Attitudes Toward the Civil War ... How Times Have Changed

When U.S. Grant ran for president in 1868, his campaign theme was “Let us have peace.” It was an acknowledgement that the country had had its differences, that divisions remained but that we had to treat each other with respect. This medal, which was issued during the Grant campaign, recalled the surrender at Appomattox where Grant allowed the Confederate soldiers to take the horses so that they could plant their crops in the spring.

In 1938 there was 75th reunion at the Gettysburg Battlefield. This would mark the last great Civil War veteran reunion, and it was greatest reunion.The emphasis was on unity and equality of the two sides. This commemorative half dollar reflected that in its design.

1961 marked a four year period during which there was an observance of the centennial of the war. The Medallic Art Company issued this medal as a commemorative piece.

In 1995, this commemorative silver dollar was issued as part of a set. Once more the theme was a call for peace and reconciliation.

Today, with the left tearing down monuments, even to Abraham Lincoln, it’s hard to believe that messages like this will appear again. Now the only monuments that any left wingers want to save are on Civil War battlefields. It will be interesting to see if even those will get to survive. Since the left’s goal is re-write or even better for them, cancel history, pieces like this might be all that will be left of our past.

A wonderful post.

This needs to be re-posted everywhere.

The Left hate Western civilization, full stop. Liberals can’t resist the onslaught, even if they privately have misgivings about it.

And I suspect they have a special hatred for the courageous men of the Civil War, who held values that the current spoiled-brat human garbage making up the Far Left can’t even begin to understand. Honor, Duty, Country.


2 white guys saying the confederacy wasn’t bad. Also, today is Saturday.

Hitler made some great highways - that’s not what he is remembered for. The Confederacy wanted to own niggers. It is that simple.

North and South, they were all Americans. Problem now is that our so-called liberals are effectively Communists. They might as well be from Russia.

A truly bigoted response from a non citizen who tells us he is not a racist. When you bring up “white” you show your true beliefs. It is very fashionable among progressives now to label any statement with which they do not agree as “racist.”

A) I thought I was on ignore, my dude. How were you able to read my argument?

B) You seem to completely dismiss my second paragraph, when it is obvious to everyone my first sentence was facetious and quite possibly sarcastic.

And yet it went right over your head. Huh. Confederacy for life niggers. And Hitler did make some good roads.

Yes, the Civil War was about slavery, even though Lincoln insisted that it was only about keeping the Union together. The great majority of Southern soldiers did not own slaves, and, although we have no public opinion polls from that time, I’ll bet that if you asked the average Southern boy why he was fighting, he wouldn’t have said, ‘Because them Yanks want to take away the rich people’s slaves.’ (Not that he was against slavery: his attitude was towards Blacks was identical to that of the average Union soldier. And they were both transphobes as well!)

Anti-fa is not wrong when they attack statues of Abraham Lincoln.

But enough about us. I understand whites in Australia are now calling ‘Australia Day’, ‘Invasion Day’, and are beginning to recognize that they are living on stolen land, cruelly ripped away from the indigenous population, whom they then herded into reservations, where they are forced to drink alcohol and abuse their children.

Of course those who condemn slavery – why didn’t those wicked whites just release all their slaves? – will also be equally condemnatory of this brutal, violent theft.

And will want to do the right thing, which is to return the stolen property to its rightful owners.

So … where will you emigrate to?

1 Like

You are on ignore, dude, but you responded to my post.

It’s hard to know when you progressives are joking or serious because you are angry so much of the time. I find most of you to be totally humorless, like one of your best know comic spokesman, Steven Colbert. When he tells one of his progressive jokes, his audience don’t laugh; they just nod their heads.

Lincoln, like all politicians, was trying to find his way during a most difficult time. At first he based his 1860 campaign on the concept that there would be no more slave states or territories. He also toyed with the ideas of compensating slave owners and sending the freed slaves back to Africa. His assumption was that slavery would die a natural death.

Ultimately he came to the conclusion that slavery had to end in order to restore the Union. That seems logical to us now, but it wasn’t so easy for the politicians then. It gets back to the concept that you can’t apply today’s standards to historical figures. Doing that makes them look like bigots in the modern context.

Freedom has been an evolutionary process. The constitution started with voting limited to White property owners. Their voting rights were limited on the Federal level because they could only vote for the members of the House of Representatives. Over a period of about 130 years, those rights expanded to where we are today.

The progressives want to pit one race against another for political advantage. They want to centralize the control of the economy into a relatively small number of hands. They want to give out economic favors to those who support them. In short, they want to go back to the bad old days of the ruling class who dictates to everyone below them.

They do this out of a sense of arrogance because they think they have all of the answers. They don’t. No one group has all the answers. That’s why freedom and democracy are the only pathways to progress. Communism and fascism are not.

1 Like

Slavery is a near-human universal, and maybe even that qualifier shouldn’t be there.

Let’s say that when humans – who are just hairless, tailless apes, remember? – get beyond the hunter-gatherer level, and start to form larger societies, they also take a step foward in (long-term) rational behavior towards defeated enemies.

