Discussion:
V-C Day Celebrations in Lexington, 2007
(too old to reply)
L***@gmail.com
2007-04-11 01:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Along with Emancipation Day, Victory over the Confederacy Day is
perhaps one of the most important Federal Holidays. It marks the
defeat and destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia near
Appomattox Court House and the Capture of Richmond, and the
dissolution of efforts to destroy the Union in order to enslave, rape,
and torture other human beings.

Celebrations in Lexington, like celebrations in Springfield, are
particularly robust. The most ardent bitter-enders in South Carolina
and Georgia would put that down to the undue influence of the
prominent and large Black community in Lexington, which was fostered
by Hillman University, the second largest "Freeman's University"
established on June 19th, 1866. In fact, celebrations have been large
throughout the 142 years of the holiday; Kentucky was, after all, the
birthplace of Abraham Lincoln, who led the nation to victory in the
Civil War and through Reconstruction, as well as that of his second
Vice President, John C. Breckenridge, who had helped to keep Kentucky
in the Union in early 1861; only the bitterest pro-Confederate
historians have suggested that his swerving loyalty to the Union was
the result of a fall from a horse, while the view is widely taken that
his loyalty to the US was through a chance meeting with Col. George
Henry Thomas on the eve of South Carolina's secession.

Breckenridge's Vice Presidency was part of Lincoln's efforts to mend
the wounds, as he had stated in his Second Inaugural Address. He was
largely inert, as is common with 19th century holders of the office,
save that his friend Brigadier General Thomas encouraged him to rebuke
America's first and worst homegrown terrorist organization, the Ku
Klux Klan, during his Vice Presidency. Though that did little to
diminish the terrorism that Southern Whites perpetrated against the
newly freed Blacks, it helped Congress pass a series of acts expanding
federal power in the Former Confederacy, as well as arranging the
passage of several Constitutional Amendments, which would prove vital
in the defense of the voting and civil rights of blacks throughout the
rest of the 19th century, and bills that targeted what could now be
called "domestic terrorism."

Despite his kindhearted gesture, or perhaps because of it, he did not
run for the presidency in 1868, retiring to private life in Kentucky
when General Thomas succeeded Lincoln. He used his considerable
Democratic connections to slow the readmission of the most reactionary
states, like Mississippi and South Carolina, who had most unabashedly
supported domestic terrorism against their fellow citizens and federal
troops.

Though he did not enter public service again, he was a supporter of
both President Thomas, through his death in 1870, and President Grant,
who succeeded him, presiding over the dismantling of Reconstruction
and the admission of the last of the former Confederate States at the
end of his Second Term.

Celebrations in Kentucky are marked by a three-part procession. It
begins at Hillman University, before the Eternal Flame of Liberty that
stands before the statue of Frederick Douglass, proceeding to the
Fayette County Court House, where wreaths are lain before the twin
statues of Lincoln and Vice President Breckenridge, and then to
Constitution Park, in which the Governor reads Lincoln's Second
Inaugural, followed by a rendition of "We Are Coming, Father Abraham"
by the Hillman University Choir, and a barbecue with fireworks
throughout the evening.

Thoughts?

Best

L
Rich Rostrom
2007-04-11 08:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by L***@gmail.com
John C. Breckenridge, who had helped to keep Kentucky
in the Union in early 1861; only the bitterest pro-Confederate
historians have suggested that his swerving loyalty to the Union was
the result of a fall from a horse, while the view is widely taken that
his loyalty to the US was through a chance meeting with Col. George
Henry Thomas on the eve of South Carolina's secession.
It would be one heck of a knock on
the head to convert Breckinridge from
a secessionist and slavery advocate
to a Unionist and race-justice advocate.
Post by L***@gmail.com
Despite his kindhearted gesture, or perhaps because of it, he did not
run for the presidency in 1868, retiring to private life in Kentucky
when General Thomas succeeded Lincoln.
I don't see this at all. Thomas was not
political at all. Maybe if Thomas had
become General-in-Chief...

(coulda happened. Thomas gets picked to
command in western Virginia in 1861,
perhaps because he's a Virginian and
the locals will rally to him, wins the
inevitable Union victory, and is the
logical choice to command the Army of
the Potomac after Manassas - as McClellan
was OTL in the same position. But then
the war is over in 1862.)
Post by L***@gmail.com
Thoughts?
Cute, but...
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
L***@gmail.com
2007-04-13 19:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
It would be one heck of a knock on
the head to convert Breckinridge from
a secessionist and slavery advocate
to a Unionist and race-justice advocate.
He, uh, did speak out against the KKK after the war, albeit with
rather more modesty than here.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by L***@gmail.com
Despite his kindhearted gesture, or perhaps because of it, he did not
run for the presidency in 1868, retiring to private life in Kentucky
when General Thomas succeeded Lincoln.
I don't see this at all. Thomas was not
political at all. Maybe if Thomas had
become General-in-Chief...
Yeah...I know.
Post by Rich Rostrom
(coulda happened. Thomas gets picked to
command in western Virginia in 1861,
perhaps because he's a Virginian and
the locals will rally to him, wins the
inevitable Union victory, and is the
logical choice to command the Army of
the Potomac after Manassas - as McClellan
was OTL in the same position. But then
the war is over in 1862.)
Post by L***@gmail.com
Thoughts?
Cute, but...
Yes, well.

I wanted to do a write up of a reality where instead of the
palatability of Neo-Confederate apologia, Victory over the Confederacy
was a national holiday, and what that might look like somewhere in
"The South," even if it is Kentucky, which joined the Confederacy in
1866....

What would it take to produce such a condition, do you think?

Best

L
Mark Edelstein
2007-04-14 00:59:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by L***@gmail.com
Post by Rich Rostrom
It would be one heck of a knock on
the head to convert Breckinridge from
a secessionist and slavery advocate
to a Unionist and race-justice advocate.
He, uh, did speak out against the KKK after the war, albeit with
rather more modesty than here.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by L***@gmail.com
Despite his kindhearted gesture, or perhaps because of it, he did not
run for the presidency in 1868, retiring to private life in Kentucky
when General Thomas succeeded Lincoln.
I don't see this at all. Thomas was not
political at all. Maybe if Thomas had
become General-in-Chief...
Yeah...I know.
Post by Rich Rostrom
(coulda happened. Thomas gets picked to
command in western Virginia in 1861,
perhaps because he's a Virginian and
the locals will rally to him, wins the
inevitable Union victory, and is the
logical choice to command the Army of
the Potomac after Manassas - as McClellan
was OTL in the same position. But then
the war is over in 1862.)
Post by L***@gmail.com
Thoughts?
Cute, but...
Yes, well.
I wanted to do a write up of a reality where instead of the
palatability of Neo-Confederate apologia, Victory over the Confederacy
was a national holiday, and what that might look like somewhere in
"The South," even if it is Kentucky, which joined the Confederacy in
1866....
What would it take to produce such a condition, do you think?
Best
L
The confederacy goes bad in the worst kind of way (a decentralized yet
dictatorial hellhole; think bring the jubilee, reversed). Following
ill-advised foreign adventures and tangling with U.S the country
reunites, with everyone in the South regretting their dallience with
sovereignty.
L***@gmail.com
2007-04-14 01:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Edelstein
The confederacy goes bad in the worst kind of way (a decentralized yet
dictatorial hellhole; think bring the jubilee, reversed). Following
ill-advised foreign adventures and tangling with U.S the country
reunites, with everyone in the South regretting their dallience with
sovereignty.
Yeah, I suppose I should have added the caveat that I wanted more-or-
less this outcome without giving the CSA a period of sovereignty; so,
very roughly, the same Civil War, which ends in an American victory
(whereas a 'Confederate victory' would be an American defeat) in
1865-66, and the day in which Lee surrenders or Davis is captured is
perpetually marked with celebrations regarding the defeat of a
tyrannical, racist, raping, torturing, slave-holding regime seperate
from MLK Day, Juneteeth, or the Fourth of July.

So the question is, I suppose, what happened between the end of war
and present day that has allowed for "Confederate Heritage" to become
more palatable in the public mind than, say, "Nazi Heritage" or
"Imperial Japanese Heritage," given that they're all about as evil.

The smoothest way out, then, would likely be Lincoln not being
assassinated in 1865 and presiding over the first part of
Reconstruction, rather than Johnson. It should avoid the troubles with
the perfectly reasonable Congress's interest in remaking the formerly
rebellious states, especially with the New England style Department of
Ed, but I'm not sure if that'll keep "Glorious Lost Cause" from
growing up like poisonous fungus, and really requires its own thread.

So, team?

Best

L
c***@gmail.com
2007-04-14 03:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by L***@gmail.com
The smoothest way out, then, would likely be Lincoln not being
assassinated in 1865 and presiding over the first part of
Reconstruction, rather than Johnson. It should avoid the troubles with
the perfectly reasonable Congress's interest in remaking the formerly
rebellious states, especially with the New England style Department of
Ed, but I'm not sure if that'll keep "Glorious Lost Cause" from
growing up like poisonous fungus, and really requires its own thread.
So, team?
As always, I confess a certain fondness for President Hannibal "The
Cannibal" Hamlin. A New Englander, a moderate Radical, and...kind of
vindictive, if the stories about him getting Andrew Johnson
deliberately soused are true. (And him a Temperence man!)
Post by L***@gmail.com
Best
L
L***@gmail.com
2007-04-14 03:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
As always, I confess a certain fondness for President Hannibal "The
Cannibal" Hamlin. A New Englander, a moderate Radical, and...kind of
vindictive, if the stories about him getting Andrew Johnson
deliberately soused are true. (And him a Temperence man!)
Doesn't that lead to "Must and Shall"? Or, can we switch out Johnson
for Hamlin in 1864?

I think it's about time for a new "Second Lincoln Adminstration
Thread" Given how much work we've done on that over the years, even
though much of the A list is gone...

Best

L
Rich Rostrom
2007-04-14 05:49:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by L***@gmail.com
Yeah, I suppose I should have added the caveat that I wanted more-or-
less this outcome without giving the CSA a period of sovereignty; so,
very roughly, the same Civil War, which ends in an American victory
(whereas a 'Confederate victory' would be an American defeat) in
1865-66, and the day in which Lee surrenders or Davis is captured is
perpetually marked with celebrations regarding the defeat of a
tyrannical, racist, raping, torturing, slave-holding regime seperate
from MLK Day, Juneteeth, or the Fourth of July.
It's not widely known, even among ACW buffs
(and ignored by the libertarian cranks who
have joined the neo-Confederate ranks), but
the CSA employed a great deal of internal
repression.

Much was of a vigilante character, such
as the massacre of Union-loyal German
immigrants in Texas in 1861.

Some of it was downright totalitarian:
by the end of the War, railroad
passengers had to carry passes from
the CS government, to be shown to
provosts and marshals on demand
("Yo papahs, suh.")

OTL, the CS government was headed by
men with a fair degree of honor and
humanity. Davis was a slaveholder
and a traitor, but he was no 'fire-
eating' extremist. And there were
plenty of those.

Beauregard, for instance, responded
to the Emancipation Proclamation
by suggesting that all "abolition
prisoners" be garroted.

Men like Wigfall, Ruffin, Rhett,
Yancey, those who sent replacement
walking sticks to Preston Brooks...

If they had been in charge, the CSA
might gone beyond the forgivable
deeds of war. Which IMHO they did,
but not so much that there was any
spirit of vengeance in the North.

Horace Greeley put up bail for Davis,
after all. If the senior Confederate
leaders had all been exiled or hanged...
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
Mike Stone
2007-04-14 07:55:27 UTC
Permalink
"Rich Rostrom"
<***@rcn.com> wrote in
message
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-F2B75B.00494514042
Post by Rich Rostrom
Horace Greeley put up bail for Davis,
after all. If the senior Confederate
leaders had all been exiled or hanged...
Would that necessrily harm their
reputations?

Look at what just a couple of years in
prison (and five whole _days_ in shackles)
did for Jefferson Davis. If he ends on the
gallows, he'll be lucky to avoid _Sainthood_
<g>.

--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

I can never understand how people fail to
grasp the need for ethnic diversity.

After all, how could we English ever truly
appreciate our own superiority, if there
were no foreigners around for us to be
superior to?
Rich Rostrom
2007-04-14 19:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Stone
Post by Rich Rostrom
Horace Greeley put up bail for Davis,
after all. If the senior Confederate
leaders had all been exiled or hanged...
Would that necessrily harm their
reputations?
Look at what just a couple of years in
prison (and five whole _days_ in shackles)
did for Jefferson Davis. If he ends on the
gallows, he'll be lucky to avoid _Sainthood_
<g>.
If the senior rebels are Dealt With As Wolves Are:

then

a) they won't be around to whitewash their records.

b) the North, having made and acted on a judgment,
is less likely to tolerate whitewashing. (It
would make them look bad.)

c) If the rebels have Done Stuff to provoke
that severe a follow-up, it will be unlikely
that they can be retroactively beatified.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
Mike Stone
2007-04-15 07:29:54 UTC
Permalink
"Rich Rostrom"
<***@rcn.com> wrote in
message
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-FA0F05.14100914042
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
"Rich Rostrom"
Post by Rich Rostrom
Horace Greeley put up bail for Davis,
after all. If the senior Confederate
leaders had all been exiled or
hanged...
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
Would that necessrily harm their
reputations?
Look at what just a couple of years in
prison (and five whole _days_ in
shackles)
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
did for Jefferson Davis. If he ends on
the
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
gallows, he'll be lucky to avoid
_Sainthood_
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
<g>.
If the senior rebels are Dealt With As
then
a) they won't be around to whitewash their
records.
Post by Rich Rostrom
b) the North, having made and acted on a
judgment,
Post by Rich Rostrom
is less likely to tolerate
whitewashing. (It
Post by Rich Rostrom
would make them look bad.)
British (and especially Scots and Irish)
history suggests this wouldn't work.

