How did Confederate historical revisionism become so prominent?

How did Confederate historical revisionism become so prominent?

youtube.com/watch?v=dOkFXPblLpU

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/1865/09/26/news/interesting-document-letter-president-lincoln-gen-wadsworth-negro-suffrage.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia#Early_settlement
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The U.S. should have done something similar to the Denazification initiative after the Civil War. Instead they allowed southern resentment to breed and fester over the years.

Why did they let blacks stay in America? They had a legal window to deport them overseas before a constitutional amendment made them into citizens.

History isn't written by the winners. It's written by losers that can remain asshurt long enough for the winners to stop caring.

Demonstrably untrue. Case in point, Austria-Hungary.

I somehow did not catch the "revisionism" part in what they were doing (apart from the 3 points and some influence on textbooks), nor the "wrong" part - this seems like fury against a group preserving an aspect of history that would have otherwise been lost.

It furthermore pisses me off when anyone who has not fought in a war has the audacity to condemn commemorating men who did - on whichever side.

I'm not even a dixie-fag
but i'm getting damn tired of these foreigners, or liberal fucks, rewriting the history of the South to fit their narrative.

It is a FACT that most slaves were treated with respect
It is a FACT that not all blacks were slaves
And it's objectively true that the war was not about slavery, or at least not in large part.

You don't understand the first thing about US law

Denazification isn't what changed the German mindset
It was the knowledge of what had been committed under the Nazi regime, as well as the cost in lives of German people.

>You don't understand the first thing about US law
I understand you can deport non-citizens, that's always been the case.

Deport them to where?
US law states only to home country
How do you think they would get the funds to deport millions of people?
The South was in shambles after the war.

Literally anywhere. Indians could've been deported to the territories against their will precisely because they were not citizens.
>The South was in shambles
I meant the Union would do the deporting if that wasn't obvious from the context.

Health care
Most Burgers have no health care.
You know who had health care?
VALUABLE PROPERTY

>be rich Southerner
>get the best education money can buy
>come back to the good ol' boys, get a comfy position in a Southern university
>spend your time writing "Why My Granpappy Did Nothing Wrong" by Professor Cletus III

Indians were given that territory specifically by the US government.
It wasn't a deportation, it was a forced removal.

Also the Northern economy wasn't much better off.

It is infuriating that those raising this question want... what exactly? For everyone in the South whose ancestors fought in the Civil war to disown them formally?

I'm a Southerner. Its an extreme minority that like the Confederacy, but they don't really know the history of it. During the war the Confederacy became more centralized with the government of it taking over the state rights, which is ironic.

Is fucking retarded. Slaves were not treated with respect.
Not all blacks were slaves, but majority of the ones in the South were.
The war is partly about slavery, but it also includes the preservation of the Union, economic reasons, modernization of the South to stop it from being a feudalistic hell hole, and centralization of the federal government.

The Union also helped stop the land lord wanking and help poor whites. I love the South, but I'm not a dumb ass when it comes to the history of it and I will not pretend like the South did nothing wrong. Also, Confederates aren't American and don't deserve the right to live on this land.

>It wasn't a deportation, it was a forced removal.
Every deportation involves a forced removal.
>Also the Northern economy wasn't much better off.
North was like Switzerland while the South was like Ukraine.

What the hell? They could have just as easily said the same thing about a "northern narrative" pushed on the Southern people. If anything, there is there a current propaganda war being waged in the Southern States to make the Union look like the "good guys". Even if you live in the South, if you support the CSA you automatically have to be on the defense from the brainwashed hordes.

Thank you for being one of the sane ones

Posting vox or Prager videos should be a bannable offense.

They did. Have you ever heard of radical reconstruction?

Yeah now imagine of denazification was being managed by an avowed Nazi sympathizer who went out of his way to protect Nazis and preserve their point of view even after it had been thoroughly discredited, and now you know why it failed in post-war south

>MUH EBIL JOHNSON
Johnson enacted the reconstruction desired by Lincoln. He was overruled by Congress and thrown out of office in 68'. The next 8 years saw congressional reconstruction controlled entirely by radical republicans. Meanwhile the allies turned over Germany to the Germans within 4 years.

Also comparing the Nazis to Confederates is stupid to begin with. Nazism was a distinct ideology that believed in a one party state and took over Germany. The Confederates were just existing southern officials who sought Independence, their was nothing radical or specifically ideological about them. Even their president and vice president were against secession before the war.

>It is a FACT that most slaves were treated with respect

By the very fact that you keep them a slave, you are not respecting them. You cannot respect someone and also keep them a slave.

Probably because people realized that it would be extremely cruel.
>kidnap people from Africa and use them as farm tools
>several generations later, kick their descendants, who have no experience of anywhere outside the US and no experience at living independently, out of the country

We Southrons never like Johnson either though friendo.

They were doing it to Indians during this exact same time. The real reason was that Freedman provided cheap labor and cotton was still really important for northern manufacturing.

Also the Freedman vote was the only way republicans were able to prop up puppet governments in the southern states during reconstruction.

It helped the North and South reconcile after the Civil War

>It is a FACT that most slaves were treated with respect
>And it's objectively true that the war was not about slavery, or at least not in large part.

wew

All those statistics show is how poor of a politician Johnson was and how much work was able to get done in spite of his best efforts to halt them.

Lincoln would have pushed for universal voting rights. Lincoln believed that land ownership was the key to lifting people out of poverty and would have been the centerpiece of his reconstruction policy. He would have privatized public land in the west in order to incentive migration, and in the south he would have put in place a “practical system by which the two races could gradually live themselves out of their old relation.”