One small tribe which defeats another small tribe – fighting, say, over access to good hunting spot, like a water-hole – has every motive to kill all the males, except for those young enough to be adopted into the tribe. (I have read that the Comanches killed the unwanted young children of their captured enemies by grabbing them by the legs and swinging them against trees, smashing their skulls that way… however, I don’t believe it, because Progressives tell us that the Native Americans were natural Greens, living in harmony with nature … and this might have damaged the bark of the trees.)

But once a tribe has reached a certain size, and has discovered the advantages of fixed agriculture … then it becomes rational not to kill your enemies, but to enslave them. A step forward. The next step is to disarm them – no Second Amendment for defeated enemies! – and leave them alone to grow their crops and tend their flocks, but to exact tribute. The origin of taxes.

Now … slavery and the semi-slavery of serfdom, was absolutey universal. In the morality of the time, to spare a defeated enemy’s life in battle, provided he became your permanent servant, was the norm. Great thinkers like Socrates and Plato and Aristotle didn’t give it a second thought. The Bible, including the New Testament, takes it for granted.

It slowly died out in Europe, at least for fellow Europeans. The Muslims still practiced it, including enslaving thousands of Europeans whom they captured during slave-raids on England and Ireland.

So when the human race took another step forward in establishing wage-labor instead of feudal serfdom, and Republican government instead of monarchy, slavery – of Africans – was simply not seen as morally wrong by the great majority.

Note that African slaves were usually bought from other Africans, who had conquered them in war and enslaved them. Africans didn’t think slavery was wrong. Only some Europeans did, and over time, their views prevailed … in Europe, and in part of America.

Christianity played a big role in this, by the way.

But not in that part of the world where slavery was integral to the economy … and where slaves existed in large numbers. (Read about the Nat Turner slave revolt, and what happened to captured whites – the same thing that happened to them in the great slave revolt of Haiti at the beginning of the 19th Century.)

So for decades after it had been abolished in the Northern states of America, and in Great Britain, it still prevailed in the Southern states, and the Caribbean.

The slave-owners had strong material reasons to resist keeping up with the advancing morality of Europe, and to retain the morality of Africa with regard to slavery. As Bertolt Brecht said, ‘Erst kommt das Fressen …dann kommt die Moral.’ (First come the eats, then comes morality.)

They weren’t going to give up their slaves – and bankrupt themselves – any more than Patooka is going to give back the stolen property he now enjoys to the Aborigines, or our American moralizing Lefties are going to do the moral thing and return their stolen property to the descendants of the Native Americans. (I’m 1/16th Choctaw and have repeatedly asked for my cut, but will these white Lefties do the right thing? Ha.)

So it’s extremely easy for white Progressives to sit back and condemn the Southern slave-owners for acting like Plato and Socrates and Jefferson and Madison and Washington … and like the white Progressives of today who stubbornly hold on to their stolen Native property.

What I condemn the slave-owners for is for not being smart. If they had been like their more intelligent British counterparts in the Caribbean, they could have got the Yankees to cough up a nice sum in compensation for emancipating the slaves, and transitioned peacefully to being landowners with lots of money … who would therewith have the luxury of waxing indignant about the horrors of slavery … then they would match today’s moralizing Lefties, with their stolen native land.

Why weren’t the Southerners as smart as their Caribbean counterparts.

As I’ve said before, I blame cousin marriages.

1 Like

The Confederacy wanted states’ rights.

Nah, c’mon. They knew that with more and more free states joining the Union, they would lose their de facto veto over ending slavery. The war was about slavery. Can’t get around that. And if they’d won, that would have set a great precedent for other regions breaking loose. We might have ended up with half a dozen little Republics on the North American Continent.

Now, maybe that would have been no bad thing. You can make a good case that no state that wants to be a state of free people should have more than about five million inhabitants.

BUT … in the nasty old world we live in … as the 20th Century proved … it was not a bad thing that the biggest baddest brother on the block was a liberal democracy, and not a fascist or a communist state.

I’m a white Southerner myself, born and bred in Texas, with ancestors on my mother’s side from Georgia. I love the South. Much more civilized in some ways than those horrible commercially-minded Yankees.

But we can’t deny history.

1 Like

The Civil War was fought over slavery. The progressives will cringe at this, but the slaves were capital, and the slave holders had millions of dollars invested in them. Emancipation brought huge business losses for them, which was one factor that impoverished the South during Reconstruction in addition to the destroyed infrastructure.

As for @Doug1943‘s claim that a united U.S. made the difference in World War II, there is no way to argue against that.

There is a very interesting, although almost completely unknown, ‘alternative history’ of the Civil War, written by Winston Churchill, available here:

In it, Churchill speculates about what might have happened, had Lee won at Gettysburg. (Confusingly, the piece is written from the point of view of someone writing in the late 1920s, in a world in which Lee did win, and other things happened, but speculating about what might have happened if he had not won. These ‘speculations’ are then a description of what did happen, because Lee did not in fact win. In Churchill’s musings, Lee’s loss led to World War I.)

