities befire joining the Union, they could leave the Union just as easily. Secession didn't start the war--some states had seceded three months before the war started--the attack on Fort Sumter started the war.

A state doesn't have the right to allow something as horrible as slavery to exist when the Union has outlawed the practice.

Slavery is unquestionably horrible, but it was legal when the Civil War started and wasn't outlawed by the Union anywhere until the Emancipation Proclamation (January 1, 1863), which only applied to states that were in rebellion against the government. Slavery was outlawed in the US by the Thirteenth Amendment, which was ratified December 6, 1865. (Most northern states had already outlawed slavery.)

Slavery was the root cause of the war, but the war didn't explicitly become a war to end slavery until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. This was an unpopular stance in parts of the Union; the Democratic party platform in the 1864 election called for a cease-fire and negotiated settlement with the Confederacy, which would have let slavery continue. (George McClellan, the Democratic candidate in 1864, rejected the peace plank of the party platform.)
posted by kirkaracha at 9:56 AM on January 20, 2003

What would have had them do? Simply abolish slavery, wholesale, throwing the entire economy of the Southern states into utter ruin?

Sure. It beats the hell out of having slavery abolished wholesale with no compensation to the slaveowners, the entire economy of the South ruined, large parts of its productive capacity burned to the ground, and a quarter-million of its men dead.

Had they done what you seem to be suggesting, I wonder if there would even have been a "South" for you to grow up in...

Seeing as how it survived something much worse than that, how can your statement possibly be true?

That said, this seems to me to be no big deal. There have been various acts of reconciliation like this for eons, going back to the first Memorial Day (then Decoration Day) in 1868 in which Grand Army of the Republic veterans paraded through Arlington Cemetery flowering graves of Union and Confederate dead alike. It's a nice tradition that doesn't in its nature say anything other than that the war is over and we can get back to just living, not really any weirder than the various monuments to Washington you can find in London.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:00 AM on January 20, 2003

"Slavery is unquestionably horrible, but it was legal when the Civil War started and wasn't outlawed by the Union anywhere until the Emancipation Proclamation (January 1, 1863), which only applied to states that were in rebellion against the government. Slavery was outlawed in the US by the Thirteenth Amendment, which was ratified December 6, 1865. (Most northern states had already outlawed slavery.)"

Well put. But the writing was on the wall, I would argue. It was only a matter of time, which is why the South left the Union.
posted by geekhorde at 10:05 AM on January 20, 2003

I, for one, welcome our new militaristic, interventionist, confederacy-loving southern aristocrat overlords!

"Bring me a mint julep, boy.....and quick!" *imagines slaves, singing gospel tunes, happily toiling in the hot sun, singing negro spirituals, driven on by the occaisonal overseers' whip, and thinks to himself -"ahhh.....how heartwarming!"*
posted by troutfishing at 10:06 AM on January 20, 2003

This Bush bashing is so tiresome.

Does anyone honestly believe that the president sent flowers to honor Confederate soldiers because he is a racist? Actually, does anyone believe that the President was personally involved in the process?

Does anyone believe that this story is anything but an attempt by Democratic party operatives and their sympathizers in the national media to smear Bush with the brush of racism, and "energize" the Democratic party base?
posted by Durwood at 10:14 AM on January 20, 2003

nice find swell.

the issue is the republican party (well it used to be a party - im not sure what the word is for it now) talking out of one side of its mouth to one group - then quietly winking and smirking to another...
posted by specialk420 at 10:17 AM on January 20, 2003

It's not Bush bashing to question his motives. Sure the Democrats want to milk this, but so do the Republicans, in their own way.
posted by geekhorde at 10:20 AM on January 20, 2003

With all this talk of the Civil War, it's worth noting that the last remaining Union war widow passed away today. However, there's still a Confederate widow alive and kicking at 95. So which side looks to be the winner now, huh?
posted by herc at 10:47 AM on January 20, 2003

Slavery was the key issue of the war, but it was far from the only one. There was a long simmering resentment of northern political and economic domination, and a real clash of different cultures.

From our perspective, growing and living and learning in the world as it is, with the education and information we have, it is clear to us that slavery is an abomination.

