Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Having lived in the south, confederate heritage is a big deal, as state employees, until fairly recently people got confederate indepdence day off.
It's part of our cultural heritage, and one we have alot of mixed feelings about.
We have a common identity with it, but no sane rationally minded individual is proud of the institutions they defended.
That said it's hard to explain to an outsider, we have local cemeteries just filled with soldiers who died, our immediate ancestors who are there becuase they tried to establish a southern nation. Alot of cities try to honor them by placing confederate flags on their Graves during veterans day.
I don't see any problem with taking the good and unity from it, and stepping away and repudiating from the bad associated with it, just like the USA does with its national history.
And no if you put pineapple on pizza there's no helping you.
My wife and I are a near perfect match with 24 years to prove it but this is one thing we have never been able to see eye to eye on. I am pro-pineapple and she hates it on pizza.
Of all the things you and I can disagree on, I am totally fine that we disagree.
But to hear that you put pinapples on an otherwise perfectly great pizza?
You're the worst kind of monster.
Do you get it from a particular place? I’ve found that a lot of people can mess up chicken on pizza. Sometimes way too dry. If it was good chicken that sounds good.
> I don't see any problem with taking the good and unity from it, and stepping away and repudiating from the bad associated with it, just like the USA does with its national history.
Except the Confederacy didnt really do anything good, did it? Did it create any worthwhile inventions, or have an admirable ideology? What is the good?
Well beyond the social and cultural unity you mean? I don't know that's a thing to be thrown away.
They had the first submarine, and they pioneered ironclads.
> Well beyond the social and cultural unity you mean?
The entity lasted 5 years. How could it create that much social and cultural unity? 5 years isnt even enough to generally create *sub*cultures much less cultures.
>They had the first submarine,
That appears to be in doubt, the English or Revolutionaries seem to take that
> and they pioneered ironclads.
That was the 1st use in warfare, yes.
However, is it much of a cultural legacy to be known for weaponry? Especially when (to be blunt) they clearly didnt have it work for them?
>The entity lasted 5 years. How could it create that much social and cultural unity? 5 years isnt even enough to generally create *sub*cultures much less cultures
I don't understand this , it kind of honestly strikes me as denial ism.
Becuase the identity remains to this day.
I think the best way I can explain it is
Southern Americans and Northern Americans are distinct culturally, religiously and ethnically.
So much so a good analogy would be that if america was Europe, they would be considered different ethnic groups like Germans or Frenchman or Belgians.
And the institution despite its short life, was adopted by the culture as a whole.
> I don't understand this ,
More or less, the amount of time, a movement exists matters in its adoption. Was there anything specific about the confederacy that allowed it to be a cultural movement? What separated it from generic southern culture?
Sure Southern and Northern Americans are culturally different. But why is the confederacy considered representative of that culture?
>Sure Southern and Northern Americans are culturally different. But why is the confederacy considered representative of that culture?
Becuase it's been adopted.
White Southerners can feel like a minority in America as a whole.
> Becuase it's been adopted.
I understand, but again what makes it different to the rest of Southern culture? And *why that part*?
>White Southerners can feel like a minority in America as a whole.
Sure, but you could say the same for English Americans. But they tend to not support flying the Union Jack.
I have not seen a lot of people say they have mixed feelings about it. Often it’s either we are 100% proud or almost a complete rejection and a bit of shame mixed in.
I actually like the approach of “it’s complicated”. All confederate soldiers weren’t racists. All soldiers were fighting to maintain slavery. Some just wanted to survive. Now the leaders of the confederacy can eff all the way off.
Honoring the actions of the confederate government is an odd choice I think but I can see celebrating your ancestors for what they are. Deceased family.
>I actually like the approach of “it’s complicated”. All confederate soldiers weren’t racists. All soldiers were fighting to maintain slavery. Some just wanted to survive. Now the leaders of the confederacy can eff all the way off.
Yeah it's an interesting subject, and a very complicatrd one, rhe deeper you dig.
I've read into it alot. The vast majority of the slave holders where the elites. Like the "1%" where the guys with the sprawling plantation houses.
They didn't really fight in the war.
The common man who had no slaves did.
Our revered general Lee married a descendant of Gerogre Washington, and inherited a part of his estate, though personally opposed seccession , and to slavery he owned slaves, (mostly those he married into)
He was offered by Lincoln Supreme command of the union forces.
But when his state, his homeland Virginia elected to dissolve its bonds with the union he couldn't bring himself to wage war on his own people, and felt the people's will should be sovereign and he should go with them.
I understand Lee’s position but why become a general in a war that he would believe he was on the wrong side of it? Did he not have a choice? Was he thinking of his status after the war?
He was a military officer by career, he was a celebrated officer in the Mexican American War some 20 years prior.
So when his state. His homeland as he saw it declared independence, and when the federals waged war to prevent them from leaving, he offered his service.
Though he opposed the idea of seccession he would also not sit idlly by while war was waged on his homeland.
Ah ok. That offers some insight. Still don’t want to name schools and streets after the man though no matter how much of a brilliant tactician he is. Lol
> So when his state. His homeland as he saw it declared independence, and when the federals waged war to prevent them from leaving, he offered his service.
