Confederate soldiers=terrorists

[novelist_wannabe]

This guy lays out a case ...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/martin.confederate.extremist/index.html?hpt=C1

 

[Lugnuts]

Have you noticed a big wave of revisionist history sweeping across the South with regard to the Civil War, nw?

My lovely Southern gentleman father, who I love dearly, has become a fan of these stupid-ass (sorry) quasi-fiction Newt Gingrich books about "what if" the Confederates had won X battle.

And no, I haven't read them, so maybe I don't have the right to call them stupid ass, but I can't think of a bigger waste of time than romanticizing and putting "dream" spins on battles that the Confederacy LOST!

Anyhoo........... What's the fascination here?

I think the column you posted might be a bit of an overreaction to the revisionism.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

Have you noticed a big wave of revisionist history sweeping across the South with regard to the Civil War, nw?

My lovely Southern gentleman father, who I love dearly, has become a fan of these stupid-ass (sorry) quasi-fiction Newt Gingrich books about "what if" the Confederates had won X battle.

And no, I haven't read them, so maybe I don't have the right to call them stupid ass, but I can't think of a bigger waste of time than romanticizing and putting "dream" spins on battles that the Confederacy LOST!

Anyhoo........... What's the fascination here?

I think the column you posted might be a bit of an overreaction to the revisionism.

I think there's always a bit of fascination over "What If?"s in history. Putting on my nerd hat here, there's a book called "Guns of the South" in which South Africans (from the apartheid era) traveled back in time to give the Confederacy AK-47s and other equipment in an effort to change history so the U.S. would be an ally for segregation in the future.

That said, this geek story isn't exactly Southerners wondering how things could have been different, if only . . .

Again putting on my nerd hat, that column reminds me of a line from a . . um, illustrated story I read as a kid: "Terrorists! That's what the big army calls the little army!" I would guess that during our noble War For Independence, the British thought we were terrorists.

 

[old_tony]

Have you noticed a big wave of revisionist history sweeping across the South with regard to the Civil War, nw?

My lovely Southern gentleman father, who I love dearly, has become a fan of these stupid-ass (sorry) quasi-fiction Newt Gingrich books about "what if" the Confederates had won X battle.

And no, I haven't read them, so maybe I don't have the right to call them stupid ass, but I can't think of a bigger waste of time than romanticizing and putting "dream" spins on battles that the Confederacy LOST!

Anyhoo........... What's the fascination here?

I think the column you posted might be a bit of an overreaction to the revisionism.

Based on your thoughts here, I'm guessing you never read any kind of fiction because it's a waste of time?

 

[User 4332]

This guy lays out a case ...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/martin.confederate.extremist/index.html?hpt=C1

Huge logic fail

 

[Bob Crotchet]

"Alternate history" is an old and established genre. (See "The Man in the High Castle" from 1962, Harry Turtledove, etc.) Doesn't do anything for me, but it has been popular for years. ... And I still live in the South and have seen no such "wave of revisionist history."

 

[novelist_wannabe]

Sure I've noticed. And I think you're right ... the whole exercise seems pointless. I found this intriguing and inflammatory nonetheless.

 

[Lugnuts]

I still live in the South and have seen no such "wave of revisionist history."

What about this episode involving the Virginia governor and the "oops I forgot about the whole slavery thing" for which he had to apologize?

Maybe revisionism isn't the right word... maybe it's some Southerners' attempts to romanticize something that has no business being romanticized.

From what my Dad describes in the Gingrich books, Robert E. Lee is portrayed as a gentleman and genius of the highest order, while Grant is an asshole who got lucky.

Am I wrong?

** Please keep in mind... I love the South. It's my home. Everytime I go back there, I feel the damn power of the "red Earth." I will and have defended the South many times here for what it really is. I love my dad more than anything. But my dad raised me to call bull**** when I see it -- even when it's coming from him.