But before our sense of moral superiority causes our heads to swell like balloons, we should ask ourselves - and really consider - whether we would have been any different than any other Johnny Reb if we had been in his shoes. To blithely blanket all the Confederate soldiers as being treasonous is a pretty harsh judgment, and best applied if you are certain that all of your actions and beliefs will not be seen as sick and evil by a future generation that never has and never will walk in your shoes.
posted by John Smallberries at 10:54 AM on January 20, 2003

herc that story you posted to is quite amusing...she married her deceased husband when he was 81. They wanted to get married when she was 15 and he was 78 but but her mother made her wait "So my man says, 'Well, I will wait for her until you won't have to,"' she recalled. "We sparked for three years."

Does anyone honestly believe that the president sent flowers to honor Confederate soldiers because he is a racist?
...I don't know if he's a racist or not, but his gesture is sure courting the racist vote with a nod and a wink.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:42 AM on January 20, 2003

Does anyone honestly believe that the president sent flowers to honor Confederate soldiers because he is a racist?

I believe that Bush, like a lot of conservative Republicans and some conservative Democrats, occasionally throws a bone to the Southern racist fringe of his party to make them believe he's their kind of guy.

Does that make him a racist? Hell if I know, but it's a sorry practice all the same.
posted by rcade at 11:47 AM on January 20, 2003

the shrub and it's branches have american citizens silenced and imprisoned indefinitely without rights. his attorney general annoints himself with wesson oil for spiritual purposes. his VP is a corporate mercenary robber baron thief. given this, who cares if some low level functionary sent flowers in his name to a bunch of dead rednecks? we have bigger problems. where the fuck is lee harvey oswald when the world needs him?
posted by quonsar at 11:50 AM on January 20, 2003

I don't think it's fair to compare the US breaking away from England and forming a new nation with the South breaking away. Of course, from the macro perspective it's similar but to compare the two is to ignore the fact that the south tried to break away from the union, and the revolutionary war was fought to create the union.
posted by cell divide at 12:09 PM on January 20, 2003

the shrub and it's branches have american citizens silenced and imprisoned indefinitely without rights. his attorney general annoints himself with wesson oil for spiritual purposes. his VP is a corporate mercenary robber baron thief.

Melodramatic much?
posted by dhoyt at 12:10 PM on January 20, 2003

ostrich much?
posted by quonsar at 12:18 PM on January 20, 2003

quonsar,

isn't there a difference between legitimate dissent and advocating presidential assassination?
posted by matteo at 12:48 PM on January 20, 2003

why of course there is. thank you for recognizing my legitimate dissent.
posted by quonsar at 1:01 PM on January 20, 2003

the nice FBI agent I just talked to on the phone will contact you soon, anyway. he thinks you're very funny!
posted by matteo at 1:03 PM on January 20, 2003

the nice mafioso i just gave money to will contact you soon, anyway. he thinks you're dead meat!
posted by quonsar at 1:13 PM on January 20, 2003

It was treason. So was our Declaration of independence from Britain. The founding fathers were a bunch of traitors. But, I don't think anyone would question us honoring the Revolutionary War dead.

Well, I've yet to see the flowers sent by HM QE2 to George Washington's grave every 4th July. Then again, Oliver Cromwell did get into the list of Great Britons, but that was another kind of civil war entirely.
posted by riviera at 1:16 PM on January 20, 2003

See hear now! Ya'll quit equatin' The Confederacy with racism! Why if Johnny Reb was a racist, his slaves would have been White!
posted by LowDog at 1:39 PM on January 20, 2003

(sorry, this is off topic.)
dhoyt - your parenthetical comment above about patriotism intrigued me. I don't understand the current recasting of patriotism as blind faith in one's country. It's always seemed to me that when we look back at history, the people who are the most patriotic aren't the ones agreeing with their rulers - it's the ones who believe that their country should be held to the highest standards available (and that they *can* be held to those standards), and working to change their countries accordingly. I think this tradition of patriotic criticism is something that's created a lot of what's good in the US today.

A lot of the complaints about patriotism at the moment are really complaints about unpatriotic things being done in the name of patriotism. Some parts of the US Patriot Act, for example.

I guess it's convenient and efficient for leaders to be able to treat their citizens as sheep, but is there any virtue in blind faith? Why do we condemn people for not having it?
posted by wilberforce at 1:42 PM on January 20, 2003

However, there's still a Confederate widow alive and kicking at 95. So which side looks to be the winner now, huh?

