Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for May 08, 2010

“Hay bales. We usually win.” Classic.

Replying to yesterday’s remarks:

Chris, the phrase “War between the States” is more of a southern term. The “War of Northern Aggression” is the term of a pro-Confederate. Living in Nashville, I hear “War between the States” almost as often as “Civil War”, which is certainly the most accurate name of these three.

As to DOONESBURY’s use of the phrase “poor, white trash”, the re-enactor himself spoke it. We should not presume that the re-enactor shares Garry Trudeau’s point of view.

Jeff Davis’s Gettysburg Address must have been a humdinger. I bet he wrote it on his laptop on the way to the cemetery.

baslim,

The Constitution doesn’t dis-allow for secession either.

Just sayin’, ya know.

One might ask why the American Civil War is studied and reenacted by non-professional historians to a degree no other conflict approaches. I believe it is because the War was a conflict almost unique in history.

The Civil War was simultaneously the last “romantic” war and the first “modern” war. It was the war in which the last of the great volunteer armies clashed. The War could be described as being a “conservative revolution” – an almost oxymoronic term - where the rebelling side fought not to overturn an order but to preserve an order.

I can trace ancestors on both my father’s and mother’s families as having served in the Confederate Army, (And yes, I am also descended from slave owners – what of it?) My own readings about the Civil War has led me to conclude that the War did indeed end correctly. Some reenactors may have a somewhat overly romantic view of the War, but the large majority are dedicated scholars who take the authenticity and the realities of the Civil War very seriously.

(And “Super Griz”, the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you (Texas v. White (74 U.S. 700) - 1869.) The only two ways a state can secede from the American Union is either through successful rebellion or approval of a constitutional amendment authorizing the secession. Unilateral secession is invalid.)

A map showing free and slave states and territories corresponds very closely to the blue and red states in the 2004 election. It almost looks as if the war was never fought.

runar, I might say the war is still being fought. I’ve lived in both north and south, and while most northerners don’t give it nearly as much thought, southerners (at least where I lived), still talk about it as if it were Vietnam. I went to a gift shop in Tennessee and found hundreds of t-shirts lamenting the loss and dreaming of a do-over.

Alabama_Al,

Thanks for the info.

BrianCook, I withdraw my comment about the alternative naming of the Civil War. Having lived in Georgia, Texas and North Carolina, but also in California and Washington, I don’t always remember which place I’ve heard things more.

As to the PWT comment, I understand your position but disagree in this case. Obviously Trudeau creates characters he disagrees with, but the characters and their words remain Trudeau’s creation. I do believe when the reenactor describes his role as “poor, white trash,” he’s channeling a bit of Trudeau’s own contempt. I think that otherwise the character would have more compassion for the role.

Of course, I might just be a bit oversensitive. My ancestor was one of the people that character was describing.

runar, that comparison is a bit misleading. Check out what the map looks like when you color it by county instead of state (you’ll need to scroll down to see it).

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

Cdward, When I think of what the opposing sides went home to after the war, I can appreciate a much greater and lingering bitterness down south, and how that bitterness could pass from parent to child long after the reconstruction was over – although economic hardship lasted longer than reconstruction. I can also understand how what one writer has called a “lost cause theology” might grow out of all that.

It was called the “Recent unpleasantness” by my Southern friends who live it over and over.

jrmerm, thanks for that insight. I’m curious to know if you found that true in both the urban and rural areas. As for myself, I found big cities like Atlanta more hospitable to yankees than some of the tiny rural towns in Mississippi I traveled through. I’ve often wondered if economic prosperity played a role along with the influx of people from other regions into urban areas.

Whatever you do, don’t order your tea straight anywhere south of the M-D line. Sugared Tea, impure and simple.

…once again I must say…this is what happens when we pretend the South actually won the war…

Note, too, a lot of the attitude change is in larger Southern cities with a much larger ex-slave population. Both the slave and ex-owner have had a very hard time getting over the change. Absolute power, it seems, corrupts both the user and the victim for generations.