Successive British governments hanged lots
of Irish rebels, and maintained a degree of
repression in Ireland itself that makes
Reconstruction look mild. This didn't stop
said rebels being hero-worshipped by their
fellows, and even, over time, incresingly
sympathised with in England.

As for Scotland, the Jacobites of 1745 were
not merely hanged, but in many cases drawn
and quartered as well. The rebellion was
followed by as ferocious a campaign of
repression as any sadist could wish for.
Result - 60 years after Culloden, the future
George IV is poncing about in a kilt
supposedly[1] patterned on those worn by the
MacDonalds _at Culloden. The Jacobites'
harsher suppression did nothing to stop them
being romanticised
Post by Rich Rostrom
c) If the rebels have Done Stuff to
provoke
Post by Rich Rostrom
that severe a follow-up, it will be
unlikely
Post by Rich Rostrom
that they can be retroactively
beatified.

Have we reached any consensus on what
exactly they would need to do? Are we all
agreed that, whatever it was, the victims
would have to be _white_ - that no
conceivasble mistreatment of blacks would
produce that kind of response?

About the only thing I can think of would be
if Beauregard's proposal for mass garrotting
of PoWs, as a reprisal for the EP, had been
carried out. But could it have been? At the
very least, we have to kill off Lee, who
would never have entertained such a notion,
and probably many if not most of his
colleagues, who wouldn't have been at all
keen on garrotting West Point classmates,
even if the latter _were_ on the wrong side.
This objection might also apply to another
West Pointer named Jefferson Davis.

Even if such scruples could be overcome,
there would still be the invariable problem
in these situations - the other side held
prisoners as well. The moment the first
Union soldiers/officers were strangled, the
North would promptly execute an equivalent
number of Rebs. I suspect the practice would
end rather quickly.


[1] I understand that in fact the tartan was
phoney. Nobody knew for sure what tartans
particular clans had worn at Culloden, or
even whether there had been specific "clan"
patterns at all. However, if HRH was
prepared to pay good money for an
"authentic" kilt, those canny Scots had no
intention of letting such fiddling details
stand between them and the Royal bawbees.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

I can never understand how people fail to
grasp the need for ethnic diversity.

After all, how could we English ever truly
appreciate our own superiority, if there
were no foreigners around for us to be
superior to?
Rich Rostrom
2007-04-16 02:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
then
a) they won't be around to whitewash their
records.
Post by Rich Rostrom
b) the North, having made and acted on a judgment,
is less likely to tolerate whitewashing. (It
would make them look bad.)
British (and especially Scots and Irish)
history suggests this wouldn't work.
Successive British governments hanged lots
of Irish rebels, and maintained a degree of
repression in Ireland itself that makes
Reconstruction look mild. This didn't stop
said rebels being hero-worshipped by their
fellows, and even, over time, incresingly
sympathised with in England.
Successive British governments imposed
arbitrary and oppressive rule on Ireland
that systematically alienated the entire
population. Punishing rebel leaders whose
cause was in essence basic justice for
the average Irishman was never going to
reconcile the average Irishman to British
rule. And it was increasingly embarrassing
to Britons.

Before 1860, the U.S. government had done
nothing to "the South" to induce resentment.

The rebellion and war engineered by the
secessionists of 1861 was not rooted in
basic principles of justice, but in
perverse attempt to maintain an institution
whose injustice was increasingly obvious,
when it had not actually been substantively
attacked, by destroying other institutions
which the great majority of even white
Southerners valued and respected.
Post by Rich Rostrom
As for Scotland, the Jacobites of 1745 were
not merely hanged, but in many cases drawn
and quartered as well. The rebellion was
followed by as ferocious a campaign of
repression as any sadist could wish for.
Result - 60 years after Culloden, the future
George IV is poncing about in a kilt
supposedly[1] patterned on those worn by the
MacDonalds _at Culloden. The Jacobites'
harsher suppression did nothing to stop them
being romanticised...
But it utterly and completely destroyed them
as a political force. In any case, the
Jacobites were guilty of nothing _but_
rebellion - for a cause which if not
sensible was at least not _reprehensible_.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
c) If the rebels have Done Stuff to provoke
that severe a follow-up, it will be unlikely
that they can be retroactively beatified.
Have we reached any consensus on what
exactly they would need to do? Are we all
agreed that, whatever it was, the victims
would have to be _white_ - that no
conceivasble mistreatment of blacks would
produce that kind of response?
If the CSA resorted to the sort of terror
that Rome practiced - massacre of entire
slave households and so on - I could see
the Radicals demanding and getting the rope
for those concerned.

Bear on mind that even in the ante-bellum
South it was possible for a white man to
be punished for killing a slave. Unusual,
but it did happen.

But also recognize that the Nazis and
Japanese regimes were condemned for being
_everyone's_ enemies. It would I think
be necessary for the *CSA to victimize
more than just blacks for its demise to
be so much celebrated.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
Mike Stone
2007-04-16 06:59:43 UTC
Permalink
"Rich Rostrom"
<***@rcn.com> wrote in
message
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-0AA189.21250815042
Post by Rich Rostrom
Before 1860, the U.S. government had done
nothing to "the South" to induce
resentment.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The rebellion and war engineered by the
secessionists of 1861 was not rooted in
basic principles of justice, but in
perverse attempt to maintain an
institution
Post by Rich Rostrom
whose injustice was increasingly obvious,
when it had not actually been
substantively
Post by Rich Rostrom
attacked, by destroying other institutions
which the great majority of even white
Southerners valued and respected.
Agreed, but that did nothing to prevent
white southerners from convincing themselves
otherwise. As an RAH character puts it in
_Methuselah's Children_, there is no
correlation between the factual _truth_ of a
proposition and its chances of catching on.
All that's necessary is for people to _want_
to believe it.

Nor do I see why a more repressive northern
policy would make Southerners _less_
inclined to believe it.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
As for Scotland, the Jacobites of 1745
were
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
not merely hanged, but in many cases
drawn
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
and quartered as well. The rebellion was
followed by as ferocious a campaign of
repression as any sadist could wish for.
Result - 60 years after Culloden, the
future
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
George IV is poncing about in a kilt
supposedly[1] patterned on those worn by
the
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
MacDonalds _at Culloden. The Jacobites'
harsher suppression did nothing to stop
them
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
being romanticised...
But it utterly and completely destroyed
them
Post by Rich Rostrom
as a political force.
No more thoroughly than the ACW destroyed
_secessionism_ as a political force, even
without such repression.
Post by Rich Rostrom
In any case, the
Jacobites were guilty of nothing _but_
rebellion - for a cause which if not
sensible was at least not _reprehensible_.
Precisely the Southern White view of their
cause
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
Post by Rich Rostrom
c) If the rebels have Done Stuff to pro
voke
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
Post by Rich Rostrom
that severe a follow-up, it will be
unlikely
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
Post by Rich Rostrom
that they can be retroactively
beatified.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
Have we reached any consensus on what
exactly they would need to do? Are we all
agreed that, whatever it was, the victims
would have to be _white_ - that no
conceivasble mistreatment of blacks would
produce that kind of response?
If the CSA resorted to the sort of terror
that Rome practiced - massacre of entire
slave households and so on - I could see
the Radicals demanding and getting the
rope
Post by Rich Rostrom
for those concerned.
Bear on mind that even in the ante-bellum
South it was possible for a white man to
be punished for killing a slave. Unusual,
but it did happen.
Quite - which makes it unlikely that the
South would in fact behave in such a way.
Post by Rich Rostrom
But also recognize that the Nazis and
Japanese regimes were condemned for being
_everyone's_ enemies. It would I think
be necessary for the *CSA to victimize
more than just blacks for its demise to
be so much celebrated.
Agreed. In fact to some extent it _did_
victimise others. Southern Unionists had
a_very_ bad time of it. also, Iirc most of
the fatalities at Andersonville were white,
and even some at Fort Pillow. But with the
solitary exception of Henry Wirz, even this
didn't produce much desire for revenge.

--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

I can never understand how people fail to
grasp the need for ethnic diversity.

After all, how could we English ever truly
appreciate our own superiority, if there
were no foreigners around for us to be
superior to?
Rich Rostrom
2007-04-17 02:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Before 1860, the U.S. government had done
nothing to "the South" to induce resentment.
The rebellion and war engineered by the
secessionists of 1861 was not rooted in
basic principles of justice, but in
perverse attempt to maintain an
institution
Post by Rich Rostrom
whose injustice was increasingly obvious,
when it had not actually been
substantively
Post by Rich Rostrom
attacked, by destroying other institutions
which the great majority of even white
Southerners valued and respected.
Agreed, but that did nothing to prevent
white southerners from convincing themselves
otherwise. As an RAH character puts it in
_Methuselah's Children_, there is no
correlation between the factual _truth_ of a
proposition and its chances of catching on.
All that's necessary is for people to _want_
to believe it.
Nor do I see why a more repressive northern
policy would make Southerners _less_
inclined to believe it.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
As for Scotland, the Jacobites of 1745
were
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
not merely hanged, but in many cases
drawn
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
and quartered as well. The rebellion was
followed by as ferocious a campaign of
repression as any sadist could wish for.
Result - 60 years after Culloden, the
future
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
George IV is poncing about in a kilt
supposedly[1] patterned on those worn by
the
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
MacDonalds _at Culloden. The Jacobites'
harsher suppression did nothing to stop
them
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
being romanticised...
But it utterly and completely destroyed
them
Post by Rich Rostrom
as a political force.
No more thoroughly than the ACW destroyed
_secessionism_ as a political force, even
without such repression.
But it did not destroy the white leadership
of the South. The ex-Confederates were around
to plead the case, and not a few of them
bacane important political figures: Alec
Stephens, John Gordon, Simon Buckner,
Zebulon Vance, Wade Hampton, Fitzhugh Lee,
Joe Brown, Isham Harris, John Reagan, and
William Mahone, to name some of the ex-
Confederate politicians and generals who
were Senators and Governors after the War.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
In any case, the
Jacobites were guilty of nothing _but_
rebellion - for a cause which if not
sensible was at least not _reprehensible_.
Precisely the Southern White view of their
cause
Only because they lied about it - which
everyone knew. They got away with the lies,
for a complex of reasons. But the Jacobites
didn't need to lie at all.

The CSA was whitewashed in large part so
that the instigators and executors of
secession (or their sons and deputies)
could resume control of the South.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Bear on mind that even in the ante-bellum
South it was possible for a white man to
be punished for killing a slave. Unusual,
but it did happen.
Quite - which makes it unlikely that the
South would in fact behave in such a way.
Well, the CSA, not "the South". But yes.

Davis, I've read, never had a slave
punished except after a trial with a jury
of other slaves.

As I wrote, someone else needs to be in
charge, someone of the "Border Ruffian"
stripe, for the CSA to go that far.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
Mike Stone
2007-04-19 18:36:35 UTC
Permalink
"Rich Rostrom"
<***@rcn.com> wrote in
message
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-E59802.21031716042
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
Post by Rich Rostrom
In any case, the
Jacobites were guilty of nothing _but_
rebellion - for a cause which if not
sensible was at least not
_reprehensible_.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
Precisely the Southern White view of
their
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
cause
Only because they lied about it - which
everyone knew. They got away with the
lies,
Post by Rich Rostrom
for a complex of reasons. But the
Jacobites
Post by Rich Rostrom
didn't need to lie at all.
Lied about it ok - if you include lying to
_themselves_. I'm not so sure about the
"everybody knew it". Or at least, if
everybody _did_ know it, they seem to have
forgotten mighty fast.

The human memory is _very_ selective. To
take a couple of modern cases, an opinion
poll taken shortly after JFK's assassination
had two-thirds of the respondents claiming
to have voted for him in 1960 - though in
fact he didn't even get _50%_ of the popular
vote. Another poll, taken just after Nixon's
resignation, produced a majority claiming to
have voted for McGovern at the last
election - again not quite in line with the
actual result.

Similarly, though I don't recall if such a
poll was conducted, I haven't the slightest
doubt that a poll of Brits in 1945 would
have produced a _huge_ majority saying
they'd been against the Munich agreement
seven years before, though it had clear
majority support at the time.

