This question shows that you don't "get it". Never will. That's OK. People of my generation and older feel the way I described above. WE lost.
The South seceded. We wanted the Union Soldiers occupying Fort Sumter gone, they refused. Hotheads, idiots or more likely politicians decided to bomb then out. Let the War begin. Now it's an honor thing. Avenge Fort Sumter!!!
Oh, trust me, I very much "get it." I was just pointing out that
no one who says such things has any personal connection whatsoever to it, aside from living in a geographical region the better part of two centuries after it happened.
First, the internet probably did not exist in post civil war USA, so those posts did not impact how the South was treated. Would the South have been treated differently if it had bowed and kissed the feet of the army that had just "invaded" and burned the cities? Get real. They only had one thing left. Pride. Like any defeated people, they use(d) it to justify their actions during the war, and to decry their treatment after the war.
You hear neither Germans or Japanese discussing how their actions in WWII were glorious. I don't know about Japan, but in Germany there are laws dealing with such things.
If the Germans had invaded and defeated England, then done the same to America and waged for the first time in modern history the destruction of civilian infrastructure (as Uncle Billy Sherman did) perhaps people "up North" would have a bit more understanding.
The South as a victim? I'm not sure comparing the South's destruction to a hypothetical invasion/destruction of England by Germany - England didn't start it and had no blood on its hands. The better comparison is between the South and Germany - starting a war, and suffering the consequences.
I did not own slaves either, but as a Southern white man I'm reminded everyday here in Atlanta that people here in the South did own slaves, (as did some of this nations "founding fathers") as horribly wrong as that was. I work in a city where a person of my race lives in an atmosphere of at times outright hostility and intimidation. Wrong? Yes, payback for something I did not participate in? Yup. Was the treatment of black folk in the South post war up to the 1960's wrong? Absolutely. Yet, today, now, racial attitudes of whites toward Black and Hispanic people are more virulent in parts of rural New York or Nebraska than I've seen in the South in 40 years. Yet, it's the guys down here who are the "crackers".
With one hand, a lot of people say that it's fine to feel pride and discuss it as "we" when there's no real connection to something; with the other, the "bad stuff" gets disclaimed. As in "
we fought a good fight, but I sure didn't have anything to do with slavery and it annoys me that it's held against me."
If you're going to discuss the war as "we,"
all of it comes with it.
If you're not willing to let go of what happened 150+ years ago, why do you think black people - when there's a 90% chance that their ancestors were slaves, or treated horribly for the 100+ years after the war was over - would be? If you're going to talk about your predecessors in the war as "we," why wouldn't they feel the same way?
The "we" to them is far closer than it is to anybody whose ancestors fought in the Civil War. The Civil War was done in 1865; the Civil Rights movement was alive and well 40-50 years ago.
And this is where my issue with it comes in. Heritage is great, history is great - I
fully support knowing and taking pride in both, and despite arguing, I agree that there is a lot for Southerners to take pride in (particularly from a solely military perspective). My issue, however, is that only the "good" things are discussed - there's a lot of pride in the battles won, for instance, but no one likes to talk about the bad things and, when they do, it's lip-service only.
I guess we made the bed a long time ago, and we'll sleep in it forever.
The only reason it's still an issue is because people in the South like to bring it up. The Lost Cause, for whatever reason, remains alive and well. It's one thing to discuss it from a historical/academic perspective - it's fascinating, even when the conversations become heated. It's another to act like it still matters; as long as that's done, there are going to be a whole lot of people that respond as I have.
For the times, probably so. Look at what the Treaty of Versailles got us. Another World War. The treatment of Germany and Japan after the Second World War showed us what can be done to show how defeated enemy can be turned around into an ally. Hell, I work for a German company. The Germans I know tell me the best thing to ever happen to Germany was the defeat in WWII.
Agreed. I wouldn't have done Reconstruction the way it was done; in a lot of ways, I guess you could compare the results to the "stab in the back" theory after WWI.
You could look at it one of two ways. First, you could say it was the fault of the Allies that the Germans felt that way. Second, you could say that it just made the Germans
that much more of jerks, esp. considering they started another war.
My point is that the South brought it on itself, and Southerners who complain about it aren't going to get too much sympathy except from other Southerners.
True dat. And throw Hollywood in for good measure.
At least we agree on something.
PS - I apologize if I've caused offense. Didn't mean to.