Damned Yankees won last night despite the efforts of the Nation.The Nation shall rise today and tomorrow and the YANKEES GO HOME in defeat. This time Becket’s charge will succeed. And when we march proudly into NY in August, we will strike them out.

Po White Trash South Boston

Thanks, too, for the very obvious rebuts by smart southerners and exes that show a very different pic than the “dumb Southerner” here depicted or the one the Gov was appealing to with his own slanted comments.

Most of these comments on the Civil War are enlightening. Americans are notorious for avoiding that fratricidal history, which is studied avidly in the U.K. And in this troubled decade now ending, we’ve seen the war in Iraq compared to the American Revolution but never (so far as I know) to our own Civil War, which Iraq may yet “reenact” as its own history.

But I hope not, because replaying our CW in Iraq would falsify Marx’s quip that “history repeats itself; what was originally tragedy gets replayed as farce” (loose translation). Trudeau’s reenactors, on the other hand, almost seem designed to illustrate Marx’s quip.

“I would never join a club that would have someone like me for a member.”

Groucho Marx

I know of a fellow who converted all of his money to Confederate currency because he knew the South would rise again. He died penniless.

Talk about a less than bright Yankee! Most of the currency was bogus at that.

François Fénelon (1651-1715): All wars are civil wars.

vietnamvet45 ,,, Thanks for the history lessons. I have always believed in the right of a person to fly the Confederate flag if they so desire because it is a part of American history and some individuals heritage. My grandfather on my mother’s side received a veteran’s pension from his service as a “Yankee” soldier and for the injuries he received in that senseless war. He was not the only member of my family to fight in it but details aren’t available to me on their service.

NO WAR IS CIVIL.

@Justice22: I agree with your sentiment, but the phrase “civil war” has always meant fratricide. That’s how Shakespeare introduces the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet that he sets in Verona, “Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.”

Nowadays he’d have to write “civic blood” to bring out the tragic fact that the bloodiest wars result from the BREAKDOWN of civility between friends, neighbors and family. And that’s why President Obama recently urged us to treat one another with more civility.

Justice22 …. If you found any of my “Cliff Notes” of American History, I hope you will pursue learning more. I just wish GT would do more research before he panders to those, like himself, who believe you can take a slice of history out of context and accurately interpret it.

Cotton WAS the US economy antebellum. It was profitable mores so because of slavery. Complete abolition of slavery would have plunged the entire nation into depression. Not a good reason to maintain slavery, but not much different from political decisions made today for economic reasons rather than morality.

Have things really changed that much? The Abolitionists of the 19th century have been replaced by eco-terrorists like Greenpeace. Cotton plantations have been replaced by investment bankers and big oil. What would happen if suddenly fossil fuels were completely banned world wide without an alternative source of energy? I don’t think it would be pretty, yet neo-Abolitionists exist who demand we do just that.

The original intent of Memorial Day, May 30, was to honor the Union soldiers and sailors who died in the service of their country during the WNA. Rightly so. Later, it was extended to to servicemen and women who died while serving our nation in time of war. I can’t say “in defense of our nation” considering our military activities from the 2nd half of the 20th century to the present.

Confederate soldiers and sailors were specifically excluded then and are today. Several years ago, I visited my lady friend’s family in a small town in Ohio during Memorial Day. The town’s celebration was held at the town cemetery and moved me to tears. Graves of the fallen were marked with our flag. At the front of the cemetery were graves of soldiers who had been killed during the CW and re-interred at the cemetery. All but one grave was marked with our flag. A single grave marked only as “Unknown Confederate Officer” had no flag. A young man who died serving his country no more nor no less brave than those beside him. No less an American.

Attempts to extend the meaning of Memorial Day to include Confederate troops are still being with strong resistance. Similarly, a referendum to place a marker in Goldsboro, NC, commemorating the terminus of Sherman’s march was soundly defeated.

Arguably, the Reconstruction was more devastating to the defeated South than the war itself. To this day southerners are depicted ala GT. Sherman’s troops burned our family bible when they raided my great-grand mother’s house. Last year, President Obama was pressured to not place a wreath at the Confederate Memorial in Arlington N.C. on Memorial Day, a tradition dating back to President Wilson. And yet people can’t understand why bitterness and resentment over that time lives on in the South.