So I don't think we need assume too much
deliberate lying. If people _wanted_ to
believe that they hadn't been fighting for
slavery, they could soon convince themselves
that they were telling the ruth.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The CSA was whitewashed in large part so
that the instigators and executors of
secession (or their sons and deputies)
could resume control of the South.
That explains why the ex-Rebs themselves
whitewashed it, but not why northerners were
so ready to "go along with the gag". This
too, happened at quite an early date. Albion
W Tourgée was griping about it in 1879,
saying (or making a character say) that
before long [northern] men would be
positively ashamed of having worn the blue.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
Post by Rich Rostrom
Bear on mind that even in the
ante-bellum
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
Post by Rich Rostrom
South it was possible for a white man
to
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
Post by Rich Rostrom
be punished for killing a slave.
Unusual,
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Mike Stone
Post by Rich Rostrom
but it did happen.
Quite - which makes it unlikely that the
South would in fact behave in such a way.
Well, the CSA, not "the South". But yes.
Davis, I've read, never had a slave
punished except after a trial with a jury
of other slaves.
As I wrote, someone else needs to be in
charge, someone of the "Border Ruffian"
stripe, for the CSA to go that far.
And I doubt if merely having a different man
at the top would do it.

After all, most laws irt the treatment of
slaves were State laws, not Federal or
(later) Confederate. So they must have
reflected the attitude of the Planter class
in general, who dominated those state
governments. And Davis was chosen as CS
President by a caucus of men not all that
different from himself. Seems to me that to
get a "Quantrill" type into the Confederate
White House, you'd have to change the
Southern ruling class as a whole, not just
one or two men.

--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

I can never understand how people fail to
grasp the need for ethnic diversity.

After all, how could we English ever truly
appreciate our own superiority, if there
were no foreigners around for us to be
superior to?
Rich Rostrom
2007-04-20 18:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Stone
After all, most laws irt the treatment of
slaves were State laws, not Federal or
(later) Confederate. So they must have
reflected the attitude of the Planter class
in general, who dominated those state
governments. And Davis was chosen as CS
President by a caucus of men not all that
different from himself. Seems to me that to
get a "Quantrill" type into the Confederate
White House, you'd have to change the
Southern ruling class as a whole, not just
one or two men.
The planter class was far from uniform...
The South Carolina fire-eaters were all
planters. The leader of the Border
Ruffians was a US Senator. (Who was
president pro tem of the Senate for
six years around 1850).
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
The Horny Goat
2007-04-23 01:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Stone
Post by Rich Rostrom
Horace Greeley put up bail for Davis,
after all. If the senior Confederate
leaders had all been exiled or hanged...
Would that necessrily harm their
reputations?
Look at what just a couple of years in
prison (and five whole _days_ in shackles)
did for Jefferson Davis. If he ends on the
gallows, he'll be lucky to avoid _Sainthood_
<g>.
A good example from the same period would be Louis Riel who by all
contemporary accounts was a murderous bastard but has in this
revisionist new world become a modern saint.

Based on my reading of history they had it right the first time but
your mileage may vary.
s***@yahoo.com
2007-04-14 19:12:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by L***@gmail.com
(whereas a 'Confederate victory' would be an American defeat) in
1865-66, and the day in which Lee surrenders or Davis is captured is
perpetually marked with celebrations regarding the defeat of a
tyrannical, racist, raping, torturing, slave-holding regime seperate
from MLK Day, Juneteeth, or the Fourth of July.
Wrote a response which disappeared when Firefox crashed. Bah. Second
try.

A narrative of the Confederacy as Evil is very unlikely to take hold
in the postwar period. Couple of reasons.

One, most contemporary Northerners didn't see the South as Evil.
Selfish and misguided, sure. Misled by bad leaders, absolutely. But
the average Northerner was upset with the South, not because they
owned slaves, but because they had refused to accept the lawful
outcome of a properly held democratic election.

(This went through some evolution during the course of the war; by
1865, millions of Northern soldiers had seen slavery firsthand and
were thinking it wasn't such a good thing. But still, there wasn't a
view of it as big-E Evil.)

BTW, the consensus opinion in the North was that most Southerners had
been misled by the planter elite -- the "Slave Power". There was some
truth in this, but it let Northerners to the incorrect conclusion
that, therefore, the average white Southerner would support slavery
only weakly and the Confederate war effort not at all. Southern
Unionism was a will-of-the-wisp that would warp Northern thinking
throughout the war, just as southern Republicanism was after the war.
But I digress.)

Two, in the postwar years the overriding policy goal was to stitch the
Union back together again. This meant that demonization of the
Confederacy was right out. The North couldn't very well say, you were
blackly and unspeakably evil, but! hey! we're all brothers now. So
making a national holiday out of V-C day was right out. This might
have been the "right" thing to do in some abstract sense, but would
have poured salt on the wounds of the defeated Confederates. Which
was exactly what the North (with a few Radical exceptions) was trying
not to do.

Oh, and: you're too young to remember this, Luke my lad, but there was
a time when we had a national holiday commemorating the end of the
Civil War. It was called Lincoln's Birthday.

To make a long story short, up until 1865 Washington's Birthday was a
great patriotic holiday, second only to the Fourth of July, and
occupying roughly the niche that Memorial Day does now. Then after
Lincoln died, his birthday zoomed past Washington's to be the
patriotic day of remembrance. By the early 20th century, this had
become the de facto Civil War day. Interestingly, southerners shared
in it too, as southerners could join the Cult of Lincoln and often
did. Southern appreciation of Lincoln is a fascinating topic in its
own right, but I'm not going to digress off this digression. Where
were we... right, Lincoln's Birthday. This remained a huge holiday
until the 1950s, then gradually began to dwindle. In 1971 it was
folded into Washington's Birthday as a single federal holiday, which
soon came to be called Presidents Day.
Post by L***@gmail.com
So the question is, I suppose, what happened between the end of war
and present day that has allowed for "Confederate Heritage" to become
more palatable in the public mind than, say, "Nazi Heritage" or
"Imperial Japanese Heritage," given that they're all about as evil.
The myth of the Glorious Lost Cause started appearing immediately
after the war. It began taking something like its modern form in the
1880s, when the first "But It Wasn't About Slavery!" apologias started
popping up.

In the long term, the southern fascination with it involves a couple
of different things (IMO). One is southern regionalism and
exceptionalism, which has always been strong. Another is the southern
cultural cringe/chip on the shoulder. That derives (again IMO) in
large part from relative southern backwardness... when you're the
poorest, worst-educated and most disease-ridden part of the country,
you'll always have a cherished local mythology.
Post by L***@gmail.com
The smoothest way out, then, would likely be Lincoln not being
assassinated in 1865 and presiding over the first part of
Reconstruction, rather than Johnson. It should avoid the troubles with
the perfectly reasonable Congress's interest in remaking the formerly
rebellious states, especially with the New England style Department of
Ed, but I'm not sure if that'll keep "Glorious Lost Cause" from
growing up like poisonous fungus
It won't. Lincoln would have clicked his tongue over the GLC, but let
it pass. The Union was always his first priority.

Let's note too that the GLC of OTL -- obnoxious as it is -- is not the
worst imaginable. I mentioned the not-about-slavery thing. Well,
that was a big old lie, and it still is today... but at least they
didn't try for "Sure it was about slavery! Because slavery was a
positive good!" Which, remember, was the formal position of pretty
much all the old CSA elite. (In fact, the tweaking of the myth had to
wait a generation until those guys were all dead. Would have been
pretty embarrassing to have Jeff Davis rising up to say, "Of course it
was about slavery, you poltroon!")

Rough metaphor: the leaders of Reconstruction as surgeons trying to
reattach a limb. They succeeded -- the South is part of the US again,
and that's never been seriously called into question. They left an
ugly scar and some funny twitches; the rest of us have to spend a
couple of centuries with Confederate flag bumper stickers and Newt
Gingrich explaining that, as a former history teacher, he is
completely clear that it wasn't about slavery. But that's the long-
term price we pay for the successful re-establishment of the Union.

Final thought: to kill the GLC myth, strike at the social and economic
conditions that make it so attractive. Which brings us back to
southern convergence again. I don't think that would entirely do the
job -- Southern regionalism is very strong -- but I think it would
make the GLC a lot less interesting and attractive.


Doug M.
L***@gmail.com
2007-04-14 22:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Wrote a response which disappeared when Firefox crashed. Bah. Second
try.
Ah, thank you.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
A narrative of the Confederacy as Evil is very unlikely to take hold
in the postwar period. Couple of reasons.
Well, yeah, I know it's stupid; I just don't like the strong whiff of
Magnolias and man-love coming off of various parties regarding Nathan
Bedford Forrest.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
One, most contemporary Northerners didn't see the South as Evil.
Selfish and misguided, sure. Misled by bad leaders, absolutely. But
the average Northerner was upset with the South, not because they
owned slaves, but because they had refused to accept the lawful
outcome of a properly held democratic election.
Right, right.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
(This went through some evolution during the course of the war; by
1865, millions of Northern soldiers had seen slavery firsthand and
were thinking it wasn't such a good thing. But still, there wasn't a
view of it as big-E Evil.)
Hey, I did do the reading, of course. Some of us just get incensed
when our post-1945 cousins who live in various southern districts
remind us that April is Confederate Heritage Month; I got in trouble
for doing a search and replace doing Confederate===> Nazi and
Atlanta===>Posen.

Shockingly, it did not go over especially well. I'm apparently in some
sort of "trouble" for it.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Two, in the postwar years the overriding policy goal was to stitch the
Union back together again. This meant that demonization of the
Confederacy was right out. The North couldn't very well say, you were
blackly and unspeakably evil, but! hey! we're all brothers now. So
making a national holiday out of V-C day was right out. This might
have been the "right" thing to do in some abstract sense, but would
have poured salt on the wounds of the defeated Confederates. Which
was exactly what the North (with a few Radical exceptions) was trying
not to do.
Yeah...sigh.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Oh, and: you're too young to remember this, Luke my lad, but there was
a time when we had a national holiday commemorating the end of the
Civil War. It was called Lincoln's Birthday.
Righteous!
Post by s***@yahoo.com
To make a long story short, up until 1865 Washington's Birthday was a
great patriotic holiday, second only to the Fourth of July, and
occupying roughly the niche that Memorial Day does now. Then after
Lincoln died, his birthday zoomed past Washington's to be the
patriotic day of remembrance. By the early 20th century, this had
become the de facto Civil War day. Interestingly, southerners shared
in it too, as southerners could join the Cult of Lincoln and often
did. Southern appreciation of Lincoln is a fascinating topic in its
own right, but I'm not going to digress off this digression. Where
were we... right, Lincoln's Birthday. This remained a huge holiday
until the 1950s, then gradually began to dwindle. In 1971 it was
folded into Washington's Birthday as a single federal holiday, which
soon came to be called Presidents Day.
Aww, crap. Well, let's do something on the Dixiests in the Cult of
Lincoln soon. That sounds....interesting.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
The myth of the Glorious Lost Cause started appearing immediately
after the war. It began taking something like its modern form in the
1880s, when the first "But It Wasn't About Slavery!" apologias started
popping up.
Ah, well. Hmm, how very frusterating.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
In the long term, the southern fascination with it involves a couple
of different things (IMO). One is southern regionalism and
exceptionalism, which has always been strong. Another is the southern
cultural cringe/chip on the shoulder. That derives (again IMO) in
large part from relative southern backwardness... when you're the
poorest, worst-educated and most disease-ridden part of the country,
you'll always have a cherished local mythology.
So, we're back at Southern Convergence through the Department of Ed?
Higher education for blacks via the Freemen's Bureau and higher
education for whites in general....could we cram in a bunch of
immigrants who don't keep picking up the annoying moron meme?
Post by s***@yahoo.com
It won't. Lincoln would have clicked his tongue over the GLC, but let
it pass. The Union was always his first priority.
Let's note too that the GLC of OTL -- obnoxious as it is -- is not the
worst imaginable. I mentioned the not-about-slavery thing. Well,
that was a big old lie, and it still is today... but at least they
didn't try for "Sure it was about slavery! Because slavery was a
positive good!" Which, remember, was the formal position of pretty
much all the old CSA elite. (In fact, the tweaking of the myth had to
wait a generation until those guys were all dead. Would have been
pretty embarrassing to have Jeff Davis rising up to say, "Of course it
was about slavery, you poltroon!")
Hahhaa. What would be the maximal worst GLC version to float around?
Hooray slavery? And is ours the minimal GLC fantasy?
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Rough metaphor: the leaders of Reconstruction as surgeons trying to
reattach a limb. They succeeded -- the South is part of the US again,
and that's never been seriously called into question. They left an
ugly scar and some funny twitches; the rest of us have to spend a
couple of centuries with Confederate flag bumper stickers and Newt
Gingrich explaining that, as a former history teacher, he is
completely clear that it wasn't about slavery. But that's the long-
term price we pay for the successful re-establishment of the Union.
Yeah, and it still gives me fits of the funny epilepsy. As a substrata
thereof, the GLC produces/reinforces the jackboot Christendom and
various unpleasant flavors of modern conservativism, so, striking that
particular adder in the head with a shovel would be rather intersting.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Final thought: to kill the GLC myth, strike at the social and economic
conditions that make it so attractive. Which brings us back to
southern convergence again. I don't think that would entirely do the
job -- Southern regionalism is very strong -- but I think it would
make the GLC a lot less interesting and attractive.
Right, so, this leads us to a big ole revaluatory thread of Lincoln's
Second Administration and after, I'd guess...

Best

L
s***@yahoo.com
2007-04-16 09:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by L***@gmail.com
I got in trouble
for doing a search and replace doing Confederate===> Nazi and
Atlanta===>Posen.
Context is everything, Luke.
Post by L***@gmail.com
Aww, crap. Well, let's do something on the Dixiests in the Cult of
Lincoln soon. That sounds....interesting.
It's a fractally complicated topic.

