Reply #50: More Southern revisionist history

[MadHound]

I don't have much time, I've got much more important stuff to do. But just to point out one of your many errors of both omission and commission, let me take on your point about General Ben Butler and the New Orleans "ladies".

When Butler took control of the city, the high society ladies decided to fight back in the one way they could, insulting Union soldiers. These ladies insulted the soldiers, spit upon them, even went so far as to flash their genitalia at the occupying troops. This was causing a huge problem, namely that the Union soldiers were tired of taking such shit, and threatened to retaliate, with force if necessary.

Butler came up with a brilliant plan. He didn't order all the women of to be treated as prostitutes, here's the text of General Order No. 28.

HDQRS. DEPARTMENT OF THE GULF

New Orleans, May 15, 1862.

As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subject to repeated insults from the women (calling themselves ladies) of New Orleans in return for the most scrupulous non-interference and courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall by word, gesture, or movement insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation.

By command of Major-General Butler:

GEO. C. STRONG,
Assistant Adjutant-General and Chief of Staff

In other words, if a woman flashed her genitalia, or spit or insulted a soldier, that woman would be hauled in as a prostitute. He judged, rightly, that New Orleans women would rather remain quiet than be branded as a prostitute, and he was correct. Incidents of such women insulting Union soldiers disappeared completely, thus heading off the anger of the Union soldiers, which would have erupted into much more serious violence if such actions were allowed to continue. As it was, there was no violence towards these women, and none of them were ever declared to be a prostitute.

I would love to take the time to rebuke your revisionist history on a point by point basis, but the fact of the matter is that I have much more important things to do. But let me state this, part of the problem with the South is that they love to play the aggrieved victim in regards to the Civil War, and have, over the years, built up a complex structure of revisionist history to support their victimhood. The fact of the matter is that the South committed treason and went to war over a moral abomination, namely slavery. After the war, given that they were traitors, they got relatively lightly, admitted back into the Union relatively quickly with little penalty in light of their treason. Hell, both Lee and Davis, among many other Confederate traitors, were allowed to live out their lives unmolested and free to do as they wished. That's more than you can say about the newly freed slaves, who, at the hands of Southerners, continued to suffer great injustice, cruelty and death at the hands of Southerners. Yes, there were acts of cruelty done, and the Reconstruction would probably have been handled better if Lincoln was in charge of it initially. But then again, whose fault is that? Oh, yeah, two Southerners, John Wilkes Booth and Andrew Johnson, an assassin and an inept, probably corrupt politician.

The South, quite frankly, needs to get over the Civil War and get over itself as the perpetual victim. This whole misguided romance for the "Lost Cause" is just simply bullshit, it is longing for a time when the elite few lorded it over the masses, and fellow humans were enslaved in order to keep costs low, profits high, and give the masses somebody they could feel superior to. It was essentially a modern day feudalism that adversely effected the South, even unto this day.

Grow up, get over it, stop revising history, and join the twenty first century. That's what is needed, but old stupidity dies hard apparently.