Only when people understand the real history of that horrible time instead of the “Myth of the Victors” and realize that the South has a rich history and heritage that is valuable and deserves to be respected and celebrated, just as much as any region of this nation or of the planet.

One of my ancestors (we lost our family history when the yankees burned our family Bible for military purposes) made his way from the Carolina Colony to Spotsylvania Virginia to enlist in the Continental Army. He was not a militia man, he was a private in the relatively small Continental Army. After marching north with Washington, he fought in battles in Trenton, White Plains, and others. He was then marched south to defend that region. Remember that most of the Revolution and the ultimate victory occurred in the South. He was taken prisoner when Charleston surrendered and spent the duration as a British POW. He and his comrades were considered rebels by the British and not soldiers of a sovereign nation. We won, he survived and so he was a patriot and a hero. Ultimately, he was a young man who answered his country’s call to fight. The same is true for the service of my great-grandfathers to the Confederacy. It is true for me who was spat upon and insulted while wearing my uniform in public. All of us deserve respect for answering the call, as does every other son and daughter, North or South, who have served our country in uniform.

In an interview, GT said

“What exactly would that statement be? That we can say whatever we want in the West? Everyone already knows that. So then the question becomes, should we say whatever we want? That, to me, is the crux. Do you hurt people just because you can? Because you feel they shouldn’t be deeply hurt, does that mean they aren’t? Should the New York Times run vicious caricatures of blacks and Jews just to show the First Amendment in action? At some point, common sense and sensitivity have to be brought to bear.”

Nice thoughts.

A senseless war…..? Heritage and pride…..? No, reasons stated for war are not always the real reasons, even though we seem to keep falling for it every generation or so. But look at any light skinned American of slave decent, and tell them at what point does morality overcome or succumb to heritage and pride.

attyush …. Common sense and sensitivity have to be fostered and nurtured. Listening to one another’s perspectives and appreciating them as valid thoughts opens that door.

The Viet Cong “soldier’ who would have killed me if I did not kill him first was only doing his duty as he was called upon to perform. By law, he was a rebel and a traitor to the Republic of Vietnam. To his comrades, he was a patriot and a hero. I can not hate or despise him. He, like all soldiers, was not concerned with the lofty politics underlying the conflict. He was only following his conscience and defending his country as he saw it. Instead, I must respect him. Like the soldiers of the Confederacy and the Union, I’m sure he would have preferred a quiet, peaceful existence.

If GT believes common sense and sensitivity should prevail, and he is dead-on right, he needs to read history extensively and read works by authors with perspectives that vary all over the range of views and not limit himself to those that simply reinforce his own preconceived and flawed perspective.

There is are commonalities among bigots no matter which side of an issue they place themselves. The major one is ignorance. Another is the refusal or inability to recognize that those with opposing viewpoints are really no different than he.

In my perspective, GT is no less a bigot than one who can’t say Black, Jew, Mexican, Catholic, Protestant, or Sunni without curling his lip.

I adore his strip and have for most of my life except when he launches into material like this. Sanctimony borne of ignorance is endearing only to other bigots who are similarly ignorant.

How many believe in “death panels?” Actually, they do exist and have for the recent past. They are known as HMO’s.

vietnamvet45 said, about 4 hours ago

“George Washington was a slave owner.”

True. Lore tells us Washington feared if he got rid of his slaves it might cause a split in the new country, only after his death were his slaves given their freedom.

My own home state of Vermont was unusual in that our constitution outlawed slavery from the start.

Vermont sent more soldiers per ca-pita then any other state in the Union, yet I have been told that Vermonters get more respect in the south then other Yankees. ( that of course would be up for debate)

That war is never civil is a given, and that slavery would have died off on its own is also logical.

One last, the name given to what we know as The Civil War is The War of the Rebellion as I read it on a sign at the Gettysburg Memorial.

