Background
The previous post covered the importance of recognizing that slavery was the principal reason for secession, the creation of the Confederacy, and the Civil War. This is important to counter the “Lost Cause” mythology which was prevalent in the South after the war, which attempts to revise history by downplaying the role of slavery in a society far less tolerant to it.
Modern mythology
Confederate monuments—of which there are around 700 standing today—are often defended as symbols of “heritage, not hate”, a claim that portrays the Confederacy as a symbol of Southern culture, rather than the racism at its core. However, there are several key succinct counterarguments for this narrative:
- Statues (which are often used to honor their subjects) are not necessary for recording history; statues seldom display much, if any, context on their own.
- The Confederacy only lasted four years, the majority of which was during the Civil War; that’s a short period of time to cultivate any lasting “heritage” relevant 160 years later.
- As covered previously, the primary reason for the Confederacy was slavery, which is covered at length in historical archives, not on statues.
While perhaps there are those who earnestly believe that the Confederacy represents geographical and cultural pride, ignorant of its true history, the fact remains that they do so in error, a century and a half after it happened—and and the perpetuation of that ignorance isn’t just intentional, but the strategy itself.
Having it both ways
There is a critical rhetorical device to note here: the modern Republican party straddles both sides of the conflict in an attempt to court extremists and moderates alike. Prominent GOP figures have echoed Lost Cause talking points, or resisted efforts to dismantle them:
- Ron DeSantis (Governor of Florida) is opposed to removing Confederate monuments
- Donald Trump (President) renamed military bases after Confederates
- Tommy Tuberville (Senator of Alabama) opposed renaming existing instances of military bases named after Confederates
However, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican—the first Republican president, in fact. And at every level, the GOP takes advantage of this fact. At the top, Trump has said:
Great president. Most people don’t even know he was a Republican? Does anyone know? Lot of people don’t know that.
And down at the bottom of the political ladder, here is a local Republican Town committee echoing this assertion:
Initially united in 1854 by the promise to abolish slavery, the Republican Party has always stood for freedom, prosperity, and opportunity.
The modern Republican Party simultaneously courts sympathizers of a secessionist legacy while claiming credit for the abolitionist heritage of its origins—an ideological split that betrays historical consistency.
Ideological heirs
In both 1865 and 2021, a coalition of predominantly rural, deeply religious, and tradition-oriented communities—rooted in an agrarian economy and skeptical of rapid social change—believed that the cultural values and political priorities of urban, industrial, and more secular elites in the North and national capital were alien to their way of life; convinced that their regional identity and economic interests were being disregarded by a central government increasingly shaped by demographic shifts and ideological opposition, and frustrated by what they perceived as a loss of control over federal institutions despite holding disproportionate influence in the electoral system, they responded to an unfavorable election outcome not with acceptance but with open defiance, challenging the legitimacy of the political process itself, and expressing a readiness to sever or subvert ties with a governing authority they no longer saw as representative or lawful.
Conclusion
The Confederacy did not die in 1865; in 1868, Andrew Johnson pardoned all Confederates and welcomed them back into American society. History doesn’t repeat, but as the saying goes, it does rhyme.
Leave a comment
[Guest] Timothy Gregory on August 04, 2025
It’s always fascinating to read modern ideological screeds masquerading as “history.” You clearly believe you’re saying something profound here, but it’s little more than a rehash of the same tired narrative pushed by modern academia and media elites—who are far more interested in moral posturing than understanding the complex, nuanced reality of 19th-century America.
To reduce the entire Southern cause to “slavery” is a convenient oversimplification that ignores constitutional issues, economic pressures, and the very real question of federal overreach—issues that mattered to people far more than your present-day litmus test of moral virtue. The idea that 700 monuments, many of which were erected to honor the valor of common soldiers (not politicians), are somehow proof of a conspiracy to promote “hate” is as absurd as it is ahistorical.
And your laughable attempt to connect the Confederacy to modern political movements is textbook projection. There’s more diversity of thought in rural America than you give it credit for—your caricature of “agrarian, religious, traditional” people says more about your own prejudices than it does about theirs.
If you’re actually interested in historical understanding—not just using the past to bludgeon your political opponents—you might start by reading outside your ideological silo. But judging by the tone here, I won’t hold my breath.
📝 massandra (author) on August 05, 2025
Addressed here.
Can you think of any examples of statues of soldiers (not politicians) we erected of Nazis, Soviets, or other historical enemies of the Union?
This is true to an extent; though I wrote that paragraph to draw a parallel, you’re right to point out it’s a vast oversimplification. However, the point stands that the right wing has a rot in it that their leader endorses, not disavows.
You’re free to enlighten me; that’s why there’s a comment section.