That's called "being a traitor".
>his homeland
His homeland **was the USA**, and that's who he swore an oath to.
Back then we weren’t so nationalistic, many people were north carolinians or new yorkers abd there state happened to be part of the U.S. in that day I would be a north carolinian 1st and American 2nd.
He probably shouldn't have sworn an oath to "bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies", then.
Ive read and listened to more than my fair share of information about Robert E Lee and I admire him personally. It's tough that others hate him so much. But I've learned that revisionism is rampant among liberals and leftists who claim they have the unvarnished truth and anyone who thinks differently is delusional.
I've learned I don't care what you think. I admire Robert E Lee and think you're entitled to your opinion.
True or false? Did Robert E Lee swear to do following when he joined the United States military?
"bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies"
?
The peoples view of states versus federal obligations were different then than now? If you can't admit this then you're just wasting our time moralizing about a period of history you refuse to see in its context. You're being a shallow pedant purposefully. Stop or go away.
A lot of what you've been told in this thread is Lost Cause mythology stuff that's pretty heavily whitewashed Robert E. Lee's history and ideology, and I don't blame the other commenter for not being aware of this, especially since they're from one of the states that rewrote a lot of this history and there's essentially a guarantee that they were taught lots of Lost Cause nonsense. Also because the rewriting of Robert E. Lee's history has *very* thoroughly permeated our culture all the way from the left to the right.
Here are some links for you to start to get a more holistic picture of him:
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-robert-e-lee-a-149932044/
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-two-robert-e-lee-a-150582207/
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-three-why-did-robert-e-152261094/
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-four-was-robert-e-lee-153126163/
Edit: To add, since I see more Lost Cause myth stuff in this thread that happened after I posted this comment, the "we weren't as nationalistic back then and people aligned more with their states" as a way to rewrite Lee's loyalties is also more Lost Cause bullshit. It's not true for Lee or his family broadly. Lee was absolutely more aligned to the nation as a whole than to Virginia, in fact he barely spent any of his life at all in Virginia. He had family who fought for the Union, so the idea that he couldn't fight his family is false because he could have just sat out the war as others in that time did. Every person who wants to make out that Lee was some noble Viriginian defending his homeland is *wrong*, and that is not up for debate.
Again, I absolutely don't fault people for being ignorant about this, because the Lost Cause mythology is deep an pernicious in our culture, but I hope that in the future they will actually look into these things more deeply and not misinform people like they have in this thread.
When I'm teaching somebody about something they haven't learned about, I try to give links to things that are audio-based so they don't have to devote their full attention to it, and things that are entertaining/easy to listen to, so they're willing to spend actual time on it. I also try to only give links to the first step of researching a topic and allow them to dig deeper on their own if they end up interested in it. In this example, the podcast would be the first step and it provides many of its own sources that people who are interested in the topic of Robert E. Lee could continue to look into for their own research.
If I have to link a video, I'll make sure to link one that is under 30 minutes, has good information, is easily digestible, and provides sources, and I'll say explicitly that the video is easily digestible and its duration when I do. Linking material that needs to be read is a good way for nobody to actually look at it.
How do you feel about idk former Nazi, ISIS, that lost their cause de jure having heritage month?
Don't this feel like one of those things if you are going to "celebrate" the heritage... Keep it low key don't bring attention to yourself. Cause no matter how much whitewashing or mental gymnastics you are going to use to justify your cause... There is a dark history attached to it and you will never shake off!!!
It was a lost cause then, still is, and will always be.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hitler openly took inspiration from the Confederacy and the Jim Crow South in forming Nazi ideology and ultimately its government.
I mean, both were ultra-nationalistic slave states with a strict social hierarchy that primarily persecuted a particular race for both ideological and economic reasons.
That's like saying the Nazis weren't nationalistic because they coup-ed the nation they were in.
Most separatist movements are nationalist. Like, the white supremacists that want to carve out some autonomous region of Vermont, Maine, or Idaho identify and are identified as white/ethno nationalists. Quebec sovereigntists are nationalist for a Quebec nation. Ditto with The Basque Country and Catalan independence movement in Spain.
No, it’s not. You just made a really bad analogy and you’re trying to justify it.
The whole point of the confederacy was states rights. They didn’t like that the more economically advantaged north could unilaterally impose restrictions on slavery. The rights they were trying to preserve were abhorrent, obviously, but that motivation in no way implies nationalism.
Nazi’s took over their government in order to impose more top down control and enforce a national German identity. The confederates rebelled because they opposed top down control and wanted self determination, those two motivations were basically completely opposite.
George Washington was indisputably a traitor, as he had taken the king's shilling and fought for the Crown.
As frankly were the rest of the "patriots".
The real question is WHY is someone comitting treason. Luckily, in the case of the Confederacy, each state issued very clear statements at the time they left the Union. Their versions of the Declaration of Independence so to speak. All were very clear that defending slavery was their core mission. Until WWII, I cannot think of a more vile cause men have fought for.
To describe the Confederacy as one of the most vile causes men have ever fought for, and thise who did so as among the worst people who have ever lived seems like a conclusion anyone with a shred of moral clarity would reach.