\\//_

dkram, I agree with you completely. If I may, “what’s in a name ……?.” Whatever you call it, it was the most terrible time in the history of our country and no one will ever know how close that conflict came to completely destroying our nation.

Had the Confederacy prevailed, this nation would most likely never have achieved the greatness it has.

I am not a neo-Confederate. Instead, I am proud to be a Southerner whose roots can be traced back to colonial times. I am proud of my heritage. I assume you are a proud Vermont “Yankee” and I salute and respect your pride and heritage. Our opinions about the CW may not be congruent, but just as I would be willing to listen carefully to and attempt to understand your perspective, I would hope you would reciprocate. At the very least, we could respect each other’s perspective and perhaps agree to respectfully disagree.

Lastly, consider Washington’s predicament. He did not believe in slavery in his later years, but considered it too impolitic to openly stand by his convictions. It is a sign of the times in which he lived. What statement is made when the most revered man in the country is afraid to buck the status quo?

One must be very cautious to not interpret history using contemporary eyes.

Vietnamvet:

“There are numerous historians whose research indicates that slavery would have been abolished on moral grounds in the South by the end of the 19th century, a relatively short wait considering how long slavery was legal in the US.”

Citation?

“Yes, slavery was an issue for the South, but it was only part of the larger issue: States Rights.”

If you can identify a single States’ Right that the Federal government was abrogating in 1860, you’ll be doing better than any other Confederate apologist I’ve ever listened to. Five generations of (white) southerners have had “States’ Rights” dinned into their heads without ever stopping to figure out what exactly those rights were.

vietnamvet45, I am enjoying your comments - find them thoughtful and provocative. Your history is essentiall correct, at least as far as I’ve read. I actually think the best course for Lincoln would have been to allow secession. That could have led to endless possible outcomes including (but not limited to) peaceful coexistence much as we have with Canada, a future reunion after each decided they were better off together, or ongoing conflict. We can’t know. But I think the US would have done well to let that experiment run its course.

I’m always careful with the phrase, “Honoring our heritage” or similar things because there’s a lot in our heritage not really worthy of honor. As a German scholar, I met and interviewed many former soldiers of World War II. One once showed me his his Nazi medal he received for serving on a U-Boat. He was proud of it because he was one of only 10 percent of U-Boat sailors to survive the war. But he also said the swastika embarrassed him. Now, you could argue that the Nazi regime was considerably worse than the Confederacy, but the point is, the swastika is also part of their heritage. We have the right to pick and choose which part of our heritage we hold up as representative of us.

We could go into long discussions of US atrocities (of which there were many both pre-and-post Civil War), but in the end, it’s up to each of us to decide what part of our heritage we choose to adopt as ours. I would note that before the Confederacy existed, the South had a long history as well. There’s something about this particular period of separation that still strikes a chord with many southerners. Perhaps we as a nation need to revisit this unfinished business and work it out – otherwise, I doubt we’ll ever be a united nation.

As with most canadians, troodeaux is sadly misinformed of the “late unpleasantness”.

To continue a (probably no longer relevant) thread, what Lord Acton (British) actually said was,

“Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Conveys a much deeper meaning, doesn’t it.

I have really been enjoying reading today’s comments. I can’t remember ever seeing a discussion of (what I believe was indeed) the worst, most destructive war in the history of the US. This carries excellent information, conveyed in a civilized manner.

Maybe someone could answer this question: I often watch public television. They had a series by Ken Burns on this war, which was highly praised (the series, not the war). I didn’t watch it. But if it comes back, would people recommend that I do/don’t go out of my way to watch it?

@blueprairie:

Try reading these http://hnn.us/articles/46037.html

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/protectivetariffs.html

Considering the “Recent Unpleasantness”, perhaps it ought to be called the PTSW - the “Post-Traumatic Stress War”. PTSD refers to a traumatic experience which is not dealt with properly in your memory, but keeps on playing in your mind, over and over, as tho it is happening right now. (Other memories recede gradually into the past.)

@cdward, Yes. I think it would be a good idea for Americans to openly talk to each other (both sides) about the PTSW, and de-stigmatize it, once and for all.