Except, of course, that Mrs Martin's husband -- William Jasper Martin (private, 4 Alabama Inf.) -- was a malingerer who went into hospital almost as soon as he joined his unit, and then went AWOL for the rest of the war...
posted by Sonny Jim at 1:45 PM on January 20, 2003

What would have had them do? Simply abolish slavery, wholesale, throwing the entire economy of the Southern states into utter ruin? Had they done what you seem to be suggesting, I wonder if there would even have been a "South" for you to grow up in...

Slavery was abolished, wholesale, and the entire economy of the Southern states was thrown into utter ruin. We called it Reconstruction.

I also grew up in Mississippi or what's left of it. Did you know that some folks there have a real hard time with the MLK holiday? They have managed to work around it since Robert E Lee's birthday is January 19. You celebrate your holiday, and I'll celebrate mine.

Wreaths to confederate dead is a wink and a nudge to the racist element in the south who think Lott was a victim of the liberal media, and who consistently vote Republican. Bush would like to keep it that way.
posted by whatever at 1:51 PM on January 20, 2003

I can not believe I am about to write this, but I don't have a problem with this: "Last Memorial Day, for the second year in a row, Bush's White House sent a floral wreath to the Confederate Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery."

The guy probably laid about 163 wreaths that day. The Civil War is the darkest period in the history of the United States, and not simply because some states seceded (which I am personally not convinced is treason -- although I don't think much is). Brothers fought brothers and not just in the metaphorical sense. The horrible state of modern warfare came into being.

A true civil war (comparisons of treason in the US War for Independence don't wash) requires healing by the entire nation. Hard to believe we are still at it.

Still, in other dark periods of history, it is necessary to honor the fallen soldier, who is fighting and dying for causes that have been whipped from a frenzy that he (or she) may not have even understood nor supported. Even when their cause was horribly wrong.
posted by Dick Paris at 2:03 PM on January 20, 2003

Nicely put.
posted by dhoyt at 2:14 PM on January 20, 2003

On the issue of "what the Civil War and the Confederacy were really about," here's excerpts from a speech by Confederate vice-president Alexander Stephens, who should have known something about the subject. (The entire speech is here.

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. [US President Thomas] Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.

"The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests 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 normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity.

"One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails.

"I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

Some posters had made the point above that the blame could be placed on the Confederate leadership, and not with the rank and file. In all wars, there are foot soldiers who are ignorant of the true causes of the war, doing what they are told because they believe they have to or because they believe it is the right thing to do. Many of these soldiers will give their lives with remarkable bravery - even though their cause may be dead wrong, or even evil.

Do I believe in honoring those who died for an evil cause, believing it to be good? Not really, but I do believe in making peace with them. I believe in giving up anger and hatred and I believe in feeling sorrow for those who were led into giving up their lives for an unworthy cause. I have no objections to putting flowers on the grave of a confederate soldier, so long as you make it clear you are expressing sorrow, not pride. While you're at it, put flowers on the graves of Osama's terrorists. They too wasted their lives fighting for evil and thinking they were doing good.
posted by tdismukes at 2:15 PM on January 20, 2003

Well, I've yet to see the flowers sent by HM QE2 to George Washington's grave every 4th July.

That in particular may not happen, but there are a number of monuments to Washington throughout Britain and at least one source reports that on his death in 1799 the British fleet flew their flags at half-mast.

I believe that Bush, like a lot of conservative Republicans and some conservative Democrats, occasionally throws a bone to the Southern racist fringe of his party to make them believe he's their kind of guy

Imagine the furor if we named a US naval vessel after a Confederate... oh... wait... we already did that.

It's a mark of reconciliation. Putting a wreath on a monument to Confederate dead (at the same time as noting Union dead, anyway) is not the same thing as parading down the street in a Lynyrd Skynyrd T-shirt and a hood.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:40 PM on January 20, 2003

Sonny Jim: Check it out
posted by LowDog at 2:46 PM on January 20, 2003

but to compare the two is to ignore the fact that the south tried to break away from the union, and the revolutionary war was fought to create the union.

And the "Union" is inherently less break-awayable than the Empire why?
posted by rushmc at 3:49 PM on January 20, 2003

This discussion reminded me of what Ulysses S. Grant wrote in his memoirs about the surrender at Appomattox:

I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though the cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.

James M. McPherson's Pulitzer Prize-winning Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Erais an excellent history of the war. He covers a lot of the social and political background leading up to the war, and discusses Reconstruction.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:22 PM on January 20, 2003

Thanks for the link, lowdog.