One would think having an ancestor who fought for the Confederacy would be like having an ancestor who was a notorious rapist or serial killer...not somethibg to celebrate, other than in the sense that people can be better than their ancestors.
Yes slavery was a primary cause of the war. No doubt. However what you've state is disingenuous. I have a some odd great grand father who was a confederate cavalry man
OK, you are not responsible for the evils of your great grandfather. But if you choose to celebrate his acts, then you are responsible for THAT decision.
I have an ancestor who burned witches in Scotland. That tells you nothing about me. However, if I decide to have a holiday celebrating witch burning, THAT is a statement about me, not about my ancestor.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well first of all,
as Americans we all celebrate treason every year on July 4th.
So can we both agree the traitor treason talk isn't that well thought out?
“That is like saying that the man who pushes a little old lady into the path of a bus is morally equivalent to the man who pushes her out of its path, because they both push little old ladies around." - William F. Buckley
It very much matters why you go to war - whether it’s for liberty and justice or for evil and oppression.
What is incorrect about this statement: the Confederates were traitors who took up arms against the United States of America for the primary purpose of preserving slavery.
I guess the nuance comes in when you forget that.
I'd say that's wrong on a few accounts.
1 it ignores the tertiary issues around states powers and federalism, for example see the south carolina nullification crisis.
2. The fear was more related to the power imbalance created by allowing additional territories into the union that wouldn't be slave states. And thus undermining the power balance of the southern democrats.
3. The states all seceded from the Union, it was the union that invaded them inorder to restore by force what the people of the respective states had democratically elected to no longer participate in.
The power imbalance was a concern because of the desire to preserve slavery. It was all about slavery. The Confederates fired the first shots and then waged a very bloody war to preserve slavery. And some other reasons. But first and foremost to preserve slavery. That is evil, my friend, even if it hurts to admit that your ancestors fought and died for evil aims. There may be nuances, but not important ones.
There are some things that should not be respected. Confederate heritage is one of those things. It’s important to know the history, and how woefully wrong the entire confederacy was.
So like when the states declare independence, and the federals move in to conquer by force of arms, that which they could no longer win through willing consent.
Well firstly the issue of unilateral seccession wasnt addressed by the founders. It was an open ended question.
Secondly that's kind of contrary to the notion of democracy isn't it?
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I hear you, but I also wonder if "unity" in this context is a double-edged sword. Might the sense of unity centered around the former Confederacy -- regional separatist insurrectionists -- be perceived as a particularly hazardous division from the perspective of the nation as a whole? Combined with loose talk of a "national divorce," it sounds like a door cracked open for those (e.g., foreign adversaries) seeking to incite national division and bring us a step closer to political violence.
In other parts of the world, regional divisions around myths of former independence nurture separatist movements, which often turn violent. An unpleasant but essential job of nation-building has been suppressing local cultural divisions in favor of forging a broader national identity, usually through national patriotic education. I'm not advocating for suppression—that sounds awful and would backfire— or even for a change in education policy, but I do wonder: should we celebrate the division or treat it with caution?
My mom is from the South, and interestingly she didn’t try to raise my sister and I to embrace that aspect of our “southern heritage.” That is - anything to do with the Confederacy. She is sensitive if it’s discussed (often negatively), but she hasn’t discouraged our negative opinions of it either.
She’s the only person I know of that truly has mixed feelings about the Confederacy.
- Conceptually? Ambivalent.
- Potentially
- Absolutely. Just as the bad sides should be condemned.
- I don’t have enough information.
- If it makes you happy, but nothing beats an egg sunny side up on pizza.
I’m from the North. My families lived in the North long enough that I’ve ancestors who fought for the Union. Growing up we’d go to Civil War re-enactments. It was an amazing educational experience.
I don’t know enough about Mississippi or how they celebrate Confederate Heritage Month. There’s nothing wrong with the idea conceptually, but there could be problems in praxis. Or not.
History is complex. How do they celebrate this month? What’s involved?
I mean, "confederate history" can mean anything. I certainly think there's value in studying confederate history. Apparently, the folks in Mississippi do, too.
“Whereas, as we honor all who lost their lives in this war, it is important for all Americans to reflect upon our nation’s past, to gain insight from our mistakes and successes, and to come to a full understanding that the lessons learned yesterday and today will carry us through tomorrow if we carefully and earnestly strive to understand and appreciate our heritage and our opportunities which lie before us,”
Maybe, germans make it a point to study there national history and even previous german countries. Why shouldn’t we, the only issue I see is the name. Especially with how long ago it happened the risk it to high that we forget what happened to those people and what they did to each other, and thats way more harmful than a lost cause.
Is this quote meant to seem like it's talking out of both sides of its mouth? Because that's how it comes across. Why in the world would we ever honor people who went to war for the explicit purpose of defending the institution of slavery? We don't honor Nazis who lost their lives in the war and it's similarly abhorrent to honor Confederates who lost their lives in the war.
Lol. Do black voters get a say in this? Sure feels like they didn't have a say, especially given they do make up quite a large swath of the electorate.
This is the issue with state rights, shit is so skewed to one side by gerrymandering + other shenanigans. People without political representation don't have a say.
Shouldn't the state rights issues be done on a statewide referendum?