Short version: during the war, Southerners totally demonized Lincoln;
he was seen as a monster and a dictator. (One oddity that pops up
when you read contemporary accounts: most Southerners accepted that
Lincoln had won the 1860 election, but couldn't believe he'd won the
1864 one; it was universally accepted that he'd somehow stolen it.)

In the immediate aftermath of the war, this sentiment continued
strong, and many Southerners -- especially in the Deep South --
expressed admiration for JW Booth. Texas was particularly virulent in
this regard, probably because there were fewer Union troops there.

(In this as in so many other ways, Robert E. Lee was anomalous; he
said after Appomattox that he had surrendered "as much to Lincoln's
goodness, as to General Grant's troops." REL was just so
consistently /better/, you know?)

But as time went by, many Southerners came to admire and respect
Lincoln. Two reasons. One, the myth of blaming all the South's woes
upon Reconstruction. Lincoln was seen as the kinder, gentler, malice-
towards-none guy who would never have inflicted such enormities on the
suffering South. Two, as the GLC came to dominate southern memory,
Lincoln had to be depicted as at least competent -- after all, it
would be too humiliating to have been defeated by some thumb-fingered
hick from backwoods Illinois.

An interesting third strand popped up in the early 20th century, when
Lincoln's moderate-conservative views on race were held up by
southerners as a justification for Jim Crow. We see this in _The
Clansman_, the 1905 Thomas Dixon novel that helped ignite the rebirth
of the Ku Klux Klan. _The Clansman_ is pure GLC slathered with a
heaping dose of racism: Southerners are noble, blacks are brutal
savages. But Lincoln is depicted as a God-like wise man interested
only in saving the Union. This is the current of opinion that had
arch-supremacist Mississippi Senator Vardaman making a "pilgrimage" to
Springfield to honor Lincoln's memory. That one has died down these
days. Mostly.

Today southern views on Lincoln seem to be dominated by #2, although
there's still a strong countercurrent of resentment. Google up some
stories on the Lincoln statue unveiled in Richmond in 2003. On one
hand, it's there! On the other hand, it's surrounded by surveillance
cameras. The Lieutenant Governor of Virginia showed up to say
"Lincoln is ours... Lincoln belongs to Virginia." Other hand, so did
a couple of hundred protestors, including some in Confederate
uniforms.

IMS this topic is dealt with in some detail in _Lincoln in American
Memory_, by [googles] Peterson. A few years old now, but worth a
look.
Post by L***@gmail.com
So, we're back at Southern Convergence through the Department of Ed?
Well, that was one suggestion. There are surely others.
Post by L***@gmail.com
Yeah, and it still gives me fits of the funny epilepsy. As a substrata
thereof, the GLC produces/reinforces the jackboot Christendom and
various unpleasant flavors of modern conservativism, so, striking that
particular adder in the head with a shovel would be rather intersting.
Meh. The cross-fertilization you describe is mostly about the
transformation of the modern Republican party into the Party of
Southern White Guys. A secondary driver may be the incomplete
convergence of the South with the rest of the country, c. 1945-80.
(If they had converged all the way they wouldn't have the chip on the
shoulder so much; if they hadn't converged at all, they'd still be a
hookworm-ridden backwater and wouldn't be able to afford decent
Internet connections for yelling at the rest of us.)

But mostly it's the New Republican Party. This convergence of
political interests forms what Marxists call a transmission belt.
It's what leads to grotesqueries like libertarians who think the
Confederacy was cool, man.

If you go back 50 years, to when the Republicans were the Party of
Guys Who Wear Suits, you don't find the same dynamic at work at all.
And if you go forward fifty years... well, we can hope.

-- Rereading that, I'll add a caveat: southern religiosity and
southern violence both predate the current political alignment. In
fact, they predate America. The South has been the most religious
part of the country since the First Great Awakening, and the most
willing to resort to violence since, well, always.


Doug M.
Coyu
2007-04-16 11:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
if they hadn't converged at all, they'd still be a
hookworm-ridden backwater and wouldn't be able to afford decent
Internet connections for yelling at the rest of us.)
It is striking how quickly alternative radio programming
was developed in the unconverged South. X-treme Protestant;
white supremacist; cross-border illegal broadcasts (which
were often tied into medical fraud); and of course, the
Grand Ole Opry.

The rise of the largely Southern televangelism model --
which you have to admit has been a very effective way to
raise investment capital for media infrastructure -- also
makes me wonder if the peculiar (white) Southern genius
would find a way to bother the rest of us had they stalled
out at Ty Cobb. I'm picturing a combination Ted Turner and
Matt Drudge.
The Horny Goat
2007-04-16 15:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Coyu
The rise of the largely Southern televangelism model --
which you have to admit has been a very effective way to
raise investment capital for media infrastructure -- also
makes me wonder if the peculiar (white) Southern genius
would find a way to bother the rest of us had they stalled
out at Ty Cobb. I'm picturing a combination Ted Turner and
Matt Drudge.
I don't see why not - CFCN Calgary (the largest radio/tv company in
Alberta) came to national attention due to broadcasts by an
politically minded evangelist who later ruled Alberta 1935-43. He
died unexpectedly in 1943 and his successor ruled for 25 years.

It wasn't owned by him and always faithfully pursued the almighty
dollar. I could easily visualize such a station driven by a Ted Turner
particularly given the usual attitude about Toronto and Ottawa (which
continues today) taking on Drudge like overtones. A "Prairie Populist"
taking on corruption in the corridors of power? (In the 1960s and 70s
Western Canada had a whole array of muck raking open line hosts long
before Stern and Imus were out of their diapers.)

Not difficult to imagine at all actually.
Mike Stone
2007-04-16 13:12:26 UTC
Permalink
<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@l77g2000hsb.go
oglegroups.com...
On Apr 15, 3:14 am,
Post by L***@gmail.com
I got in trouble
for doing a search and replace doing
Confederate===> Nazi and
Post by L***@gmail.com
Atlanta===>Posen.
Context is everything, Luke.
Post by L***@gmail.com
Aww, crap. Well, let's do something on
the Dixiests in the Cult of
Post by L***@gmail.com
Lincoln soon. That
sounds....interesting.
It's a fractally complicated topic.
Short version: during the war, Southerners
totally demonized Lincoln;
he was seen as a monster and a dictator.
(One oddity that pops up
when you read contemporary accounts: most
Southerners accepted that
Lincoln had won the 1860 election, but
couldn't believe he'd won the
1864 one; it was universally accepted that
he'd somehow stolen it.)
In the immediate aftermath of the war,
this sentiment continued
strong, and many Southerners -- especially
in the Deep South --
expressed admiration for JW Booth. Texas
was particularly virulent in
this regard, probably because there were
fewer Union troops there.
(In this as in so many other ways, Robert
E. Lee was anomalous; he
said after Appomattox that he had
surrendered "as much to Lincoln's
goodness, as to General Grant's troops."
REL was just so
consistently /better/, you know?)
But as time went by, many Southerners came
to admire and respect
Lincoln. Two reasons. One, the myth of
blaming all the South's woes
upon Reconstruction. Lincoln was seen as
the kinder, gentler, malice-
towards-none guy who would never have
inflicted such enormities on the
suffering South.
In my more cynical moments, I often feel
that (as regards his historical reputation)
Lincoln was removed from the scene at the
ideal moment. Dying a week after Appomattox
allowed him to be bothe the genraous victor
who would welcome the prodigal south home,
while remaining the Great Emancipator who
had freed the Blacks.

Had he lived longer, he must either have
been lenient with the South, in which case
he would have to write off any major
promotion of black political rights, thus
(from a 2007 perspective) compromising his
image as the GE, or else adopt a program
similar to Radical Reconstruction, which
would scupper his image as the generous
victor, and also, (assuming it didn't
succeed any better than OTL's
Reconstruction), cause him to leave the
stage on a note of failure.

For analogous reasons, it could be
considered _bad_ luck for Woodrow Wilson
that his 1919 stroke didn't kill him. Either
his death would have cleared the way for the
US to enter the League of Nations, or else
he would have been totally uninvolved in its
failure to do so, and everyone would assume
that his untimely death was the _cause_ of
that failure. Either way, his reputation
gains.



Two, as the GLC came to dominate southern
memory,
Lincoln had to be depicted as at least
competent -- after all, it
would be too humiliating to have been
defeated by some thumb-fingered
hick from backwoods Illinois.
An interesting third strand popped up in
the early 20th century, when
Lincoln's moderate-conservative views on
race were held up by
southerners as a justification for Jim
Crow. We see this in _The
Clansman_, the 1905 Thomas Dixon novel
that helped ignite the rebirth
of the Ku Klux Klan. _The Clansman_ is
pure GLC slathered with a
heaping dose of racism: Southerners are
noble, blacks are brutal
savages. But Lincoln is depicted as a
God-like wise man interested
only in saving the Union. This is the
current of opinion that had
arch-supremacist Mississippi Senator
Vardaman making a "pilgrimage" to
Springfield to honor Lincoln's memory.
That one has died down these
days. Mostly.
Rather a case of "A Lincoln for all
seasons".

Basically, Lincoln has become the
quintessential "good guy" of American
history, up there beside George Washington,
so every generation assumes that he would
naturally have been on the side of right,
as that particular generation sees right.

For many decades after 1877, the
conventional wisdom was that Reconstruction
was a ghastly mistake (didn't Andrew Johnson
get a Hollywood film made about him around
the 1940s?) so obviously Lincoln would have
opposed it. Since the Civil Rights era, of
course, the CW has done an about turn, with
Reconstruction becoming a "good war" which
the Good Guys lost. So naturally Lincoln,
the ultimate Good Guy, must really have been
a supporter of the Radical programme, or at
least about to become one. Any inonvenient
historical facts which suggest otherwise are
clearly misunderstandings of some kind.

FWIW, my own guess is that Lincoln would
have tried as far as he could to combine
reconciliation of the (white) South with
protection of the Freedmen, but that if
forced to choose, would in the end have put
reconciliation first - at least once he
became convinced that the Rebs were sincere
in their acceptance of the restored Union.
However, anyone who has seen previous
arguments on this subject will know that
shwiers are _far_ from unanimous on this
<g>.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

I can never understand how people fail to
grasp the need for ethnic diversity.

After all, how could we English ever truly
appreciate our own superiority, if there
were no foreigners around for us to be
superior to?
Larry M Headlund
2007-04-17 04:16:17 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
Mike Stone <***@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
Post by Mike Stone
For many decades after 1877, the
conventional wisdom was that Reconstruction
was a ghastly mistake (didn't Andrew Johnson
get a Hollywood film made about him around
the 1940s?) so obviously Lincoln would have
opposed it.
The movie was called "Tennesse Johnson" (1942). But since it portrays
Johnson as a hero I am not sure how it fits in with your thesis.
But my memory of the film is beyond vague.
--
--
Larry Headlund ***@world.std.com Mathematical Engineering, Inc.
(617) 242 7741
Unix, X and Motif Consulting Speaking for myself at most.
Mike Stone
2007-04-17 06:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Ken Arromdee
2007-04-17 16:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Use of scorched earth tactics during the war may have ensured that Confederate
sympathies continued for a long time.

Notice that even using a WWII comparison, we don't have "Celebrate the
Bombing of Hiroshima Day" in America, let alone in Japan.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee

"You know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk
on water." --Samantha Carter, Stargate SG-1
Larry M Headlund
2007-04-17 22:28:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry M Headlund
<snip>
Post by Mike Stone
For many decades after 1877, the
conventional wisdom was that Reconstruction
was a ghastly mistake (didn't Andrew Johnson
get  a Hollywood film made about him around
the 1940s?) so obviously Lincoln would have
opposed it.
The movie was called "Tennesse Johnson" (1942). But since it portrays
Johnson as a hero I am not sure how it fits in with your thesis.
But my memory of the film is beyond vague.
Well, I've never seen it at all, but I presume that it portrays him as
an _unsuccessful_ hero, at least on the Reconstruction issue, and
takes pretty much for granted that he was right on that question and
the Radicals wrong. IOW he tried and failed where Lincoln (by
implication) would have succeeded.
Nowadays, of course, it is Johnson who is seen as in the wrong, so it
is widely assumed that Lincoln would have taken the other side of that
question. In neither case did/does historical evidence really have
much to do with the belief, which was/is mainly an assumpttion that
Father Abraham would naturally always be "on the side of the angels"
whichever side a particular era supposed that to be.
Thanks for the clarification.
--
--
Larry Headlund ***@world.std.com Mathematical Engineering, Inc.
(617) 242 7741
Unix, X and Motif Consulting Speaking for myself at most.
L***@gmail.com
2007-04-20 19:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by L***@gmail.com
I got in trouble
for doing a search and replace doing Confederate===> Nazi and
Atlanta===>Posen.
Context is everything, Luke.
Oh, I know, but as "The gay one" who goes to "PCU" I feel a need to
get out the sledgehammer every now and again, when the wedge won't
work. Clearly, time to bring Boy George home for Thanksgiving to make
a point....
Post by s***@yahoo.com
It's a fractally complicated topic.
Short version: during the war, Southerners totally demonized Lincoln;
he was seen as a monster and a dictator. (One oddity that pops up
when you read contemporary accounts: most Southerners accepted that
Lincoln had won the 1860 election, but couldn't believe he'd won the
1864 one; it was universally accepted that he'd somehow stolen it.)
Weird; why'd they bother to insist on him stealing 1864 if not 1860?
By 1864, he was clearly more popular than Tyler or Jackson with the
war coming to a close, so, that'd make sense even in the doughest
mindset of the "let's keep slaves for the rapin'" presumably.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
In the immediate aftermath of the war, this sentiment continued
strong, and many Southerners -- especially in the Deep South --
expressed admiration for JW Booth.
Any musicals?
Post by s***@yahoo.com
(In this as in so many other ways, Robert E. Lee was anomalous; he
said after Appomattox that he had surrendered "as much to Lincoln's
goodness, as to General Grant's troops." REL was just so
consistently /better/, you know?)
Except for his treatment of blacks, sure. Let's not get REL confused
with the man portrayed in "Gods and Generals" by Bobby Duval. In any
case, he was clearly a stone cold racist rather than the recent weird
'Lincoln: White Supremacist' thing...
Post by s***@yahoo.com
But as time went by, many Southerners came to admire and respect
Lincoln. Two reasons. One, the myth of blaming all the South's woes
upon Reconstruction. Lincoln was seen as the kinder, gentler, malice-
towards-none guy who would never have inflicted such enormities on the
suffering South. Two, as the GLC came to dominate southern memory,
Lincoln had to be depicted as at least competent -- after all, it
would be too humiliating to have been defeated by some thumb-fingered
hick from backwoods Illinois.
Hee. Nothing like retroactively embiggening your enemy, eh? Did they
pump up Union Body counts, too?
Post by s***@yahoo.com
An interesting third strand popped up in the early 20th century, when
Lincoln's moderate-conservative views on race were held up by
southerners as a justification for Jim Crow.
But Lincoln is depicted as a God-like wise man interested
only in saving the Union. This is the current of opinion that had
arch-supremacist Mississippi Senator Vardaman making a "pilgrimage" to
Springfield to honor Lincoln's memory. That one has died down these
days. Mostly.
Creepy; so, this would be the strain that births Lincoln, White
Supremacist racist?
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Today southern views on Lincoln seem to be dominated by #2, although
there's still a strong countercurrent of resentment. Google up some
stories on the Lincoln statue unveiled in Richmond in 2003. On one
hand, it's there! On the other hand, it's surrounded by surveillance
cameras. The Lieutenant Governor of Virginia showed up to say
"Lincoln is ours... Lincoln belongs to Virginia." Other hand, so did
a couple of hundred protestors, including some in Confederate
uniforms.
That is deeply, deeply creepy--of course, the US never bothered to 'de-
Confederize' the way Germany did, regarding the symbols and regalia.
Not that bedsheets are particularly Southern...

Anyway, did these adorable protectors bring friends done up in
blackface and pistol whip them when they tried to run away?
Post by s***@yahoo.com
IMS this topic is dealt with in some detail in _Lincoln in American
Memory_, by [googles] Peterson. A few years old now, but worth a
look.
Thanks; I'll go buy it in my post-thesis shopping therapy bender.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by L***@gmail.com
So, we're back at Southern Convergence through the Department of Ed?
Well, that was one suggestion. There are surely others.
But most spring from Lincoln's survival or any president but Andrew
Johnson?

Mike Davis, take it away!
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Meh. The cross-fertilization you describe is mostly about the
transformation of the modern Republican party into the Party of
Southern White Guys.
Fair enough, I suppose; but the relative incomplete convergence was a
nice and seedy breeding ground for the Christian right as a festering
wound...
Post by s***@yahoo.com
A secondary driver may be the incomplete
convergence of the South with the rest of the country, c. 1945-80.
(If they had converged all the way they wouldn't have the chip on the
shoulder so much; if they hadn't converged at all, they'd still be a
hookworm-ridden backwater and wouldn't be able to afford decent
Internet connections for yelling at the rest of us.)
What would have gotten them all the way between 1945 and 1980, rather
than not quite there? Obviously, Civil Rights was a Problem for them,
but that's kind of not saying too much. Getting the South to stop
being passed over for immigration would probably help some, but that's
fixing a symptom, not a problem--you don't want to live in Dixie
because of what it is, etc.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
If you go back 50 years, to when the Republicans were the Party of
Guys Who Wear Suits, you don't find the same dynamic at work at all.
And if you go forward fifty years... well, we can hope.
I'm not going to bother to hold my breath. I am, however, all for them
holding only the seats of the former Confederacy in the Congress for
the next while...
Post by s***@yahoo.com
-- Rereading that, I'll add a caveat: southern religiosity and
southern violence both predate the current political alignment. In
fact, they predate America. The South has been the most religious
part of the country since the First Great Awakening, and the most
willing to resort to violence since, well, always.
Right, well. Is that a consequence of any particular colony, or of the
particular flavor of stuff brought to the region? Would having the
Carolinas settled from Germany and Scotland rather than Barbados
remove that particular stigma, or only diminish it? Another thread,
perhaps..."Gigantic New England" I need to go get "Freedom Just Around
the Corner"

Best

L
The Horny Goat
2007-04-21 06:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by L***@gmail.com
Creepy; so, this would be the strain that births Lincoln, White
Supremacist racist?
Why would that be terribly shocking?

A generation there were plenty of men who were quite willing to give
women the vote who were huge "male chauvinist pigs" who were strong
believers in male supremacy and wouldn't dream of voting for a woman
even for dogcatcher. It was assumed that "the little lady" would
simply cast the same vote as her husband so little would change
electorally.

Similarly there were plenty of politicians who were glad for black
votes whose only contact with blacks was as valets and maids.
Mike Stone
2007-04-21 07:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Rich Rostrom
2007-04-21 16:34:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by L***@gmail.com
Post by s***@yahoo.com
But Lincoln is depicted as a God-like wise man interested
only in saving the Union. This is the current of opinion that had
arch-supremacist Mississippi Senator Vardaman making a "pilgrimage" to
Springfield to honor Lincoln's memory. That one has died down these
days. Mostly.
Creepy; so, this would be the strain that births Lincoln, White
Supremacist racist?
Not from what I can tell (and I've seen a lot of that).

Mainly, it's from the school of "The South Was Right"
neo-Confederates, and the crank libertarians who want
to paint Lincoln as "the American Lenin". And black
race-mongers who need to discredit Lincoln because
no white American can be spared (Lerone Bennett).

There might be an inheritance - I wouldn't be
surprised if "The South Was Right" borrowed
from the writings of Vardaman and his ilk. But
the conclusion is different: Vardaman concluded
"Lincoln is OK because he was white supremacist
like us, and upheld the Union, which we now _all_
_support_." The TSWR crowd sneers that "Lincoln
was Bad because he maintained the Union by force
and was a racist (which _none_ _of_ _us_ are)".
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
Rich Rostrom
2007-04-15 06:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by L***@gmail.com
(whereas a 'Confederate victory' would be an American defeat) in
1865-66, and the day in which Lee surrenders or Davis is captured is
perpetually marked with celebrations regarding the defeat of a
tyrannical, racist, raping, torturing, slave-holding regime seperate
from MLK Day, Juneteeth, or the Fourth of July.
BTW, the consensus opinion in the North was that most Southerners had
been misled by the planter elite -- the "Slave Power".
So how would this clash with V-C Day?

Heck, during WW II there was at least some
acknowledgement/projection that the ordinary
German or Japanese wasn't a villain born,
but the deluded stooge of a criminal regime.

The emphasis for V-C Day would have been on
the rich planters and their goons, lynching
Union men, imposing conscription on the
common folk, dodging conscription themselves
(the 20-slave rule), living fat while the
poor working folk were starving, and
committing various crimes of war. And on
Union-loyal Southerners, of whom there were
not a few (every "Confederate" state but
SC had at least one regiment of white
Union volunteers.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
The myth of the Glorious Lost Cause started appearing immediately
after the war. It began taking something like its modern form in the
1880s, when the first "But It Wasn't About Slavery!" apologias started
popping up.
It won't. Lincoln would have clicked his tongue over the GLC, but let
it pass. The Union was always his first priority.
Let's note too that the GLC of OTL -- obnoxious as it is -- is not the
worst imaginable. I mentioned the not-about-slavery thing. Well,
that was a big old lie, and it still is today... but at least they
didn't try for "Sure it was about slavery! Because slavery was a
positive good!" Which, remember, was the formal position of pretty
much all the old CSA elite. (In fact, the tweaking of the myth had to
wait a generation until those guys were all dead. Would have been
pretty embarrassing to have Jeff Davis rising up to say, "Of course it
was about slavery, you poltroon!")
Hah. Even Davis starting weaseling on
the issue after war. And he lived till
1889, so if the denial started in the
1880s, he didn't contradict it.

Alec Stephens was another weasel.

I don't know of _any_ CSA notable who
admitted frankly, after the war, that
"it was about slavery", or made the
slightest effort to contradict the
weasels.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
d***@cablespeed.com
2007-04-19 19:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Heck, during WW II there was at least some
acknowledgement/projection that the ordinary
German or Japanese wasn't a villain born,
but the deluded stooge of a criminal regime.
VC Day might be different. In OTL, a Google on "inbred redneck"
pulls up 11,100 hits, but not much trace of condemnation of this
harsh term. In fact, many of the sites using this exact term do so
because they are progressive. (Much of the first few pages are
about a movie called "Inbred Redneck Alien Abduction", but it
does not take long to find pages of good people fighting racism
by mocking the sexual perversion and mental inferiority of
white southerners.)

In a TL where there is more publicly-sponsored triumphalism over
the Civil War victory, this attitude would likely be stronger.

I avoid any value judgement on this. We can stipulate
that this attitude being stronger would be a good thing,
if we wish.

However--as a predictable effect, Southern revanchism
would also be stronger. A TL with a VC Day might be
more likely to have had a Second American Civil War
by now. Again, I avoid any value judgement on this.
Mike Stone
2007-04-15 09:50:11 UTC
Permalink
<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@w1g2000hsg.goo
glegroups.com...
Post by s***@yahoo.com
A narrative of the Confederacy as Evil is
very unlikely to take hold
Post by s***@yahoo.com
in the postwar period. Couple of reasons.
One, most contemporary Northerners didn't
see the South as Evil.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Selfish and misguided, sure. Misled by
bad leaders, absolutely. But
Post by s***@yahoo.com
the average Northerner was upset with the
South, not because they
Post by s***@yahoo.com
owned slaves, but because they had refused
to accept the lawful
Post by s***@yahoo.com
outcome of a properly held democratic
election.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
(This went through some evolution during
the course of the war; by
Post by s***@yahoo.com
1865, millions of Northern soldiers had
seen slavery firsthand and
Post by s***@yahoo.com
were thinking it wasn't such a good thing.
But still, there wasn't a
Post by s***@yahoo.com
view of it as big-E Evil.)
BTW, the consensus opinion in the North
was that most Southerners had
Post by s***@yahoo.com
been misled by the planter elite -- the
"Slave Power". There was some
Post by s***@yahoo.com
truth in this, but it let Northerners to
the incorrect conclusion
Post by s***@yahoo.com
that, therefore, the average white
Southerner would support slavery
Post by s***@yahoo.com
only weakly and the Confederate war effort
not at all. Southern
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Unionism was a will-of-the-wisp that would
warp Northern thinking
Post by s***@yahoo.com
throughout the war, just as southern
Republicanism was after the war.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
But I digress.)
On both sides of the poltical spectrum,
incidentally.

There is a curious parallel between the
attitudes of the "Peace" Democrats in 1864
and of the Radical Republicans postwar.
Neither could quite believe that Southerners
were "serious" about the position they were
taking.

The Copperheads insisted (and apparently
believed) that the South didn't really "mean
it" about secession and would happily rejoin
the Union as soon as that inconvenient Mr
Lincoln was defeated. The Radicals thought
the same regarding Southern attitudes to the
Blacks, and assunmed that they's soon get
over it and accept the New Order if the
government showed a little firmness.

Defeat in 1864 meant that the Peace Dems
never had a chance to be disillusioned. The
Radicals _did_ get a chance to try their
programme, but soon had a spectacular
collison with the real world.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

I can never understand how people fail to
grasp the need for ethnic diversity.

After all, how could we English ever truly
appreciate our own superiority, if there
were no foreigners around for us to be
superior to?
Richard Gadsden
2007-04-15 12:03:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Two, in the postwar years the overriding policy goal was to stitch the
Union back together again. This meant that demonization of the
Confederacy was right out. The North couldn't very well say, you were
blackly and unspeakably evil, but! hey! we're all brothers now. So
making a national holiday out of V-C day was right out. This might
have been the "right" thing to do in some abstract sense, but would
have poured salt on the wounds of the defeated Confederates. Which
was exactly what the North (with a few Radical exceptions) was trying
not to do.
So a policy that says that *only* black people get to vote in the South
until they graciously give the vote back to the white people. That
might grind the scumbags down enough?