@tcambeul, are you saying that Garry Trudeau is Canadian? because I think I would have heard. We have a family of Canadian politicians named Trudeau, but that’s a different family.

Blueprarie .. if you care to share your email address (get a new one) I will search for the valid citations which you very validly asked for. You may reach me at JGW845@gmail.com. I am a southern gentleman and will not disrespect you.

Rina….. Ken Burns series is very worthwhile watching. He does not dwell on the politics of the conflict, but rather the human side of it, both North & South.

If you hear the letters that are read with “Ashokan Fairwell” playing in the background, I defy you not to shed tears. I know I couldn’t.

So much was lost and suffered by everyone during those years. The final summary of it all was that so many young men with so much promise died too young and too horribly to justify any political agenda by either the North or the South.

Rina, I so agree with you about PTSW. In the end only mutual dialogue and empathy for each other will put this issue to rest. It is way past time to do so.

cdedward, I have to disagree with you somewhat, although I appreciate your perspective and notions. I believe that, as President, Lincoln should have vigorously pursued preservation of the Union by diplomatic means. Perhaps, although a good man, he was not the best statesman. Whatever, conjecture is irrelevant. I believe that preserving the Union was key and Lincoln was right in pursuing. Even more damage may well have happened had he taken a “hands off” approach. Sabre rattling just won’t work with Southerners and that ultimately led to the firing on Fort Sumter. That unnecessary and misguided event begat a much larger tragedy. Neither side won or prospered.

cdedward, I am very sorry to hear about the German veteran who was embarrassed by the swastika. He was after all a sailor who risked his life in service to his country. For that, there is no shame. If he bought into the National Socialist ideology, then I can understand his shame and embarrassment. That is an entirely different matter. When all is said and done, what matters is his shame over service to his country or for believing the political agenda of Hitler? I can not fault him for the former.

RinaFarina, I’d strongly recommend you watch Ken Burns’ “Civil War” but I am another sadly misinformed Canadian (unlike the New Yorker, Garry Trudeau)

blueprarie, the right of states to maintain their own affairs was a key element in the founding of these United States. When Lincoln was elected in 1860 with no electoral votes coming from the South, it was taken as the “handwriting on the wall.” Though immoral, slavery was key to the economy of the South. With the election of Lincoln, the South perceived expansion of the power of the federal government at their expense.

Feeling they were backed into an untenable situation, the Southern states seceded from the Union.

Now, lets recall that no one questioned the right of the New England states to secede when they threatened to do so prior to the Missouri compromise. Their reason for secession was they (rightfully) objected to slavery, a convention that they were in the forefront of implementing in earlier times. That is not to say they were hypocrites. Lets say they became more enlightened.

From the South’s viewpoint, it appeared that being in the Union just wasn’t working for them, so they wanted to go their own way.

In summary, it was Lincoln’s election and the perception of expanding federal involvement that led to the South seceding.

cdedward. With respect to honoring my heritage as a Southerner, I reflect with pride that my ancestors came here as colonists. Since then, we have made a life, raised families, enjoyed success and suffered failure as Americans. Over the centuries that we have been Americans who are also Southerners. We have tried as a family to play a productive role in our communities. We have not always succeeded, but we keep our heads high and move on with aspirations of doing better by ourselves and by our fellow man. We are Americans and no different than you or anyone in this great nation.

vietnamvet45,

Actually, the New England states threatened to secede before the War of 1812.

And I disagree with the idea that “the experiment [of secession] should have been tried”. We would have had two - maybe three - countries. These would have inevitably become client states of the various dueling European powers. There would have been no US to overwhelm the Western Front in WW1, overwhelm the Axis in WW2, or stand down the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

I do agree that slavery would have peacefully “died on the vine” in the South (as it did in Brazil). Probably with less resentment, generally.

everyonerelax, I am in no way of the right persuasion in my politics, nor am I left. I am a centrist. My comments are not made up nor are they exaggerated . Likewise, they have no spin. I am as proud of being an American who had the honor to serve my country as I am proud of being from the South and being a member of a family that has been here since pre-Revolutionary days.