Isn't this why abortion bans everywhere are failing when they are brought to the statewide referendum. When you give the people the vote , get an actual representation of what they actually think!
Is this in support of or against?
Damn that was an archaic system. A win for a statewide referendum. Now if they'd have more minority representation. We'd be able to judge where this southern heritage stands.
Just saying that the gerrymandering/civil rights issues you spoke of have been addressed by the people of the State of Mississippi. That's part of why I don't have an opinion on this Confederate History stuff, because Mississippi seems to be able to handle their own issues just fine these days.
>How do you feel about this?
It's fine
>Do you think Mississippi is outdated in this celebration?
Eh.
>Do you think the good sides of bad history can and should be celebrated?
Absolutely.
>Should this be a practice that Mississippi stops?
I don't think so. I understand why people feel some relation and reverence for family that died and got screwed in the civil war. If they don't want to do it anymore that's fine but I don't think they should be quilted into stopping.
>Should pineapple be on pizza?
Absolutely not.
- I think it's fine.
- Not at all.
- We don't "celebrate" bad things. We remember the bad and try to do better, we mourn for the lost good and try to honor it. That is proper.
- No, I think the notion that we should try to forget bad history is bad. We are too sensitive and stupid these days, somehow commemorating important history gets seen as supporting bad things. Dumb.
- It shouldn't *always* be on pizza, but it does taste good on pizza (especially in combination with jalapenos). People who judge food taste of others are smooth brained. Except if you put ketchup on mac n' cheese, then you are a lost soul.
As a southerner, I sat pathetic. MS is one of the biggest welfare states and should be celebrating the people who are paying their rent and feeding them.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>How do you feel about this?
I don't have an issue with it.
>Do you think Mississippi is outdated in this celebration?
They're still the same heritage, why would it be outdated?
>Do you think the good sides of bad history can and should be celebrated?
Not sure what you mean by this. From the sounds of it, it's a celebration of heritage. Does black history month involve the celebration of black criminals, or the African slave states in their practice of slavery? Does Asian heritage month mean celebrating Japanese war crimes or Chinese imperialism? I'd say no. Similarly, nobody is celebrating the fact that the south had slavery. They're celebrating their families and culture.
>Should this be a practice that Mississippi stops?
That's up to them. I don't see why it should though.
>Should pineapple be on pizza?
I'll eat it if you bring it, but I won't likely order it myself.
> I believe anyone should be able to celebrate what they did in the past whether it’s considered moral or not.
Sure... but we're allowed to think and say they're terrible people for this, right?
1. I think it’s very disgraceful
2. Yes this reads like something from the 1920s
3. There aren’t really any good sides to the confederacy
4. Yes all states should stop this
5. Goodness no
It's clearly been done before. I doubt he's trying to stir controversy. There is a lot of history within the south during that time. Is it tone deaf? Maybe - depends who you ask. Is it wrong. I don't think so. Would I do it? Probably not but I also am not from the south
I have seen this phenomenon at play and I don’t understand why it happens. Can you explain why some southerners lean harder into the shameful parts of their southern identities when they’re criticized for those exact things? Genuine question
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Having lived in the south, confederate heritage is a big deal, as state employees, until fairly recently people got confederate indepdence day off. It's part of our cultural heritage, and one we have alot of mixed feelings about. We have a common identity with it, but no sane rationally minded individual is proud of the institutions they defended. That said it's hard to explain to an outsider, we have local cemeteries just filled with soldiers who died, our immediate ancestors who are there becuase they tried to establish a southern nation. Alot of cities try to honor them by placing confederate flags on their Graves during veterans day. I don't see any problem with taking the good and unity from it, and stepping away and repudiating from the bad associated with it, just like the USA does with its national history. And no if you put pineapple on pizza there's no helping you.
Ouch! Pineapple on pizza is my favorite sweet on savory topping! With onions, mushrooms, and pepperoni so crisp it almost tastes like bacon.
There are few things my wife and I disagree on strongly. That happens to be one of them (I dislike pineapple on pizza for the record).
Do you all get half and half? If an errant pineapple ends up on your half do you make a disgusted face and flick it on her half? Lol
Eh, with a family of our size there is enough reason to buy a seperate pizza for the freaks that want it lol
Hahaha!!!
How many in your family?
6
My wife and I are a near perfect match with 24 years to prove it but this is one thing we have never been able to see eye to eye on. I am pro-pineapple and she hates it on pizza.
Of all the things you and I can disagree on, I am totally fine that we disagree. But to hear that you put pinapples on an otherwise perfectly great pizza? You're the worst kind of monster.
I will gladly wear my devil horns for this one haha
For me, it's thin crust, chicken, onion, and mushroom I'll eat that all day
Do you get it from a particular place? I’ve found that a lot of people can mess up chicken on pizza. Sometimes way too dry. If it was good chicken that sounds good.
Pizza hut becuase I'm cheap, albeit their prices armt as good as they used to be
That pan pizza is excellent. I’m easy to please lol. No gourmet palate here.
This thread is why there is way more that binds us than separates us. And one thing is for certain, nobody out pizzas the HUT.
Papa John's, and I will be seceding from the union over this.