Now, what could the Confederates do that would piss the North off enough
to do that?
--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
Larry M Headlund
2007-04-17 04:36:02 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Oh, and: you're too young to remember this, Luke my lad, but there was
a time when we had a national holiday commemorating the end of the
Civil War. It was called Lincoln's Birthday.
To make a long story short, up until 1865 Washington's Birthday was a
great patriotic holiday, second only to the Fourth of July, and
occupying roughly the niche that Memorial Day does now. Then after
Lincoln died, his birthday zoomed past Washington's to be the
patriotic day of remembrance. By the early 20th century, this had
become the de facto Civil War day. Interestingly, southerners shared
in it too, as southerners could join the Cult of Lincoln and often
did. Southern appreciation of Lincoln is a fascinating topic in its
own right, but I'm not going to digress off this digression. Where
were we... right, Lincoln's Birthday. This remained a huge holiday
until the 1950s, then gradually began to dwindle. In 1971 it was
folded into Washington's Birthday as a single federal holiday, which
soon came to be called Presidents Day.
Is this from an alternate timeline where Memorial Day/Decoration Day
was not the de jure Civil War day? At least in the Union states, the
former confederates had there own, separate memorial days. It was
only after WWI that it was extended to all military dead.

So up until 1919 or so we have two Civil War holidays, neither national,
and both arguably pro-Union though Lincoln's Birthday more ambiguous.
--
--
Larry Headlund ***@world.std.com Mathematical Engineering, Inc.
(617) 242 7741
Unix, X and Motif Consulting Speaking for myself at most.
Mike Stone
2007-04-15 19:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by L***@gmail.com
Yeah, I suppose I should have added the caveat that I wanted more-or-
less this outcome without giving the CSA a period of sovereignty; so,
very roughly, the same Civil War, which ends in an American victory
(whereas a 'Confederate victory' would be an American defeat) in
1865-66, and the day in which Lee surrenders or Davis is captured is
perpetually marked with celebrations regarding the defeat of a
tyrannical, racist, raping, torturing, slave-holding regime seperate
from MLK Day, Juneteeth, or the Fourth of July.
So the question is, I suppose, what happened between the end of war
and present day that has allowed for "Confederate Heritage" to become
more palatable in the public mind than, say, "Nazi Heritage" or
"Imperial Japanese Heritage," given that they're all about as evil.
There's evil and evil.

The Confederates were defending a system which had long been normal
there - not something they had just invented. Had concentration camps
etc been already lawful in Germany under the Imperial and Weimar
regimes, and only a generation earlier been also lawful in most of the
civilised world, there would probably have been no Nuremburg.

Also, I rather feel you're approaching the question from the wrong
end. Imho, it is not 1865 but 1945 which needs explaining. The latter,
after all, differed not only from 1865 America, but equally (and
perhaps more relevantly) from 1918 Germany. There, WW1 veterans
enjoyed much the same reverence as Confederate ones in the post-Bellum
South. In addition, books/films viewing the Great War through German
eyes (eg _All Quiet On The Western Front_) were popular not only in
Germany but in former _Allied_ countries only a decade or so after
the Armistice. Compare the popularity of BOAN and GWTW in the _North_
as well as the South, only in Europe it happened even faster.

I'd put the "exceptionalism" of 1945 down to two main causes. First,
as previously noted, The Third Reich was not defending a traditional
(even if evil) way of life, but rather new (or revived) forms of evil
which it had just invented, or at least greatly magnified over
anything which had gone on for many generations. This made it far more
unsympathetic. Comparing with American history, George Washington, who
owned slaves when slavery was perfectly normal everywhere, gets less
"stick" about it than Jefferson Davis, who did so when it had become
unfashionable most places outside his homeland, while if Geoorge W
Bush were found using slave labour on any of his properties, so many
generations after its abolition, _he_ would get no sympathy at all.

Secondly, the Germans in the Western sectors had a powerful incentive
to play the democracies' game. The only alternative was to be left to
the tender mercies of Joseph Stalin. So they had to at least _pretend_
to be glad that Nazism was gone, and to renounce the Fuhrer and all
his works, because they needed Western protection - a need which
continued down to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Perhaps, after the
lapse of two generations, the pretence has become reality. We'll see.

Pursuing this analogy, let's suppose that _Haiti_, in this AH, is ten
or twenty times as powerful as OTL, and that the Union fights the ACW
in alliance with it. Come 1865, everything south of a line form
Charleston to New Orleans is the Haitian sector, and its white
population is having a really miserable time. In this situation, those
parts of the South on the _Union_ side of the line become very co-
operative with the Reconstruction regimes, and eager to renounce the
Confederacy and everything to do with it, because they can see an
extremely nasty alternative just down the road.

In this situation, 1865 does come out very close to 1945. OTL, of
course, it was more like 1918, save that this post-1918 world never
produced a Hitler.

--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England


I can never understand how people fail to
grasp the need for ethnic diversity.


After all, how could we English ever truly
appreciate our own superiority, if there
were no foreigners around for us to be
superior to?
William Black
2007-04-15 21:06:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Stone
. Had concentration camps
etc been already lawful in Germany under the Imperial and Weimar
regimes, and only a generation earlier been also lawful in most of the
civilised world, there would probably have been no Nuremburg.
I doubt that.

Death factories constructed and operated in secret that murdered a
measurable proportion of the population of Europe would be seen an
innovation worthy of a trial of some sort, or are you suggesting that they
could be introduced in an acceptable manner?
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Mike Stone
2007-04-16 06:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Larry M Headlund
2007-04-17 04:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Stone
Also, I rather feel you're approaching the question from the wrong
end. Imho, it is not 1865 but 1945 which needs explaining. The latter,
after all, differed not only from 1865 America, but equally (and
perhaps more relevantly) from 1918 Germany. There, WW1 veterans
enjoyed much the same reverence as Confederate ones in the post-Bellum
South. In addition, books/films viewing the Great War through German
eyes (eg _All Quiet On The Western Front_) were popular not only in
Germany but in former _Allied_ countries only a decade or so after
the Armistice. Compare the popularity of BOAN and GWTW in the _North_
as well as the South, only in Europe it happened even faster.
The thing is _All Quiet On The Western Front_ was very much an _anti_
war German novel. Indeed, in tone it is not much different from the
memoirs of Graves or Sassoon or other English writers. Were the much
more positively themed German WWI memoirs/novels popular in
translation? Not as I recall.
--
--
Larry Headlund ***@world.std.com Mathematical Engineering, Inc.
(617) 242 7741
Unix, X and Motif Consulting Speaking for myself at most.
Naraht
2007-04-25 14:56:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Stone
Pursuing this analogy, let's suppose that _Haiti_, in this AH, is ten
or twenty times as powerful as OTL, and that the Union fights the ACW
in alliance with it. Come 1865, everything south of a line form
Charleston to New Orleans is the Haitian sector, and its white
population is having a really miserable time. In this situation, those
OK, that is just odd...

Does anyone have any ideas for an ATL where by 1865 Haiti is ten or
twenty times as powerful was it was in OTL? POD can be as early as
1776. Haiti was virtually isolated as a state by the slave holding
powers for the first 30 years of its independence (1804-1830s) for
fear of slave revolts being encouraged. Haiti did support Simon
Bolivar in exchange for him supporting the end of slavery in the
Spanish areas where he helped the countries revolt against Spain.

If Gold, Silver or Platinum are discovered in Haiti, I don't know if
they can keep their independence and use that to gain power.

I think one necessary requirement is that Haiti is all of the Island
of Hispanola. The Haitians conquered the entire island in the 1822,
but lost it in 1844. We probably need Boyer as the Unifier, but then
to die soon after. I think we also need France to decide it will
recognized Haitian independence for free rather than requiring a large
sum of money to do so.

With all this, I think you may be able to get a Haiti 4 or 5 times
more powerful, but the question is why the North would ally with it?
I'm not sure the Union would ally with anyone to the point of having
soldiers from that Nation actually fighting on US Soil. France,
Prussia and Russia are the only ones that I might be able to see doing
this and the first and the third would require that in this TL Prussia
be no where near unifying the German people and for Prussia, I don't
know what it would take.(As for the UK, I'm not even sure Prince
Albert - Abolitionist does it)
Aaron Kuperman
2007-04-25 15:42:06 UTC
Permalink
France in 1789 decides to "do the right thing" (minus 13 years of being
persuaded by the Haitians, leaving Toussaint in charge, and the Haitian
economy intact). Instead of aspiring for an American empire, France would
merely support the revolutionary and imperialist Haitians. They probably
can build a big enough empire to survive by promoting pro-French
revolutions in other slave-based economies. An orderly end to slavery in
Haiti would have perhaps an even greater affect on the US than the
disorderly one in OTL (which encouraged southern paranoia).


Naraht (***@gmail.com) wrote:
: On Apr 15, 3:24 pm, "Mike Stone" <***@aol.com> wrote:
: > Pursuing this analogy, let's suppose that _Haiti_, in this AH, is ten
: > or twenty times as powerful as OTL, and that the Union fights the ACW
: > in alliance with it. Come 1865, everything south of a line form
: > Charleston to New Orleans is the Haitian sector, and its white
: > population is having a really miserable time. In this situation, those

: OK, that is just odd...

: Does anyone have any ideas for an ATL where by 1865 Haiti is ten or
: twenty times as powerful was it was in OTL? POD can be as early as
: 1776. Haiti was virtually isolated as a state by the slave holding
: powers for the first 30 years of its independence (1804-1830s) for
: fear of slave revolts being encouraged. Haiti did support Simon
: Bolivar in exchange for him supporting the end of slavery in the
: Spanish areas where he helped the countries revolt against Spain.

: If Gold, Silver or Platinum are discovered in Haiti, I don't know if
: they can keep their independence and use that to gain power.

: I think one necessary requirement is that Haiti is all of the Island
: of Hispanola. The Haitians conquered the entire island in the 1822,
: but lost it in 1844. We probably need Boyer as the Unifier, but then
: to die soon after. I think we also need France to decide it will
: recognized Haitian independence for free rather than requiring a large
: sum of money to do so.

: With all this, I think you may be able to get a Haiti 4 or 5 times
: more powerful, but the question is why the North would ally with it?
: I'm not sure the Union would ally with anyone to the point of having
: soldiers from that Nation actually fighting on US Soil. France,
: Prussia and Russia are the only ones that I might be able to see doing
: this and the first and the third would require that in this TL Prussia
: be no where near unifying the German people and for Prussia, I don't
: know what it would take.(As for the UK, I'm not even sure Prince
: Albert - Abolitionist does it)
Rich Rostrom
2007-04-25 21:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Naraht
Does anyone have any ideas for an ATL where by 1865 Haiti is ten or
twenty times as powerful was it was in OTL?
10x, 20x? That requires ASBs.

Haiti had (and still has) enormous
cultural problems that make it a
dysfunctional society.

To fix those problems would require
near-miracles.

This is my idea of what would be required:

"Rajah" Brooke on steroids.

A "free colored" migrant (possibly an exile)
from the U.S. or British West Indies who is

1) smart
2) brave
3) tough
4) charismatic
5) political and military genius
6) passionate, magnetic, persuasive evangelical Protestant
7) fanatic hater of superstition
8) flaming enthusiast for education

The last two require 6), IMHO, and
a native Haitian could not be 6.

X comes to Haiti in the 1790s, rises
to the top in the in post-Revolution
upheaval, and Kemalizes Haiti, more
or less, and rather more. When he
leaves the scene in 1825 or so, Haiti
is solidly Protestant, the bokors and
houngans have been suppressed and
ridiculed, and literacy is 90%.

Also there is support coming from
New England, where the Protestant
factor is much liked and Haiti is a
positive example for abolitionism.

X, the Brooke/Kemal figure, could be
two or three men - a general and a
preacher loyal to the politcian.

But this team makes the Founders look
sad. Anything can be done with enough
luck, but this is ridiculous luck.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
Aaron Kuperman
2007-04-25 22:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Not if your POD is 1789 - BEFORE the revolution that destroyed the economy
and rendered it a dysfunctional society, and you don't need ASBs since
France debated what to do with Haiti, and they seriously considered
adopting a liberal policy that would have ended slavery without wrecking
the place. For a very "blue" (in the American meaning of the color) AH,
fast forward those events and in the 21st century Haiti is the focal point
of a Francophonic, progressive, industrialized power, presumably
supporting the EU against the US on many issues (unless Haiti's peaceful
transition from a slave society to a modern one was so inspiring, that the
anti-slavery southerners gained the upper hand and the US had a peaceful
abolition of slavery, with a civil war or Jim Crow).

Rich Rostrom (***@rcn.com) wrote:
: Naraht <***@gmail.com> wrote:

: >Does anyone have any ideas for an ATL where by 1865 Haiti is ten or
: >twenty times as powerful was it was in OTL?

: 10x, 20x? That requires ASBs.

: Haiti had (and still has) enormous
: cultural problems that make it a
: dysfunctional society.

: To fix those problems would require
: near-miracles.

: This is my idea of what would be required:

: "Rajah" Brooke on steroids.

: A "free colored" migrant (possibly an exile)
: from the U.S. or British West Indies who is

: 1) smart
: 2) brave
: 3) tough
: 4) charismatic
: 5) political and military genius
: 6) passionate, magnetic, persuasive evangelical Protestant
: 7) fanatic hater of superstition
: 8) flaming enthusiast for education

: The last two require 6), IMHO, and
: a native Haitian could not be 6.

: X comes to Haiti in the 1790s, rises
: to the top in the in post-Revolution
: upheaval, and Kemalizes Haiti, more
: or less, and rather more. When he
: leaves the scene in 1825 or so, Haiti
: is solidly Protestant, the bokors and
: houngans have been suppressed and
: ridiculed, and literacy is 90%.