Jesus, that's a rank piece of prose. Apparently, Horwitz stands by his remarks, though (scroll down a bit). I guess he'll know better than to take on The Last Confederate Widow again, if only to avoid another incoherent, spittle-flecked rant from Dr. Ken Chancey.
posted by Sonny Jim at 5:19 PM on January 20, 2003

More info about George W. Bush and his ties to the neo-Confederacy movement here and here, including a Bush campaign official who threw a racist temper tantrum over a statue of black tennis player, Arthur Ashe.
posted by jonp72 at 7:02 PM on January 20, 2003

jonp72: Bush may well be a neo-Confederate, wish the CSA had won its war, and/or be a racist asshat.

Sending a wreath to the Confederate memorial at Arlington on Memorial Day isn't good evidence of that. It's a long-standing tradition that was incorrectly lost for no good reason. It's utterly unlike the various Confederate battle flag movements, many of which took root only when desegregation was going on and from that take their particularly odious character of domination by the white citizenry.

Given that Memorial Day is "about" the Civil War in the sense that Remembrance Day / Veteran's Day is "about" the Great War, it is a mark of some... not accuracy, but something close to that... to lay a wreath and remember all of the dead. Not doing so forgets the roots of the day.

It also doesn't mean that Bush *isn't* one of those deluded fools or evil men who wish that the CSA had won its war and established a despotic regime with its core principles mired in the deepest depravity and wickedness, or who mourn segregation, or whatever. It doesn't mean anything one way or another, any more than naming an SSBN after Robert E Lee meant that the US wished he'd won at Appomattox.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:24 PM on January 20, 2003

I'm confused. I thought Lincoln† was a *republican* and his record of promoting racial tolerance to the *democratic* South is still honored by the republican party of today.

Look! Republicans LOVE African-Americans.

†: Yeah, I know he was a racist. But he freed the slaves, right? And that makes him less racist than the other racists, which is good.
posted by LimePi at 10:33 PM on January 20, 2003

Jeez, happy MLK day.

1) Most Plastic "states rights vs. treason" threads fizzle out once someone links to the section of the Constitution geekhorde brought up. Is there anyone still arguing for the legality of the Confederacy? Care to clarify your position in light of this?

2) I have to ask because I have no idea: are there any wreaths sent out to Union war heroes? I think it would seem like less of a sop to the neo-Confederates if it could be proven that the White House also sends a yearly wreath to, say, Grant's Tomb. Union soldiers do get recognized, don't they? Can someone find an instance of this?

3) I'm not sure about accepting Ynoxas' argument that the South would've eventually released the slaves on their own: it smacks of the whole "special relationship" vibe from a recent thread. "Power concedes nothing without a demand" after all. The argument that slaves would have somehow arrived at a state of legal equality despite the sentiments tdismukes mentioned sounds pretty dubious to me. Trust in Americans to do the right thing after they've exhausted most of the economic benefit from exploiting a group of people? Yeah, because that went so well for the Indians.
posted by tyro urge at 12:28 AM on January 21, 2003

Nothing bound the States together other than their desire to stay together, and your pompous, ignorant dismissal of their right to make their own determination regarding their destiny says far more about you than it does about them. What would have had them do? Simply abolish slavery, wholesale, throwing the entire economy of the Southern states into utter ruin? Had they done what you seem to be suggesting, I wonder if there would even have been a "South" for you to grow up in...

Great scot! That was beautiful.

Destabilizing the South was necessary to winning the war, and that is exactly what Lincoln did by abolishing slavery.
posted by hama7 at 5:05 AM on January 21, 2003

for a time, I was considering making "the civil war is over. MOVE ON!" bumper stickers but I didn't want to park my car somewhere only to return and find it drenched in tobacco spit.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:30 AM on January 21, 2003

Most Plastic "states rights vs. treason" threads fizzle out once someone links to the section of the Constitution geekhorde brought up.

They must be pretty shallow thinkers over there at that site, then. The Constitution details what states may or may not do. Once you have seceded, you are no longer as state of the Union, so it is no longer applicable.
posted by rushmc at 9:55 AM on January 21, 2003

Most Plastic "states rights vs. treason" threads fizzle out once someone links to the section of the Constitution geekhorde brought up.