The history of our nation is readily available. Read it and learn from it so that, as a nation, we can move forward and not repeat our mistakes.

Cheap shots only prove that you are ignorant. No one has to stay ignorant; it is a choice.

everyonerelax, I am in no way of the right persuasion in my politics, nor am I left. I am a centrist. My comments are not made up nor are they exaggerated . Likewise, they have no spin. I am as proud of being an American who had the honor to serve my country as I am proud of being from the South and being a member of a family that has been here since pre-Revolutionary days.

The history of our nation is readily available. Read it and learn from it so that, as a nation, we can move forward and not repeat our mistakes.

Cheap shots only prove that you are ignorant. No one has to stay ignorant; it is a choice.

corzak, it was cdedward who suggested that secession by tolerated, not I. As I stated, Lincoln was correct is pursuing his efforts to preserve the Union.

This has a most informative and civil discussion.

My thanks to all of you.

vietnamvet45, I’m not criticizing you, or even arguing! I’m debating!

I love this stuff …

It’s amazing how opinion masquerades as fact. The Founders considered secession to be one of any state’s rights, available to it at any time.

I would point to the Federalist Papers (number 81) where Hamilton adamantly opposed the use of military force to stop a state from seceding. In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison (considered the father of the Constitution) stated that the states were sovereign and that the federal government was created to serve their purposes.

Perhaps the most telling example is that of the New England succession movement that raged from the Louisiana Purchase (1803) through the War of 1812. New England felt that the policies favored the southern states and there was a large succession movement (Hamilton was a principal player). There was much debate over the wisdom of succession, but no debate over the states right to secede. That was a given.

It was Lincoln who changed the rules, without bothering to change any laws. He did it in countless other ways, as well. Thomas J. DiLorenzo has written several excellent texts on Lincoln, and the myths that have grown up around him.

Vietnamvet: Other than opposing the rights of Southern Dominion (which were not and are not a states’ right unless you believe states have the right to interfere in other states’ affairs), can you explain how the Federal government was meddling in the right of the Southern states to “maintain their own affairs?”

I will be contacting you for those citations, thank you.

Baslim: how was the Federal government interfering in the rights of residents of slave-holding states, to own slaves? When the secession convention was held, Buchanan - a pro-slavery Democrat – was still in the White House and president-elect Lincoln was falling all over himself to guarantee the protection of slavery in the South.

Lincoln would have done anything to prevent the Civil War. The southern states, in their hubris, saw his reluctance to “rattle sabers” as weakness and in effect dared him to try something with Sumter. Their arrogance and profound mis-reading of his character brought on the war.

I was born and raised in the Atlanta area, but it took until I was an adult to hear the Civil War referred to as the “war of northern aggression.” I think a more fitting description would be the “war of southern insurrection.” As has been pointed out, the South started the war by attempting to secede and then firing on Ft. Sumter.

GT is not only poking fun at reenactors as a whole, but bigotry towards the South. And I can’t believe the liberal bleeep that has been posted by some here as well.

As a former Yankee, who was blinded with Northern teachings that the War was all about slavery, I now know that it wasn’t. It doesn’t take much people, to pick up books and read the South’s side of the story. And yes, there are two sides to every story. The victors always right the history of it, and of course will not make themselves look bad.

Yankee schools place an image that the South was bad, and that every Southerner owned slaves. Not true. 98% of the Confederate soldiers didn’t even own slaves. The North owned slaves as well. But most Yankee’s today won’t point that out. Barabare Frichie the famed Unionist who flew her Union flag out a window in MD as the Confederate Army marched through, owned slaves. It’s on the 1860 census of Fredericksburg, MD. General Grant himself owned slaves. The Emancimation Proclamation only freed slaves in the South. Not the North.

It is sad that many don’t know the true history of our past.

As to the nimrods who think reenactors are just nerds or geeks, get a better understanding before passing judgement. Our whole purpose is to teach about our past, both military and civilian life. Since many school books don’t seem to do this.

attyush, I have read both of the articles posted at those links. Neither had anything to do with States’ Rights, so your point is?