A summary of what ‘happened’ because Lee won: he swiftly took Washington DC. He was a hero in the South, eclipsing the elected Confederate Government. But he knew the Union would still prevail, without his getting powerful external help. So he proclaimed the end of slavery.

This brought the British into the war on his side – the Royal Navy being far stronger than the Union navy, the blockade was over … and since the fight was no longer for slavery, the moral oomph went out of the Union cause. And the war was over.

The slaves were somehow taken care of, without giving them the vote.
The South later conquered Mexico. The two American nations were at loggerheads and both formed powerful military machines, but did not go to war.

Then in 1905, a (real) incident almost brought the Europeans to war – but the British and the two American nations (both military powers to be reckoned with) formed an ‘English-speaking Alliance’ and this kept the peace.

Then in 1914, this powerful alliance forced the almost-ready-for-war European powers to back off and settle their diffrences peacefully. And the European peace was kept from then on.

If only.

It’s worth a read, but remember that it’s told from an inside-out perspective: how bad things would have been, if Stuart had not been able to attack Meade from the rear, and if Lee had therefore lost.

(And this man could not master mathematics or Latin! I always remember this when I have a tutee who is slow at grasping what I’m trying to teach him: maybe I have another Churchill here.)

You’re so right. I automatically dismiss anything any white person says. Being white is so passe. I’m so glad we have biden in office because now maybe we can kill them all. It’s so in style and so liberal to hate people because of something they can’t change like the color of their skin don’t you agree Patooka?

I meant, ha, I meant it’s so cool to hate WHITE PEOPLE because of the color of their skin. That is so brave and modern. OMG Pat will you be my friend? I want to be just like you.

Dude you are SO cool.

1 Like

Can we colonize mars or something yet? I want off of this planet.

And I apologize to you Fantasychaser and everyone else here, I may get banned for saying this but I just really want to. :smiley:

To all you democrats who frequent this site: You can take your politically correct socially acceptable brand of racism and shove it right up your party mascot

It sounds like you might have this in mind @gutsandcasca

Yes, it’s very fashionable among progressives and woke people to blame every problem in the people of color of communities on White people. It used to be mostly directed toward White males, but now it’s every White person. Racism is alive and well in the Progressive and Woke movements.

1 Like

I don’t think what we’re seeing should really be described by the word “racism” although it’s technically the same.

Genuine racists actually believe that their particular race is superior to others, either intellectually (anti-Black racism), or morally (anti-Semitism). [White racists think Blacks are stupid; Nazis didn’t think Jews were stupid, but rather were immoral towards non-Jews.]

Then there is what, for want of a better word, I call “tribalism”: My tribe against yours, because we’re competing for the same scarce resources: usually this occurs where history has blessed the poor devils concerned with “diversity”, and has mixed two (or more) tribes together geographically.

The coming of democracy has actually exacerbated the situation, because often, the tribes concerned were ruled by a third power: the Austro-Hungarian Empire is an example, or the British in Africa and the Indian Sub-Continent. (One of Churchill’s ostensible reasons for being an imperialist was his prediction that if the British withdrew from India, a million people would die in the ensuing mahem. He was right on the money.)

This is extremely common in the world, although few Americans know much about it because our schools don’t teach any real history or provide truthful information about the state of the world.

For example, in Sri Lanka, an island which has a Buddhist majority (the Sinhalese) and a Hindu minority (the Tamils), I don’t think either side considers itself intellectually or morally superior to the other: this doesn’t keep them from killing each other. (Sri Lanka is interesting, in a horrible sort of way, because it has a well-educated population. It’s also the only place I know of where the Marxist Left has been racially-chauvinist, official racism/tribalism being the one sin of which the Left has not been generally guilty.)

The African tribes which butcher each other more or less regularly don’t think of themselves as killing people who are inferior or superior to them intellectually or morally.

But America is different. Black radicals don’t think they’re superior to the whites … just the opposite, in fact. Nor do they really want to separate and rule themselves in their own country, something which most whites would be all too willing to allow. They know what would happen if they did.

Rather, they have learned that white liberals/progressives are deeply guilty about being white, and about secretly believing that Blacks are indeed inferior. So these whites can be easily manipulated.

White guilt is a gift that keeps on giving, because the problem is, for all practical purposes, intractable. No one believes that, if the Democrats could get everything they want with respect to the Black problem: reparations, affirmative action raised to the third power, replacing policemen with social workers, a job program, draconian gun control … that anything would change very much in places like South Chicago.

There will continue to be a high rate of violent crime, high unemployment, high social dependency, and a high rate of children raised without a father.

And of course, it’s all whitey’s fault.

Everyone knows this, but of course no one can say it.

“It’s all Whitey’s fault.”

They are saying it now. They even have a new branch of “Black man’s mathematics” because “Whitey invented the current systems.” The trouble is, he didn’t. I dare say the many of the math discoveries that Muslim scholars made were developed by brown skinned people.

The White progressives sell this crap to the minorities to stir trouble for the progressives’ benefit.

1 Like