They must be pretty shallow thinkers over there at that site, then. The Constitution details what states may or may not do. Once you have seceded, you are no longer a state of the Union, so it is no longer applicable.
posted by rushmc at 9:55 AM on January 21, 2003

Grrr...the doublepost thing is back...
posted by rushmc at 9:56 AM on January 21, 2003

It's okay to form a confederation as long as you secede first? That's an... interesting argument. So what makes secession a right of the states, anyway? Yeah, I know, the Constitution neither expressly forbids it nor denies it to the states, but that seems like such a slippery slope as to be logically untenable. If you accept that, then what's stopping the slaves from seceding from the Confederacy? There's a discussion of the secessionist argument here that seems to side with the Southern Unionists concerning the "states' rights" argument:

First, they doubted that there was a right of secession at all, no matter how stridently the States Rights supporters insisted that the right came from the compact theory. No clause existed in the Constitution that could be used to construe a right of secession; moreover, "No government," wrote a contributor named Old Hickory, "could be supposed to contain a provision for, or to sanction as a right, its own destruction"....The reason why a government could not recognize treason was then amply laid out. Government would be totally unstable, and an unstable government would fail at its mission of protecting life, liberty, and property.

Can you link to something logically supporting the constitutionality of secession? (Preferably centering around the arguments at the time, not after-the-fact justification.)
posted by tyro urge at 2:49 PM on January 21, 2003

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. --Declaration of Independence

The Constitution cannot eradicate or legislate away an "unalienable" right (much less deny one simply by not providing a specific mechanism for it).
posted by rushmc at 6:35 PM on January 21, 2003

The argument that slaves would have somehow arrived at a state of legal equality despite the sentiments tdismukes mentioned sounds pretty dubious to me.

Tyro: I write this with great trepidation reflecting on our previous inabilities to see eye to eye, but I don't think you'll take issue with what I'm writing.

I didn't say they would be "at a state of legal equality", I said that slavery would have become an economic failure due to technological progress. They would have simply no longer been slaves.

I fully expect that had this come to pass, the relegating of the negro to "2nd class citizen" status and all of the resulting civil strife would still have taken place, perhaps only time shifted by 20 years or so.

If anything, I suspect it would have been WORSE because the negro would not have been "emancipated", they would have simply outlived their economic usefulness.

In other words, I don't think Joe Plantation would have let his slaves go because he felt bad, he would have let them go because it made him more money to turn them loose and buy a tractor.

I'm not saying that slavery wasn't worth fighting over, it certainly was. But I just think it's tragic that so many had to die and so much suffering was had over something that #1 should never have existed in the first place and #2 was a doomed institution.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:25 PM on January 21, 2003

Fair enough. The war certainly was tragic. I just think that the end result of the Civil War-- the abolition of slavery and the legal enfranchisement of blacks as fully recognized citizens (well the males anyway)-- was probably better than anything that could have been expected otherwise, including any non-war related forms of emancipation. It should be remembered that there were many abolitionists who felt that blacks should be freed but should not be made American citizens (that's how Liberia came about, after all), and if things hadn't come to a violent head as they did, there's no guarantee that we'd be where we are now.

Of course, as a potential slave, I suppose I'm a bit biased. :)

rushmc, I'm as fond of the Declaration of Independence as the next person, but the Constitution supercedes it as the law of the land; the signatory states presumably consented to that. Even if the South did claim the Declaration as the rationale for their rebellion, there's still the problem of justifying their rather limited view of "all men are created equal" to the rest of the world.

Sorry if I'm derailing the thread. Did anyone ever find out about the wreaths? And why is this making the news now as opposed to eight months ago?
posted by tyro urge at 4:09 PM on January 22, 2003

Time.com has stopped linking to the page. 3 days seems like a short time to expire a news article, but I don't surf Time too much. In light of the Trent Lott fiasco, is this just too much racial news for the nation/administration to handle now? Seems its enough for the fine folks over at time.com.
posted by Birichini at 9:34 PM on January 23, 2003

To put a final note on this, the article was wrong. Pres. Bush did NOT revive this tradition, it never died. EVERY Pres. has sent a wreath, the only difference being Pres. Bush Sr. changed the date to memorial day instead of the birthday of Jefferson Davis.

It would really be nice if these reporters got their facts straight.
posted by Plunge at 6:33 AM on January 24, 2003

This article is false, and has been retracted by Time.

Also see MetaTalk.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:18 AM on January 24, 2003

Thanks Steve. I should have put a link in my comment.
posted by Plunge at 7:53 PM on January 24, 2003