A question about a tendency in fiction.

[thegearheart]

See, my question is not about what one party or the other "thinks" caused the Civil War.  That's a complex question.

My question is as follows: Do you still view the South as a source of hatred and bigotry?  Based upon some folks' emotional responses to this post, I worry that I may be discriminated against for the actions of people over a century ago.  It makes me a little nervous moving around this forum, thinking that my posts may not be taken seriously.  Someone joked that "the South still hasn't recovered."  I get the impression that people think we're all plantations and Spanish moss down here.

Well, I work in Huntsville, AL, the premier source of aerospace technology in the United States- which is, herself, a leader in aerospace.  I live just south of Nashville, TN, a source for the arts and independent music (the South is always claiming independence  ).  My home is beautiful, and her people are friendly.  I don't mind the debate over the Civil War and its causes, but do we have to slam the modern South?

Secondly, it's official name isn't "The Civil War"?  Who knew?  Is there some government record somewhere with the "real" name?

[Captain Lyerly]

Yes, the US Congress gave it the official title (a decade or so after the cessation of hostilities) of the War Between the States.  This is a pretty much middle-of-the-road decision, doesn't give any particular spin to the war itself.

Huntsville is a great town!  I was hoping to get a job there at Redstone for a while, congratulations.  I am originally from Chattanooga - if you get the chance, the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum has some of the best steam around; they run excursion trains occasionally.  Also, the Delta Queen is now moored at least semi-permanently there.



Cheers!

Chas.

[Dax]

Not at all.  I live in Virginia, and frequently visit New Orleans, Charleston, Richmond and a few other southern locales.  I like the south very much.  The topic strayed from the initial question regarding the pro-confederate viewpoint of popular films, into the causes of the war, but never touched on anything in the past 150 years.

 

See, my question is not about what one party or the other "thinks" caused the Civil War.  That's a complex question.

My question is as follows: Do you still view the South as a source of hatred and bigotry?  Based upon some folks' emotional responses to this post, I worry that I may be discriminated against for the actions of people over a century ago.  It makes me a little nervous moving around this forum, thinking that my posts may not be taken seriously.  Someone joked that "the South still hasn't recovered."  I get the impression that people think we're all plantations and Spanish moss down here.

[thegearheart]

Thanks for the reassurances there.  I'm a newb here, so when things started to look unfriendly, I started to worry that I had made a mistake.

[groomporter]

Secondly, it's official name isn't "The Civil War"?  Who knew?  Is there some government record somewhere with the "real" name?

Well there probably isn't a "real" "official" name. It's probably more matter of what is the current most commonly used or recognized term in scholarly circles.

[Mechanic]

I seem a tendency i find quite annoying in fiction: the fact than the confederation is often given the good role in civil war setted fiction. They freaking slaver, why give them the limelight ?
Example of that:
A tweety cartoon where tweety was a confederate soldiers and sylvester a ''damn yankee puddycat''
The RPG Dinosaur Planet
Any explaination to that ?

Yanking it somewhat back on topic.....

I'm not sure what to call it but there is a very obvious tendency to glorify the losing side in both the modeling and war-gaming worlds. Interest and supporting materials for Napoleon and the Nazi Germans far out-weighs that for their victorious opponents. I suspect a lot of it may have to do with the "what if" factor - What if Wellington failed at Waterloo? What if Bull Run went the other way? What if Stalingrad didn't fall? and the Unspoken - "What if I was running things instead?"

But then the American Civil War has a special mystique about it that I just don't get. Our last "Rebellion"

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Upper Canada in 1837 not Riel rebellion of 1869

up here was closer to an extended pub-brawl, and the battle that secured Canada for Britain apparently never took place.

[mockingbirdthewizard]

now, it's been a while, but I recall that part of the civil war issue was regarding a case regarding slavery that went to the supreme court, and the anti-slavery people lost the case. but they were going to push their agenda anyway.
in the south it is termed "a war of aggression".   
basically from the south point of view the folks up north were illegally trying to impose their views on the folks in the south.

as an indication of how complex this issuemight be I recently saw a news report about a black man who lives in the south and dresses as a confederate soldier, and marches with a confederate flag into downtown (of whatever town he lives in). 
He answers the questions of the curious, but basically he sees the issue as the north had invaded the south.
kind of like the usa invaded iraq. (except the south it was in regards to the north pushing a moral agenda, and in iraq it's claimed to self defense).   now, let's not get into an iraq discussion, my point is that the north was doing something to someone else who wasn't particularly thrilled about having it done.

[Dax]

Actually, the supreme court decided the Dredd Scott case in favor of the Southern viewpoint.

With regard to the North "doing something" to the South, I imagine that the 3.5 million slaves were not in favor of what was being done to them, either.

now, it's been a while, but I recall that part of the civil war issue was regarding a case regarding slavery that went to the supreme court, and the anti-slavery people lost the case. but they were going to push their agenda anyway.
in the south it is termed "a war of aggression".   
basically from the south point of view the folks up north were illegally trying to impose their views on the folks in the south.

as an indication of how complex this issuemight be I recently saw a news report about a black man who lives in the south and dresses as a confederate soldier, and marches with a confederate flag into downtown (of whatever town he lives in). 
He answers the questions of the curious, but basically he sees the issue as the north had invaded the south.
kind of like the usa invaded iraq. (except the south it was in regards to the north pushing a moral agenda, and in iraq it's claimed to self defense).   now, let's not get into an iraq discussion, my point is that the north was doing something to someone else who wasn't particularly thrilled about having it done.

[Captain Lyerly]

Interestingly enough, the Dred Scott decision has come up in political discussion recently, though I can't go into that part here; just the (convoluted) logic used to find against Dred Scott, when looked at from the obverse, supports outright a literal interpretation of part of the Bill of Rights that has been recently trampled.


Chas.