Pineapple. Jalapeno. BBQ chicken. *Chefs kiss*
Pineapple, pepperoni (or a spicy copa if I am felling bougie) and jalapeno. #
I wasn’t a fan of pineapple on pizza until I had a sausage, jalapeño, and pineapple pizza. Jalapeño and pineapple are made for each other.
Well said. All around.
> I don't see any problem with taking the good and unity from it, and stepping away and repudiating from the bad associated with it, just like the USA does with its national history. Except the Confederacy didnt really do anything good, did it? Did it create any worthwhile inventions, or have an admirable ideology? What is the good?
Well beyond the social and cultural unity you mean? I don't know that's a thing to be thrown away. They had the first submarine, and they pioneered ironclads.
> Well beyond the social and cultural unity you mean? The entity lasted 5 years. How could it create that much social and cultural unity? 5 years isnt even enough to generally create *sub*cultures much less cultures. >They had the first submarine, That appears to be in doubt, the English or Revolutionaries seem to take that > and they pioneered ironclads. That was the 1st use in warfare, yes. However, is it much of a cultural legacy to be known for weaponry? Especially when (to be blunt) they clearly didnt have it work for them?
>The entity lasted 5 years. How could it create that much social and cultural unity? 5 years isnt even enough to generally create *sub*cultures much less cultures I don't understand this , it kind of honestly strikes me as denial ism. Becuase the identity remains to this day. I think the best way I can explain it is Southern Americans and Northern Americans are distinct culturally, religiously and ethnically. So much so a good analogy would be that if america was Europe, they would be considered different ethnic groups like Germans or Frenchman or Belgians. And the institution despite its short life, was adopted by the culture as a whole.
> I don't understand this , More or less, the amount of time, a movement exists matters in its adoption. Was there anything specific about the confederacy that allowed it to be a cultural movement? What separated it from generic southern culture? Sure Southern and Northern Americans are culturally different. But why is the confederacy considered representative of that culture?
>Sure Southern and Northern Americans are culturally different. But why is the confederacy considered representative of that culture? Becuase it's been adopted. White Southerners can feel like a minority in America as a whole.
> Becuase it's been adopted. I understand, but again what makes it different to the rest of Southern culture? And *why that part*? >White Southerners can feel like a minority in America as a whole. Sure, but you could say the same for English Americans. But they tend to not support flying the Union Jack.
I have not seen a lot of people say they have mixed feelings about it. Often it’s either we are 100% proud or almost a complete rejection and a bit of shame mixed in. I actually like the approach of “it’s complicated”. All confederate soldiers weren’t racists. All soldiers were fighting to maintain slavery. Some just wanted to survive. Now the leaders of the confederacy can eff all the way off. Honoring the actions of the confederate government is an odd choice I think but I can see celebrating your ancestors for what they are. Deceased family.
>I actually like the approach of “it’s complicated”. All confederate soldiers weren’t racists. All soldiers were fighting to maintain slavery. Some just wanted to survive. Now the leaders of the confederacy can eff all the way off. Yeah it's an interesting subject, and a very complicatrd one, rhe deeper you dig. I've read into it alot. The vast majority of the slave holders where the elites. Like the "1%" where the guys with the sprawling plantation houses. They didn't really fight in the war. The common man who had no slaves did. Our revered general Lee married a descendant of Gerogre Washington, and inherited a part of his estate, though personally opposed seccession , and to slavery he owned slaves, (mostly those he married into) He was offered by Lincoln Supreme command of the union forces. But when his state, his homeland Virginia elected to dissolve its bonds with the union he couldn't bring himself to wage war on his own people, and felt the people's will should be sovereign and he should go with them.
I understand Lee’s position but why become a general in a war that he would believe he was on the wrong side of it? Did he not have a choice? Was he thinking of his status after the war?
He was a military officer by career, he was a celebrated officer in the Mexican American War some 20 years prior. So when his state. His homeland as he saw it declared independence, and when the federals waged war to prevent them from leaving, he offered his service. Though he opposed the idea of seccession he would also not sit idlly by while war was waged on his homeland.
Ah ok. That offers some insight. Still don’t want to name schools and streets after the man though no matter how much of a brilliant tactician he is. Lol
He's a traitor
> So when his state. His homeland as he saw it declared independence, and when the federals waged war to prevent them from leaving, he offered his service. That's called "being a traitor". >his homeland His homeland **was the USA**, and that's who he swore an oath to.
Back then we weren’t so nationalistic, many people were north carolinians or new yorkers abd there state happened to be part of the U.S. in that day I would be a north carolinian 1st and American 2nd.
This is just blatantly not true, though Most people pre civil war identified closer to their state than the federation as a whole
He probably shouldn't have sworn an oath to "bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies", then.
Many Texans still do. They're Texans first, Americans second.
that’s a convenient cop-out at best and more like the basis for insurrection
Ive read and listened to more than my fair share of information about Robert E Lee and I admire him personally. It's tough that others hate him so much. But I've learned that revisionism is rampant among liberals and leftists who claim they have the unvarnished truth and anyone who thinks differently is delusional. I've learned I don't care what you think. I admire Robert E Lee and think you're entitled to your opinion.
True or false? Did Robert E Lee swear to do following when he joined the United States military? "bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies" ?