: Also there is support coming from
: New England, where the Protestant
: factor is much liked and Haiti is a
: positive example for abolitionism.

: X, the Brooke/Kemal figure, could be
: two or three men - a general and a
: preacher loyal to the politcian.

: But this team makes the Founders look
: sad. Anything can be done with enough
: luck, but this is ridiculous luck.
: --
: | He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
: | flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
: | never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
: | -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
The Horny Goat
2007-04-26 05:48:45 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:40:17 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
X, the Brooke/Kemal figure, could be
two or three men - a general and a
preacher loyal to the politcian.
But this team makes the Founders look
sad. Anything can be done with enough
luck, but this is ridiculous luck.
Agreed. The most likely combo though is a pair or trio of brothers.
I'm visualizing something like Charles Wesley to his brother John who
was important but far more important than he would have been solo.
Stan Boleslawski
2007-04-27 21:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Naraht
Does anyone have any ideas for an ATL where by 1865 Haiti is ten or
twenty times as powerful was it was in OTL?
10x, 20x? That requires ASBs.
Haiti had (and still has) enormous
cultural problems that make it a
dysfunctional society.
To fix those problems would require
near-miracles.
"Rajah" Brooke on steroids.
A "free colored" migrant (possibly an exile)
from the U.S. or British West Indies who is
1) smart
2) brave
3) tough
4) charismatic
5) political and military genius
6) passionate, magnetic, persuasive evangelical Protestant
7) fanatic hater of superstition
8) flaming enthusiast for education
The last two require 6), IMHO, and
a native Haitian could not be 6.
Why would it be necessary for said leader to be an evangelical
Protestant? Wouldn't it be a hindrance in an overwhelmingly
Catholic country in the early 19th century? More likely such a
leader would be a secularist or deist, IMO. Any Masonic
lodges in post-Revolutionary Haiti? That might be a good
place to find such a leader. Somehow, I'm thinking of a
Haitian Garibaldi or, closer to home, a Haitian Juarez.
Post by Rich Rostrom
X comes to Haiti in the 1790s, rises
to the top in the in post-Revolution
upheaval, and Kemalizes Haiti, more
or less, and rather more. When he
leaves the scene in 1825 or so, Haiti
is solidly Protestant,
Kemal wasn't a Protestant nor did Turkey become solidly
Protestant when he left the scene ):
Not to mention that a country changing its dominant
religion in a short time in the 19th century has no historical
parallel in OTL.

the bokors and
Post by Rich Rostrom
houngans have been suppressed and
ridiculed, and literacy is 90%.
What were the literacy rates in France or in the various
German states at the time? I suspect (but am not sure)
that French and (outside of Prussia) German literacy
rates were less than 90% in the 1820s. I have doubts
as to whether even UK literacy rates were 90% in the
1820s.

This *Haiti is going to be able to get on board the
Industrial Revolution, and be a powerhouse in the
region. I suspect it may wind up being wealthy
enough to finance slave revolts in the southern US,
and build up a capable military.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Also there is support coming from
New England, where the Protestant
factor is much liked and Haiti is a
positive example for abolitionism.
This *Haiti seems unlikely, but would New England
still support it if it got in the way of US business
interests and foreign policy goals? Not to mention
intervening in US affairs?New England didn't seem
to like the idea of foreign interference in US affairs
in the early 19th century.
Post by Rich Rostrom
X, the Brooke/Kemal figure, could be
two or three men - a general and a
preacher loyal to the politcian.
But this team makes the Founders look
sad. Anything can be done with enough
luck, but this is ridiculous luck.
--
This whole scenario seems ASB with the religious
conversion included ; without it, TTL is on the
border of ASB-dom.

best,
Stan B.
Lee Ratner
2007-04-28 00:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Boleslawski
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Naraht
Does anyone have any ideas for an ATL where by 1865 Haiti is ten or
twenty times as powerful was it was in OTL?
10x, 20x? That requires ASBs.
Haiti had (and still has) enormous
cultural problems that make it a
dysfunctional society.
To fix those problems would require
near-miracles.
"Rajah" Brooke on steroids.
A "free colored" migrant (possibly an exile)
from the U.S. or British West Indies who is
1) smart
2) brave
3) tough
4) charismatic
5) political and military genius
6) passionate, magnetic, persuasive evangelical Protestant
7) fanatic hater of superstition
8) flaming enthusiast for education
The last two require 6), IMHO, and
a native Haitian could not be 6.
Why would it be necessary for said leader to be an evangelical
Protestant? Wouldn't it be a hindrance in an overwhelmingly
Catholic country in the early 19th century? More likely such a
leader would be a secularist or deist, IMO. Any Masonic
lodges in post-Revolutionary Haiti? That might be a good
place to find such a leader. Somehow, I'm thinking of a
Haitian Garibaldi or, closer to home, a Haitian Juarez.
I think Mr. Rostrom thinks that Catholics would be unlikely
to be 7 or 8 because the elaborate Catholic liturgy and symbolism
would
make a Catholic leader more tolerant of the "superstitious" customs
of Haiti than
a leader who believes in the stripped down worship of evangelical
Protestantism.
He might believe a Catholic would be less likely to be into mass
education because of
the hierarchical nature of Catholicism as opposed to egalitarian
Protestantism. This is pure
BS based more than a little on Protestant stereotypes of Roman
Catholicism.
Post by Stan Boleslawski
Post by Rich Rostrom
X comes to Haiti in the 1790s, rises
to the top in the in post-Revolution
upheaval, and Kemalizes Haiti, more
or less, and rather more. When he
leaves the scene in 1825 or so, Haiti
is solidly Protestant,
the bokors and
Post by Rich Rostrom
houngans have been suppressed and
ridiculed, and literacy is 90%.
I was right, Rostrom thinks that a Catholic would be
more tolerant of Haitian folk religion while a Protestant will
smack down hard.
Post by Stan Boleslawski
What were the literacy rates in France or in the various
German states at the time? I suspect (but am not sure)
that French and (outside of Prussia) German literacy
rates were less than 90% in the 1820s. I have doubts
as to whether even UK literacy rates were 90% in the
1820s.
This *Haiti is going to be able to get on board the
Industrial Revolution, and be a powerhouse in the
region. I suspect it may wind up being wealthy
enough to finance slave revolts in the southern US,
and build up a capable military.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Also there is support coming from
New England, where the Protestant
factor is much liked and Haiti is a
positive example for abolitionism.
This *Haiti seems unlikely, but would New England
still support it if it got in the way of US business
interests and foreign policy goals? Not to mention
intervening in US affairs?New England didn't seem
to like the idea of foreign interference in US affairs
in the early 19th century.
Post by Rich Rostrom
X, the Brooke/Kemal figure, could be
two or three men - a general and a
preacher loyal to the politcian.
But this team makes the Founders look
sad. Anything can be done with enough
luck, but this is ridiculous luck.
--
This whole scenario seems ASB with the religious
conversion included ; without it, TTL is on the
border of ASB-dom.
best,
Stan B.
Stan Boleslawski
2007-04-28 02:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Ratner
Post by Stan Boleslawski
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Naraht
Does anyone have any ideas for an ATL where by 1865 Haiti is ten or
twenty times as powerful was it was in OTL?
10x, 20x? That requires ASBs.
Haiti had (and still has) enormous
cultural problems that make it a
dysfunctional society.
To fix those problems would require
near-miracles.
"Rajah" Brooke on steroids.
A "free colored" migrant (possibly an exile)
from the U.S. or British West Indies who is
1) smart
2) brave
3) tough
4) charismatic
5) political and military genius
6) passionate, magnetic, persuasive evangelical Protestant
7) fanatic hater of superstition
8) flaming enthusiast for education
The last two require 6), IMHO, and
a native Haitian could not be 6.
Why would it be necessary for said leader to be an evangelical
Protestant? Wouldn't it be a hindrance in an overwhelmingly
Catholic country in the early 19th century? More likely such a
leader would be a secularist or deist, IMO. Any Masonic
lodges in post-Revolutionary Haiti? That might be a good
place to find such a leader. Somehow, I'm thinking of a
Haitian Garibaldi or, closer to home, a Haitian Juarez.
I think Mr. Rostrom thinks that Catholics would be unlikely
to be 7 or 8 because the elaborate Catholic liturgy and symbolism
would
make a Catholic leader more tolerant of the "superstitious" customs
of Haiti than
a leader who believes in the stripped down worship of evangelical
Protestantism.
He might believe a Catholic would be less likely to be into mass
education because of
the hierarchical nature of Catholicism as opposed to egalitarian
Protestantism. This is pure
BS based more than a little on Protestant stereotypes of Roman
Catholicism.
Which Max Weber did a lot to propagate. This is why "The Protestant
Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" has largely been discredited.

Northern Italy and the Catholic areas of Germany industralized
despite being Catholic. In addition, the Protestant population of
Japan has always been negligible. Geopolitics played a bigger
role in 19th century development than whether the nations were
Catholic or Protestant.

ObWI: Weber writes that Eastern Orthodoxy is inimical to
capitalist development, rather than Catholicism (He'd at least have
more of a case here, although obviously religion was not the main
factor.)

This whole scenario is extremely unlikely, but in such a heavily
Catholic country, I'd suggest a secularist, Radical (in the 19th
century sense) type who was born Catholic, but who has left
the church. Someone like Garibaldi or Mazzini, although the
location and general economic situation of Haiti were radically
different from that of northern Italy, Perhaps a Haitian Juarez
seems realistic - although that won't result in some sort of
miraculous catch-up to the northern US and Western Europe.
Post by Lee Ratner
Post by Stan Boleslawski
Post by Rich Rostrom
X comes to Haiti in the 1790s, rises
to the top in the in post-Revolution
upheaval, and Kemalizes Haiti, more
or less, and rather more. When he
leaves the scene in 1825 or so, Haiti
is solidly Protestant,
the bokors and
Post by Rich Rostrom
houngans have been suppressed and
ridiculed, and literacy is 90%.
That might give Haiti the highest literacy rate of any francophone
nation in the 1820s.
Post by Lee Ratner
I was right, Rostrom thinks that a Catholic would be
more tolerant of Haitian folk religion while a Protestant will
smack down hard.
More likely is a figure who would merely want to reduce the
influence of the Catholic Church, although not being Protestant
himself. Most likely, there will be more Haitian Protestants than
in OTL in this timeline, but they will still be a minority.

Best,
Stan B.
Rich Rostrom
2007-04-28 04:03:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Ratner
Post by Stan Boleslawski
Why would it be necessary for said leader to be an evangelical
Protestant? Wouldn't it be a hindrance in an overwhelmingly
Catholic country in the early 19th century? More likely such a
leader would be a secularist or deist, IMO. Any Masonic
lodges in post-Revolutionary Haiti? That might be a good
place to find such a leader. Somehow, I'm thinking of a
Haitian Garibaldi or, closer to home, a Haitian Juarez.
I think Mr. Rostrom thinks that Catholics would be unlikely
to be 7 or 8 because the elaborate Catholic liturgy and symbolism
would make a Catholic leader more tolerant of the "superstitious" customs
of Haiti than
a leader who believes in the stripped down worship of evangelical
Protestantism.
Or it be the historical _fact_ that
the Church in Haiti has never done
squat about voudoun in 200 years.
Post by Lee Ratner
He might believe a Catholic would be less likely to be into mass
education because of
the hierarchical nature of Catholicism as opposed to egalitarian
Protestantism. This is pure
BS based more than a little on Protestant stereotypes of Roman
Catholicism.
Or it might be observation that the
Church has often been joined at the
hip with traditional ruling elites
that are indifferent to education
and economic progress - Mexico and
Quebec for examples.

I suppose one could imagine Haiti
as a Jesuit state like Paraguay,
but the Jesuits weren't really up
for that in the 1800s.
Post by Lee Ratner
I was right, Rostrom thinks that a Catholic would be
more tolerant of Haitian folk religion while a Protestant will
smack down hard.
I don't know that Protestantism
would "smack down hard"; I do see
that in 200 years Catholicism
didn't smack down at all.

In any case, for a course of radical
cultural reform like this to be carried
through, there has to be motivation,
there has to be some underlying current.