 

[LongTimeListener]

As rhetorical exercises go, the opposite side was a whole lot better:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/opinion/02horwitz.html?_r=1

It's a very compelling case that, at least by current definitions, the terrorist label applies to John Brown and the abolitionists. Which goes to show the impossibility of retroactively applying these terms.

 

[Tarheel316]

Oh boy. I can see where this thread has great potential for being locked. Since I'm from California originally I don't share the nostalgia that some people do here about the Confederacy. Martin wrote a column. It's his opinion. Nothing more. Come on, the Civil War ended 135 years ago.

 

[Boom_70]

Since April is Confederate History month this seems like an appropriate topic of discussion.
The Governor of Virginia Robert McDonnell, actually issued a proclamation recognizing April as Confederate History Month. In it he celebrated those “who fought for their homes and communities and Commonwealth” and wrote of the importance of understanding “the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War.”

As time goes by I become less and less impressed with this guy that the Republican party is touting as a possible national candidate.

 

[crimsonace]

Even Winston Churchill's book "The Great Republic" has a "what if the South had won" chapter.

A lot of historians like to ask the "what if?" question. What if the Brits had won the Revolutionary War? Would the U.S. be provinces of Canada that stop at the Mississippi River? Would we be 3-4 different countries today (the SW being Mexico, the Oregon Country being a separate country, the Louisiana Purchase area being independent?) What if Hitler hadn't been so deranged and let his generals wage World War II? What if the Japanese had brought invasion troops to Pearl Harbor?

Because of the nature of the Civil War, it's probably the most-romanticized of the wars. It is certainly the most-reenacted, and among military history buffs, seems to be the most heavily-studied. However, it's likely the eventual outcome would have happened -- the Union simply had too many men, too many resources and too much of an industrial base for the Confederacy, although the Confederates had some incredibly strong generals.

 

[dooley_womack1]

The Confederacy fought a conventional war. So they were not terrorists, but traitors

 

[Bob Crotchet]

I still live in the South and have seen no such "wave of revisionist history."

What about this episode involving the Virginia governor and the "oops I forgot about the whole slavery thing" for which he had to apologize?

Maybe revisionism isn't the right word... maybe it's some Southerners' attempts to romanticize something that has no business being romanticized.

From what my Dad describes in the Gingrich books, Robert E. Lee is portrayed as a gentleman and genius of the highest order, while Grant is an asshole who got lucky.

Am I wrong?

** Please keep in mind... I love the South. It's my home. Everytime I go back there, I feel the damn power of the "red Earth." I will and have defended the South many times here for what it really is. I love my dad more than anything. But my dad raised me to call bull**** when I see it -- even when it's coming from him.

Does one incident constitute a "wave?" Not saying you're absolutely wrong, just that I haven't noticed it. ... As for the rest, I think Southerners (and others) have been romanticizing the Civil War -- and most other wars -- for a long time. And I'm not enough of a history buff to say whether the portrayals of Lee and Grant are accurate, "romanticized" or flat-out wrong.

 

[Bob Crotchet]

The Confederacy fought a conventional war. So they were not terrorists, but traitors

I'm not arguing, just curious: Do you think the same of the Revolutionary War?

 

[dreunc1542]

This sort of revisionist history surrounding the Civil War is really nothing new. This has been studied for quite some time: http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Lost-Cause-Civil-History/dp/0253338220.

 

[Smallpotatoes]

How could they be terrorists? They weren't Mooslims.

 

[dooley_womack1]

The colonies were occupied territory. The southern states freely joined a binding confederation.

 

[crimsonace]

The colonies were occupied territory. The southern states freely joined a binding confederation.

... and because they had freely joined the United States of America (note they were states, and not provinces, because state sovereignty was supposed to be guaranteed), they believed they had the right to freely leave the United States of America.

That is the question on which a lot of the Civil War arguments are held -- not slavery (which is nearly-universally agreed to be a moral wrong today, even in the South). Did the Union have the right to force the Confederate states to unwillingly remain in the United States of America against their will? Because they invaded and won, the answer is yes.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

Invaded? What the ****?