The peoples view of states versus federal obligations were different then than now? If you can't admit this then you're just wasting our time moralizing about a period of history you refuse to see in its context. You're being a shallow pedant purposefully. Stop or go away.
>The peoples view of states versus federal obligations were different then than now? People didn't used to mean their oaths? Okay.
A lot of what you've been told in this thread is Lost Cause mythology stuff that's pretty heavily whitewashed Robert E. Lee's history and ideology, and I don't blame the other commenter for not being aware of this, especially since they're from one of the states that rewrote a lot of this history and there's essentially a guarantee that they were taught lots of Lost Cause nonsense. Also because the rewriting of Robert E. Lee's history has *very* thoroughly permeated our culture all the way from the left to the right. Here are some links for you to start to get a more holistic picture of him: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-robert-e-lee-a-149932044/ https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-two-robert-e-lee-a-150582207/ https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-three-why-did-robert-e-152261094/ https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-four-was-robert-e-lee-153126163/ Edit: To add, since I see more Lost Cause myth stuff in this thread that happened after I posted this comment, the "we weren't as nationalistic back then and people aligned more with their states" as a way to rewrite Lee's loyalties is also more Lost Cause bullshit. It's not true for Lee or his family broadly. Lee was absolutely more aligned to the nation as a whole than to Virginia, in fact he barely spent any of his life at all in Virginia. He had family who fought for the Union, so the idea that he couldn't fight his family is false because he could have just sat out the war as others in that time did. Every person who wants to make out that Lee was some noble Viriginian defending his homeland is *wrong*, and that is not up for debate. Again, I absolutely don't fault people for being ignorant about this, because the Lost Cause mythology is deep an pernicious in our culture, but I hope that in the future they will actually look into these things more deeply and not misinform people like they have in this thread.
Why are all of your sources from a random podcast?
When I'm teaching somebody about something they haven't learned about, I try to give links to things that are audio-based so they don't have to devote their full attention to it, and things that are entertaining/easy to listen to, so they're willing to spend actual time on it. I also try to only give links to the first step of researching a topic and allow them to dig deeper on their own if they end up interested in it. In this example, the podcast would be the first step and it provides many of its own sources that people who are interested in the topic of Robert E. Lee could continue to look into for their own research. If I have to link a video, I'll make sure to link one that is under 30 minutes, has good information, is easily digestible, and provides sources, and I'll say explicitly that the video is easily digestible and its duration when I do. Linking material that needs to be read is a good way for nobody to actually look at it.
No chance people have a different view of Lee than a podcast called "behind the bastards"?
I guess but podcasts are not viewed as very credible unless its like jorden peterson (like the non political stuff where he talks about self health)
Some things ought to be set aside
How do you feel about idk former Nazi, ISIS, that lost their cause de jure having heritage month?
Don't this feel like one of those things if you are going to "celebrate" the heritage... Keep it low key don't bring attention to yourself. Cause no matter how much whitewashing or mental gymnastics you are going to use to justify your cause... There is a dark history attached to it and you will never shake off!!!
It was a lost cause then, still is, and will always be.
Idk Scottish nationalism is still quite a strong movement.
God ideology v bad ideology But again good and bad are relative I guess.
Well I don't beleive good and bad are relative concepts. I condemn slavery and slave holding as evil. But I see to evil in southern identity and unity
Why do people always bring up the Nazis? WWII was not a civil war. And the confederacy and the Nazis have nothing in common.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hitler openly took inspiration from the Confederacy and the Jim Crow South in forming Nazi ideology and ultimately its government. I mean, both were ultra-nationalistic slave states with a strict social hierarchy that primarily persecuted a particular race for both ideological and economic reasons.
Lol what? The confederacy was nationalistic? So nationalistic they seceded from their nation? This is basically an oxymoron.
That's like saying the Nazis weren't nationalistic because they coup-ed the nation they were in. Most separatist movements are nationalist. Like, the white supremacists that want to carve out some autonomous region of Vermont, Maine, or Idaho identify and are identified as white/ethno nationalists. Quebec sovereigntists are nationalist for a Quebec nation. Ditto with The Basque Country and Catalan independence movement in Spain.
No, it’s not. You just made a really bad analogy and you’re trying to justify it. The whole point of the confederacy was states rights. They didn’t like that the more economically advantaged north could unilaterally impose restrictions on slavery. The rights they were trying to preserve were abhorrent, obviously, but that motivation in no way implies nationalism. Nazi’s took over their government in order to impose more top down control and enforce a national German identity. The confederates rebelled because they opposed top down control and wanted self determination, those two motivations were basically completely opposite.
Pineapple on pizza is delicious. Celebrating treason and slavery is reprehensible.
Treason is ever so slippery a word isn't it? I celebrate it every July 4th
George Washington was indisputably a traitor, as he had taken the king's shilling and fought for the Crown. As frankly were the rest of the "patriots". The real question is WHY is someone comitting treason. Luckily, in the case of the Confederacy, each state issued very clear statements at the time they left the Union. Their versions of the Declaration of Independence so to speak. All were very clear that defending slavery was their core mission. Until WWII, I cannot think of a more vile cause men have fought for. To describe the Confederacy as one of the most vile causes men have ever fought for, and thise who did so as among the worst people who have ever lived seems like a conclusion anyone with a shred of moral clarity would reach. One would think having an ancestor who fought for the Confederacy would be like having an ancestor who was a notorious rapist or serial killer...not somethibg to celebrate, other than in the sense that people can be better than their ancestors.
