More Civil War Revisionism

Lately there has been a lot of historical revisionism surrounding the US Civil War, the latest of which is outrage over General John Kelly’s remarks that “the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War”. This led to howls of outrage from people who believe the only words anyone is allowed to say on the subject are “Slavery is evil!” over and over until our brains melt, but Streetwise Professor has done us all a service by pointing out that what Kelly said was factually correct and would make sense to anyone who knew what they were talking about.

This group would probably not include the author of this thread which I came across this morning on Twitter:

Now I understand that a lot of the pro-Confederate views in the South were a reaction to the Civil Rights movement, but that notwithstanding, what is this chap on about? “Black people were thrown under the bus of revisionist history?” Were they? How? By whom?

And the South was allowed to keep it’s “pro-slavery culture and institutions”? Well, other than having their institutions as well as homes and property utterly destroyed by the Union forces and slavery being abolished along with the economic system the South relied on, presumably.

What he means, of course, is Southerners were permitted to live and express their opinions rather than being forced to adhere to the narrative of the victors. Actually no, scratch that: he means they weren’t forced to adhere to the narrative of modern-day SJWs bent on historical revisionism a century-and-a-half later. I don’t know a lot about the Reconstruction of the South, but I understand it was a period of considerable hardship and humiliation for those involved. One doesn’t need to sympathise with the South to point out this is hardly compatible with a cosy compromise which allowed them to carry on as before, as this chap implies.

Even assuming this compromise is what Kelly was talking about – and it wasn’t – what were the options open to the US at the time? They fought a horrific war to prevent the Confederate states seceding, and somehow had to reincorporate them and the population back under the Federal umbrella. Other than mass murder or repressions along Soviet lines, what choice did they have other than to reach a compromise? The only people who have had that demanded of them were the Germans after Nazism, and look how that’s turned out: seventy years they’re so lacking in confidence they’ve voted to replace their own population. Even the Japanese weren’t required to hang their heads in shame in perpetuity, and nor have they paid much more than lip service (and financial reparations) for what they did in Manchuria and Korea before and during WWII. What this man is demanding is the descendants of everyone who fought for the South to grovel at the feet of the Permanently Aggrieved to atone for holding the wrong opinions about events long in the past which few seem interested in understanding any more.

And this amused:

Pa Smith has been telling Sonny Boy that their family is so woke they knew slavery in the US was wrong and would have fought against it, even though they were living in Lithuania at the time. That any Lithuanian migrant drafted into either army would have had the first idea what they were fighting for is laughable, let alone the suggestion that their opinions on blacks and slavery would have aligned perfectly with abolitionists – or contemporary SJWs.

What’s more worrying is idiots like this believe it is they who have the solution to the widening rifts in US culture, whereas they are more likely to send the US headlong into serious civil conflict.


13 thoughts on “More Civil War Revisionism

  1. “the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War”: from time to time I’ve suggested to Americans that it was their Holy Constitution that made compromise so difficult to achieve. This has been so ill received that I suspect it must be true.

  2. Apparently the fuss that’s made about the Pilgrim Fathers as the founders of America, the fuss made about Thanksgiving Day – these are attempts by Northeners to rub the noses of Southerners in their defeat.

    After all, the first successful, continuing English colony in North America
    wasn’t planted in Massachusetts but in Virginia. And no doubt the English there held harvest festivals.

  3. What does he mean by forgiving the south? As I understand it, the Democrats fought hard to keep Republican influences out of the south so that they, the Democrats, could enact Jim Crow laws and all sorts of segregation in order to keep something as close to the pre-war system as possible, only without slavery. Until 1876, the Republicans stationed an army in the southern states to stop this mullarkey. But the election of that year did not produce a clear winner and so the Democrats allowed Rutherford Hayes (who?) to become president on the proviso that the army would be withdrawn. Black people were thrown under the bus but it was simply to keep the wealthy landowners happy. No forgiveness, no revisionism was involved

  4. You know what? I’m bored of the whole subject. I think alot of white folk in the USA are too. I am married to a non-white and have friends, colleagues and acquaintances from all over the world. I don’t really give a flying fuck what the BLM or lefty SJW view of this ‘agenda’ is anymore. I’ve zoned out. “Check my white privilege” ??? FOAD.

  5. I think we have another child dreaming of doing great heroic things, but lacking opportunity or courage imagines himself the hero of some past conflict, the result of which is known.

  6. I had always thought crude moral relativism of this sort was a specialty of the far left. Guess I was mistaken.

  7. Ah the Reconstruction. I would think the South has fully paid back the North for that when those Arkansas Grifters, the Clintons, brought their unique brand of government in their carpetbags with them.

  8. I think if we blame the South for Jim Crow we should blame the democrats as well.
    @”Other than mass murder or repressions along Soviet lines, what choice did they have other than to reach a compromise?”
    True but allowing Jim Crow was a big mistake.

  9. I had always thought crude moral relativism of this sort was a specialty of the far left.

    What is being presented as relative to what, in this instance?

  10. True but allowing Jim Crow was a big mistake.

    It sounds like a giant clusterf*ck yes, and there were probably better options. However, all options would have involved making a compromise with the Southern populations and bringing them back into the Union after four years of brutal war. I suspect a lot of the compromise took place in the manner it did was because a lot of Northerners, while opposed to slavery, otherwise really didn’t care much for blacks. I suspect they still don’t, despite the noises.

  11. The Woke are posturing about opposing slavery. If they opposed slavery they’d oppose today’s slavery: Moslem countries still have slaves; Islam condones slavery. Fix: abolish Islam, burn all Islamic literature, tear down all mosques; forced conversions of Moslems.

    Yesterday’s slavery. In 1941 the allied powers of national Socialism and international Socialism ruled from Pyrenees to Pacific. Fix: burn all works of socialism; lustrate and de-nazify all socialists; ban all socialists from government, education, media; declare all socialist regimes (Venezuela, Cuba, EU) enemies of humanity.

    Once today’s and yesterday’s slavers and slave ideologies are crushed, then I’ll worry about Confederates.

Comments are closed.