Mass religious conversion could do it.
Given the cultural/religious nature
of the changes required, I don't see
what else could.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
Stan Boleslawski
2007-04-28 06:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Lee Ratner
Post by Stan Boleslawski
Why would it be necessary for said leader to be an evangelical
Protestant? Wouldn't it be a hindrance in an overwhelmingly
Catholic country in the early 19th century? More likely such a
leader would be a secularist or deist, IMO. Any Masonic
lodges in post-Revolutionary Haiti? That might be a good
place to find such a leader. Somehow, I'm thinking of a
Haitian Garibaldi or, closer to home, a Haitian Juarez.
I think Mr. Rostrom thinks that Catholics would be unlikely
to be 7 or 8 because the elaborate Catholic liturgy and symbolism
would make a Catholic leader more tolerant of the "superstitious" customs
of Haiti than
a leader who believes in the stripped down worship of evangelical
Protestantism.
Or it be the historical _fact_ that
the Church in Haiti has never done
squat about voudoun in 200 years.
I don't think such a leader would be a devout, practicing Catholic
tied directly to the church's political interests. More likely, he's
a deist, probably a Mason, an anti-clerical, and firmly believes
in the separation of religion and state. Such views do not necessarily
lead one to Protestantism ; I can't recall Mazzini or Garibaldi
ever becoming Protestants.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Lee Ratner
He might believe a Catholic would be less likely to be into mass
education because of
the hierarchical nature of Catholicism as opposed to egalitarian
Protestantism. This is pure
BS based more than a little on Protestant stereotypes of Roman
Catholicism.
Or it might be observation that the
Church has often been joined at the
hip with traditional ruling elites
that are indifferent to education
and economic progress - Mexico and
Quebec for examples.
So, are we talking about a Haitian Juarez? That seems
possible, because Mexico is not only physically closer
to Haiti but its economy in the 19th century is quite
underdeveloped. It wouldn't result in overwhelming
progress of the sort you posit, Rich, but it would
establish an alternative to church influence and at
least implant the desire for improving education and
economic progress.
Post by Rich Rostrom
I suppose one could imagine Haiti
as a Jesuit state like Paraguay,
but the Jesuits weren't really up
for that in the 1800s.
Post by Lee Ratner
I was right, Rostrom thinks that a Catholic would be
more tolerant of Haitian folk religion while a Protestant will
smack down hard.
I don't know that Protestantism
would "smack down hard"; I do see
that in 200 years Catholicism
didn't smack down at all.
In any case, for a course of radical
cultural reform like this to be carried
through, there has to be motivation,
there has to be some underlying current.
Mass religious conversion could do it.
Given the cultural/religious nature
of the changes required, I don't see
what else could.
Foreign invasion would work also. Although in
the 1820s said invasion is likely to be from the
USA unless Charles X and Villele, Martignac,
or Pollignac decide to try to retake the island. Such
action, as a violation of the Monroe Doctrine, would
clearly attract the attention of the US and lead to
a wider war.

Is there any way a US invasion of Haiti in the 1820s
could turn out disastrously?

Best,
Stan B.
Sydney Webb
2007-04-28 07:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Stan Boleslawski wrote:

[snip]
Post by Stan Boleslawski
Is there any way a US invasion of Haiti in the 1820s
could turn out disastrously?
Yes, especially for the Haitians. Given the experiences of the French
armies of occupation in 1793 and again in 1803 there is the possibility
that in would be no laughing party for the doughboys, either.

- Syd
--
"My mind goes sleepwalking
While I'm putting the world to right"
- ELvis Costello, _Oliver's Army_
The Horny Goat
2007-04-26 05:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Naraht
With all this, I think you may be able to get a Haiti 4 or 5 times
more powerful, but the question is why the North would ally with it?
I'm not sure the Union would ally with anyone to the point of having
soldiers from that Nation actually fighting on US Soil. France,
Prussia and Russia are the only ones that I might be able to see doing
this and the first and the third would require that in this TL Prussia
be no where near unifying the German people and for Prussia, I don't
know what it would take.(As for the UK, I'm not even sure Prince
Albert - Abolitionist does it)
What not Britain? One too many Fenians could certainly lead to British
intervention on US soil. Under no circumstances however do I see
France or Britain allying with the Confederacy formally or informally
(particularly Britain) but I could forsee a punitive raid or two.

I have a difficult time however imagining the "classic scenario" of
"The Confederates win at Shiloh or Gettysburg or elsewhere leading to
Anglo-French intervention". I know it's been talked to death numerous
times but so has Sealion and that doesn't make it more likely.
Robert A. Woodward
2007-04-27 06:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Naraht
With all this, I think you may be able to get a Haiti 4 or 5 times
more powerful, but the question is why the North would ally with it?
I'm not sure the Union would ally with anyone to the point of having
soldiers from that Nation actually fighting on US Soil. France,
Prussia and Russia are the only ones that I might be able to see doing
this and the first and the third would require that in this TL Prussia
be no where near unifying the German people and for Prussia, I don't
know what it would take.(As for the UK, I'm not even sure Prince
Albert - Abolitionist does it)
What not Britain? One too many Fenians could certainly lead to British
intervention on US soil. Under no circumstances however do I see
France or Britain allying with the Confederacy formally or informally
(particularly Britain) but I could forsee a punitive raid or two.
I have a difficult time however imagining the "classic scenario" of
"The Confederates win at Shiloh or Gettysburg or elsewhere leading to
Anglo-French intervention". I know it's been talked to death numerous
times but so has Sealion and that doesn't make it more likely.
A Confederate win at Shiloh does have some potential even if
Anglo-French intervention is ruled out. It would go a long way
towards derailing Grant's career and Sherman's career as well (or
he might be killed in action).
--
Robert Woodward <***@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
The Horny Goat
2007-04-27 15:15:58 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:20:20 -0700, "Robert A. Woodward"
Post by Robert A. Woodward
Post by The Horny Goat
What not Britain? One too many Fenians could certainly lead to British
intervention on US soil. Under no circumstances however do I see
France or Britain allying with the Confederacy formally or informally
(particularly Britain) but I could forsee a punitive raid or two.
I have a difficult time however imagining the "classic scenario" of
"The Confederates win at Shiloh or Gettysburg or elsewhere leading to
Anglo-French intervention". I know it's been talked to death numerous
times but so has Sealion and that doesn't make it more likely.
A Confederate win at Shiloh does have some potential even if
Anglo-French intervention is ruled out. It would go a long way
towards derailing Grant's career and Sherman's career as well (or
he might be killed in action).
I don't have a difficult time imagining the Confederacy doing better
than in OTL - I have difficult imagining them achieving total victory
which I define as a peace settlement that leaves the CSA as a
independent economically sustainable state capable of long-term
survival.

Turtledove's scenario is as believable as any though I'm rather
skeptical of it as well.
Rich Rostrom
2007-04-27 20:52:00 UTC
Permalink
the CSA as a independent economically sustainable state
capable of long-term survival.
There seem to be a number of states which
are not "economically sustainable" yet
survive anyway.

They lay there rotting and bleeding, but
nobody else takes over.

Haiti for instance.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
Stan Boleslawski
2007-04-27 21:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
the CSA as a independent economically sustainable state
capable of long-term survival.
There seem to be a number of states which
are not "economically sustainable" yet
survive anyway.
They lay there rotting and bleeding, but
nobody else takes over.
Haiti for instance.
--
So are you implying that a CSA that somehow managed
to survive into the 21st century would be heavily dependent on
remittances from immigrants? Haven't seen THAT in a WI
before!

(And, yes, I know Haiti's economy also depends upon mining
and coffee, but money sent back by the Haitian diaspora does
play a big role.)

What would the POD for this be?

Best,
Stan B.
Naraht
2007-05-03 21:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Naraht
With all this, I think you may be able to get a Haiti 4 or 5 times
more powerful, but the question is why the North would ally with it?
I'm not sure the Union would ally with anyone to the point of having
soldiers from that Nation actually fighting on US Soil. France,
Prussia and Russia are the only ones that I might be able to see doing
this and the first and the third would require that in this TL Prussia
be no where near unifying the German people and for Prussia, I don't
know what it would take.(As for the UK, I'm not even sure Prince
Albert - Abolitionist does it)
What not Britain? One too many Fenians could certainly lead to British
intervention on US soil. Under no circumstances however do I see
France or Britain allying with the Confederacy formally or informally
(particularly Britain) but I could forsee a punitive raid or two.
The original idea is allied with the North! Any ideas on getting
British soldiers in battles in the US Civil War on the same side as
the Union?

Mike Stone
2007-04-14 08:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by L***@gmail.com
I wanted to do a write up of a reality where instead of the
palatability of Neo-Confederate apologia, Victory over the Confederacy
was a national holiday, and what that might look like somewhere in
"The South," even if it is Kentucky, which joined the Confederacy in
1866....
What would it take to produce such a condition, do you think?
An idea I floated some years ago, about the likely reactiion to a
compromise peace in 1864, by which the CS leaders accept reunion in
return for Federal compensation for the loss of their slaves.

There should be a message online somewhere, in which I speculat on the
likely reaction of the (mostly nonslaveholding) Confederate soldiers
when informed that they could just go home, because the planters were
getting compensation and that was all that _really_ mattered, wasn't
it? I wondered whether the Cunnel would get to finish his speech
before being torn limb from limb.

Imagine such a "corrupt bargain" is made, by which the planter class
sell out the Confederacy in return for their own interests being
looked after. This leaves them discredited in the eyes of the men they
led, who are now willing to vote for Unionists and even for
Republicans, so long as the GOP is content to be the party of _white_
Union men, with no more of this nonsense about Black suffrage. After
all, if most Southern _whites_ have repudiated the leadership of the
former secessionists, there is no need for the Party to paddle in such
controversial waters. In these circs, it doesn't need a Black vote. It
will be competitive among the whites.

Come back in 2007, and the Secessionists are remembered across the
South as a selfish bunch of heels. The Union League is a powerful
political lobby.


--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England


I can never understand how people fail to
grasp the need for ethnic diversity.


After all, how could we English ever truly
appreciate our own superiority, if there
were no foreigners around for us to be
superior to?
d***@comcast.net
2007-04-15 08:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Stone
Post by L***@gmail.com
I wanted to do a write up of a reality where instead of the
palatability of Neo-Confederate apologia, Victory over the Confederacy
was a national holiday, and what that might look like somewhere in
"The South," even if it is Kentucky, which joined the Confederacy in
1866....
What would it take to produce such a condition, do you think?
An idea I floated some years ago, about the likely reactiion to a
compromise peace in 1864, by which the CS leaders accept reunion in
return for Federal compensation for the loss of their slaves.
There should be a message online somewhere, in which I speculat on the
likely reaction of the (mostly nonslaveholding) Confederate soldiers
when informed that they could just go home, because the planters were
getting compensation and that was all that _really_ mattered, wasn't
it? I wondered whether the Cunnel would get to finish his speech
before being torn limb from limb.
Imagine such a "corrupt bargain" is made, by which the planter class
sell out the Confederacy in return for their own interests being
looked after. This leaves them discredited in the eyes of the men they
led, who are now willing to vote for Unionists and even for
Republicans, so long as the GOP is content to be the party of _white_
Union men, with no more of this nonsense about Black suffrage. After
all, if most Southern _whites_ have repudiated the leadership of the
former secessionists, there is no need for the Party to paddle in such
controversial waters. In these circs, it doesn't need a Black vote. It
will be competitive among the whites.
Come back in 2007, and the Secessionists are remembered across the
South as a selfish bunch of heels. The Union League is a powerful
political lobby.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
I can never understand how people fail to
grasp the need for ethnic diversity.
After all, how could we English ever truly
appreciate our own superiority, if there
were no foreigners around for us to be
superior to?
On the OTHER hand...

Suppose you are wrong about Lincoln being more 'moderate' than
Johnson? Suppose, for example, it was balls-to-walls Radicalism with,
as some one suggested, a real economic, not just political
reconstution: 40 Acres and a Mule to every freed Black AND poor White
farmer (especially in the northern Black Belt region where slavery
wasn't as strong). This based on the *economic* disenfranchisment of
the former slaveocracy and their total smashing of their social
system.

This could of created a very strong Radical Republican base and broken
the ex-slave master hold of all those returning Confed war veterans.

David
Mike Stone
2007-04-15 08:44:35 UTC
Permalink
<***@comcast.net> wrote in message news:***@y5g2000hsa.goog
legroups.com...
Post by d***@comcast.net
On the OTHER hand...
Suppose you are wrong about Lincoln being
more 'moderate' than
Post by d***@comcast.net
Johnson?
Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you mean by
"more moderate than Johnson"? He would
certainly have shown more political nous
than Johnson.


Suppose, for example, it was balls-to-walls
Radicalism with,
Post by d***@comcast.net
as some one suggested, a real economic,
not just political
Post by d***@comcast.net
reconstution: 40 Acres and a Mule to every
freed Black AND poor White
Post by d***@comcast.net
farmer (especially in the northern Black
Belt region where slavery
Post by d***@comcast.net
wasn't as strong). This based on the
*economic* disenfranchisment of
Post by d***@comcast.net
the former slaveocracy and their total
smashing of their social
Post by d***@comcast.net
system.
Well, an attempt was made to add such a
provision to one of the Reconstruction Acts
(Third, I think) but got only 37 votes,
which was barely one-fourth of the
_Republican_ membership of the HoR. Any
reason why Lincoln should put himself
outside the mainstream of his party by
embracing such a notion?

Keep in mind that the aim of Reconstruction
was to restore the _Union_, by establishing
governments in the South which would be
loyal to it. Promoting black political
rights was a _means_ to that end, not (even
for most Republicans) an end in itself.
Post by d***@comcast.net
This could of created a very strong
Radical Republican base and broken
Post by d***@comcast.net
the ex-slave master hold of all those
returning Confed war veterans.
How so? Any whites who benefited from the
scheme could revert to the white supremacist
side as soon as the title deeds were safely
in their hands; and indeed probably _would_
do so in order to mend fences witht he
neighbours.

BTW, I understand that large amounts of land
_did_ change hands during Reconstruction,
mostly for non-payment of taxes or the like.
This doesn't seem to have helped the Radical
governments much.

--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

I can never understand how people fail to
grasp the need for ethnic diversity.

After all, how could we English ever truly
appreciate our own superiority, if there
were no foreigners around for us to be
superior to?
Loading...