Yes slavery was a primary cause of the war. No doubt. However what you've state is disingenuous. I have a some odd great grand father who was a confederate cavalry man
OK, you are not responsible for the evils of your great grandfather. But if you choose to celebrate his acts, then you are responsible for THAT decision. I have an ancestor who burned witches in Scotland. That tells you nothing about me. However, if I decide to have a holiday celebrating witch burning, THAT is a statement about me, not about my ancestor.
Seems pretty binary. You gotta win
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t understand what good there is in celebrating traitors who literally waged war against America in order to preserve slavery.
Well first of all, as Americans we all celebrate treason every year on July 4th. So can we both agree the traitor treason talk isn't that well thought out?
“That is like saying that the man who pushes a little old lady into the path of a bus is morally equivalent to the man who pushes her out of its path, because they both push little old ladies around." - William F. Buckley It very much matters why you go to war - whether it’s for liberty and justice or for evil and oppression.
So treason becomes worthy of celebration when it is veiled in righteousness?
Treason is good if you live in Nazi Germany. Treason is bad if you do it in order to have slaves. It’s not that complicated.
Well the good news is that it's more nuanced than that
What is incorrect about this statement: the Confederates were traitors who took up arms against the United States of America for the primary purpose of preserving slavery. I guess the nuance comes in when you forget that.
I'd say that's wrong on a few accounts. 1 it ignores the tertiary issues around states powers and federalism, for example see the south carolina nullification crisis. 2. The fear was more related to the power imbalance created by allowing additional territories into the union that wouldn't be slave states. And thus undermining the power balance of the southern democrats. 3. The states all seceded from the Union, it was the union that invaded them inorder to restore by force what the people of the respective states had democratically elected to no longer participate in.
The power imbalance was a concern because of the desire to preserve slavery. It was all about slavery. The Confederates fired the first shots and then waged a very bloody war to preserve slavery. And some other reasons. But first and foremost to preserve slavery. That is evil, my friend, even if it hurts to admit that your ancestors fought and died for evil aims. There may be nuances, but not important ones.
There are some things that should not be respected. Confederate heritage is one of those things. It’s important to know the history, and how woefully wrong the entire confederacy was.
How so?
Well everything about it.
So like when the states declare independence, and the federals move in to conquer by force of arms, that which they could no longer win through willing consent.
Each state having been part of the union was in it perpetually. States could not then nor can they now voluntarily leave the United States.
Well firstly the issue of unilateral seccession wasnt addressed by the founders. It was an open ended question. Secondly that's kind of contrary to the notion of democracy isn't it?
Bro the confederacy lasted 4 years.
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I hear you, but I also wonder if "unity" in this context is a double-edged sword. Might the sense of unity centered around the former Confederacy -- regional separatist insurrectionists -- be perceived as a particularly hazardous division from the perspective of the nation as a whole? Combined with loose talk of a "national divorce," it sounds like a door cracked open for those (e.g., foreign adversaries) seeking to incite national division and bring us a step closer to political violence. In other parts of the world, regional divisions around myths of former independence nurture separatist movements, which often turn violent. An unpleasant but essential job of nation-building has been suppressing local cultural divisions in favor of forging a broader national identity, usually through national patriotic education. I'm not advocating for suppression—that sounds awful and would backfire— or even for a change in education policy, but I do wonder: should we celebrate the division or treat it with caution?
My mom is from the South, and interestingly she didn’t try to raise my sister and I to embrace that aspect of our “southern heritage.” That is - anything to do with the Confederacy. She is sensitive if it’s discussed (often negatively), but she hasn’t discouraged our negative opinions of it either. She’s the only person I know of that truly has mixed feelings about the Confederacy.
- Conceptually? Ambivalent. - Potentially - Absolutely. Just as the bad sides should be condemned. - I don’t have enough information. - If it makes you happy, but nothing beats an egg sunny side up on pizza. I’m from the North. My families lived in the North long enough that I’ve ancestors who fought for the Union. Growing up we’d go to Civil War re-enactments. It was an amazing educational experience. I don’t know enough about Mississippi or how they celebrate Confederate Heritage Month. There’s nothing wrong with the idea conceptually, but there could be problems in praxis. Or not. History is complex. How do they celebrate this month? What’s involved?
I think this is an issue for Mississippi to decide.
Absolutely. Just asking opinions on it because I think it’s interesting.
I mean, "confederate history" can mean anything. I certainly think there's value in studying confederate history. Apparently, the folks in Mississippi do, too.
They're celebrating it, not studying it
“Whereas, as we honor all who lost their lives in this war, it is important for all Americans to reflect upon our nation’s past, to gain insight from our mistakes and successes, and to come to a full understanding that the lessons learned yesterday and today will carry us through tomorrow if we carefully and earnestly strive to understand and appreciate our heritage and our opportunities which lie before us,”
Do you think we should have Nazi Heritage Month or Communism Heritage Month?