Instead, we got the half baked and mostly resisted policies of a bad democrat who set the stage for Jim Crow and the continuing impoverishment of southern whites.

>puppet governments.
>citizens exercising their rights to vote is a puppet government.

>Johnson was incompetent and couldn't stop Congress
>Johnson single handily stopped real reconstruction
Your argument is all over the place. Why are you ignoring the 8 years if radical reconstruction under grant? They had complete control and still failed. How is this Johnson's fault?

>Lincoln would have pushed for universal voting rights.
Where is there any evidence of that? Lincoln seemed very reconciliatory towards white southerners and said multiple times that black enfranchisement should be in hands of the states.

Almost all reconstruction governors in the south were Republican northerners because most southern whites were still disenfranchised. Those states were still majority white and would have voted in Democrats if all could vote.

Reconstruction was already a mess by the time it landed in Grant’s lap. If your initial vision is flawed, no amount of revision is going to accomplish anything but damage control.

>evidence
nytimes.com/1865/09/26/news/interesting-document-letter-president-lincoln-gen-wadsworth-negro-suffrage.html

Lincoln wanted the country to heal, he wanted southern whites and blacks to feel like they belonged to the country.

>All these butt blasted Yankees in this thread.

Hehehehehe... Down with the eagle up with the cross.

Also stop moving here, there is nothing more obnoxious than wealthy liberals who flee the diversity of their cities and come bring it here, gentrifying our communities and bringing their bourgeois Puritan Yankee mentality with them.

Yes we get it all Southerners are inbred bible thumping racist morons so please stop moving here in droves.

>Reconstructing war torn society with deep racial issues and a unfriendly population would have totally been easy if it wasn't for that Johnson fellow
>I have no idea why disenfranchising the majority of whites and enfranchsing their former slaves to put in northern led state governments backed by military force upon a group of people who recently just fought a devestating war of Independence wouldn't work.
Lolling at these apologetics. Maybe the radicals were just fucking terrible at nation building like every historian had said from the 19th century up until the sixities when a bunch of neomarxits decided to make them into moral martyrs.

this

born and raised in Indiana, never gave a damn about the south but watching these people try to commit a cultural revolution on the south makes me ill.

Then why do you dumbass hicks fly your battle flag and remain silent on your treason and racism?

spoiler alert nobody actually cares about racism

>Confederates aren't American
the us government decided the opposite 100 years ago when they gave confederate veterans VA benefits, so you are objectively wrong

>Most burgers have no health care
Are there actually people who believe this?

You realize that Lincoln and a lot of people wanted to reconcile with the south after 4 years of bloody warfare?
Any type of "deconfederazation" would result in more hostile resistance to the Federal government.
Unfortunately, that is what exactly happened with the formation of the KKK and the rise of Jim Crow Laws across the South.
Still that proposal which was proposed by some in Congress and in the Republican Party did advocate for something similar to what you described there.
You are concerned that they allowed resentment in the South to breed and fest but how would that make it any better? I'm not a dixiefag but it made sense at the time to foster reconciliation rather than "hang all the traitors" type of mentality that has been used during times of civil wars in other countries.

>Also, Confederates aren't American and don't deserve the right to live on this land.
If confederates weren't american then it wasn't a civil war. I guess we'll have to call it the war between the states scalawag ;P

>southernfag grovels at the feet of yankee
>gets shit on anyways
lol serves that faggot right. I will never cease to laugh at the shitholes of kentucky, west viriginia, and the rest of appalachia who thought siding with yankees would earn them respect. How do you manage to be the only parts of the south not burned to the ground and still end up the worse off?

>I'm a southerner
>confederates aren't American
Nigger detected

t. alabama

>Rebel group seizes control of American property.
>Call themselves Confederates and no longer associate themselves with America in any capacity.
>They were totally Americans.

close

>Call themselves Confederates and no longer associate themselves with America in any capacity.
>CSA
>Confederate States of America
really makes you think

1. They were citizens, partly. See the Three-Fifths Compromise.
2. Its a retarded idea, it would be expensive, the labor was still desperately needed, and mostly nobody fucking cared.
3. We did. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia#Early_settlement

The Civil War was totally about slavery, but it was about the political and economic effects of slavery, rather than 'we gotta free da black people because it's right'.

Yes most northerners were ridiculously racist.
Yes most southerners didn't even own slaves.
Yes the dialogue about slavery proper didn't even begin until post Antietam.

But at it's core the war still was mostly about the rippling effects of slavery. Left leaning people are stupid to think that the Civil War was this good guy crusade to free the black from tyranny. Right leaning people are stupid to think slavery literally had nothing to do with the Civil War and it would have happened all the same had slavery not existed.

Actually it was only widows who got benefits as if their spouses were US veterans. Recognizing confederate veterans as US veterans was specifically not part of the bill. The actual confederate veterans themselves got jack shit, and it wouldn't have mattered because the law was signed in 19 fucking 58, 90 years after the end of the civil war. There were no civil war veterans alive at that point, and only 500-1000 widows of confederate veterans.

not to be a stickler, but freedman were not citizens until the 14th amendment in 1868. The Three-fifths compromise had to do with congressional and electoral allotments based on population. Contrary to popular belief it wasn't making a statement about how much blacks are "worth".

>They were citizens, partly.
They weren't.

kek

How is that any different than taking them to america in the first place?

dixieboo BTFO

Other way around.

It's not revisionism if it's true

the fact that everybody in this thread is using the term "civil war" proves that you're crying about literally nothing.