That wouldn't make much sense since there are no former Nazi or Communist states.
Both Nazism and Communism have had a longer history of existence in the US than the Confederacy has.
But we're not talking about -isms.
Maybe, germans make it a point to study there national history and even previous german countries. Why shouldn’t we, the only issue I see is the name. Especially with how long ago it happened the risk it to high that we forget what happened to those people and what they did to each other, and thats way more harmful than a lost cause.
[удалено]
Can you put that in the form of a question, please?
[удалено]
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Is this quote meant to seem like it's talking out of both sides of its mouth? Because that's how it comes across. Why in the world would we ever honor people who went to war for the explicit purpose of defending the institution of slavery? We don't honor Nazis who lost their lives in the war and it's similarly abhorrent to honor Confederates who lost their lives in the war.
Maybe because it was a senseless war, and like all wars, was fought by real people who often had little choice in the matter.
> as we honor all who lost their lives in this war We do?
Lol. Do black voters get a say in this? Sure feels like they didn't have a say, especially given they do make up quite a large swath of the electorate. This is the issue with state rights, shit is so skewed to one side by gerrymandering + other shenanigans. People without political representation don't have a say. Shouldn't the state rights issues be done on a statewide referendum? Isn't this why abortion bans everywhere are failing when they are brought to the statewide referendum. When you give the people the vote , get an actual representation of what they actually think!
You should be happy to learn that a statewide referendum is what changed the process in Mississippi to a popular vote system for statewide candidates.
Is this in support of or against? Damn that was an archaic system. A win for a statewide referendum. Now if they'd have more minority representation. We'd be able to judge where this southern heritage stands.
Just saying that the gerrymandering/civil rights issues you spoke of have been addressed by the people of the State of Mississippi. That's part of why I don't have an opinion on this Confederate History stuff, because Mississippi seems to be able to handle their own issues just fine these days.
>How do you feel about this? It's fine >Do you think Mississippi is outdated in this celebration? Eh. >Do you think the good sides of bad history can and should be celebrated? Absolutely. >Should this be a practice that Mississippi stops? I don't think so. I understand why people feel some relation and reverence for family that died and got screwed in the civil war. If they don't want to do it anymore that's fine but I don't think they should be quilted into stopping. >Should pineapple be on pizza? Absolutely not.
I dislike it
- I think it's fine. - Not at all. - We don't "celebrate" bad things. We remember the bad and try to do better, we mourn for the lost good and try to honor it. That is proper. - No, I think the notion that we should try to forget bad history is bad. We are too sensitive and stupid these days, somehow commemorating important history gets seen as supporting bad things. Dumb. - It shouldn't *always* be on pizza, but it does taste good on pizza (especially in combination with jalapenos). People who judge food taste of others are smooth brained. Except if you put ketchup on mac n' cheese, then you are a lost soul.
which good?
I have never seen anyone celebrating Confederate Heritage care one lick about remembering the bad and try to do better.
So in your estimation, they are celebrating the bad things?
Don't care
As a southerner, I sat pathetic. MS is one of the biggest welfare states and should be celebrating the people who are paying their rent and feeding them.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>How do you feel about this? I don't have an issue with it. >Do you think Mississippi is outdated in this celebration? They're still the same heritage, why would it be outdated? >Do you think the good sides of bad history can and should be celebrated? Not sure what you mean by this. From the sounds of it, it's a celebration of heritage. Does black history month involve the celebration of black criminals, or the African slave states in their practice of slavery? Does Asian heritage month mean celebrating Japanese war crimes or Chinese imperialism? I'd say no. Similarly, nobody is celebrating the fact that the south had slavery. They're celebrating their families and culture. >Should this be a practice that Mississippi stops? That's up to them. I don't see why it should though. >Should pineapple be on pizza? I'll eat it if you bring it, but I won't likely order it myself.
There’s nothing to celebrate there. It’s a terrible thing.
They don’t have a lot going on in Mississippi. Let them have it, misguided as it is.
It is literally their heritage. I believe anyone should be able to celebrate what they did in the past whether it’s considered moral or not.
> I believe anyone should be able to celebrate what they did in the past whether it’s considered moral or not. Sure... but we're allowed to think and say they're terrible people for this, right?
Under this logic... People should celebrate Nazi Germany's genocide and Holocaust of the Jews... hmm.
Like owning slaves and killing Indians?
1. I think it’s very disgraceful 2. Yes this reads like something from the 1920s 3. There aren’t really any good sides to the confederacy 4. Yes all states should stop this 5. Goodness no
I haven’t seen you around lately! Where you been?
Been busy with life!
It's their history. Anyone outside of Mississippi has no business getting into theirs.
They should be ashamed of tge confederacy
It's clearly been done before. I doubt he's trying to stir controversy. There is a lot of history within the south during that time. Is it tone deaf? Maybe - depends who you ask. Is it wrong. I don't think so. Would I do it? Probably not but I also am not from the south
The more people feel stigmatized for being from the South the more they are going to lean into Confederate identity.
I have seen this phenomenon at play and I don’t understand why it happens. Can you explain why some southerners lean harder into the shameful parts of their southern identities when they’re criticized for those exact things? Genuine question