It matters to remember the Confederates as unambiguous bad guys in American history because any nation's identity is in large part defined by the narrative of the villains we've defeated: monarchism in the Revolution, the Nazis in WWII, and alongside those, the white supremacist slave power.

April 09, 2026 - 14:42 UTC

9
5
742
I'm hopeful for a day we can add MAGA to that list
0
0
2
And there was a solid line from the white supremacist slave power to the Nazis (and American propaganda posters made hay out of this).
0
0
3
Unfortunately too many Americans equate the Confederates with "The Dukes of Hazzard".
0
0
3
It also matters to remember that most rank-and-file Confederate soldiers were small-farmer conscripts who never had slaves or any connection to the plantation class. Rich man's war, poor man's fight.
5
1
6
That's not entirely true, conscripts were never a majority, and men from slaveholding families were over-represented in the ranks, especially in the first year of war.
1
0
4
True that technically only a single digit % owned slaves directly, the rich guys. But they had their families and dependents, and lots of employees, and even smaller farmers would very often rent slave labor. A large fraction of the white population was economically tied up in it one way or another.
2
0
12
But they still viewed African slaves as subhumans.
1
0
3
Sure. They weren't fighting to preserve slavery so much as white supremacy because even though it did not profit them economically, it profited them in status and power. That was the whole con and they bought it hook, line and sinker. And still do. And not just Southern white folks.
1
0
13
There was a whole economy based on small farmers and businessmen leasing slave labor from slave holders.
"They too needed emancipation"
US Grant
0
0
2
This is why I was confused why Dukes of Hazzard was a thing when I was a kid.
0
0
0
Yes and no. A lot of nations handle their civil wars as "everyone was brave, and its all part of our great national story" which is basically how Britain handles the English Civil War. You do need some historical distance and the fading of the issues that led to the conflict.
2
0
0
that is really only possible when you are not in a civil war because the side that started it believes "I should get to keep doing top-three all-time crimes against humanity for the sole reason that I do not want to get a job"
1
0
1
not feasible with the US Civil War, since a lot of the US is descended from the people who were treated as property and that was the issue that sparked the war

the number of people in the UK who really care about Cromwell’s religious doctrine is small

anti-Black racism still a huge issue in the US
0
0
3
I would say that "monarchism" wasn't the villain of the American Revolution, but "tyranny", especially since many of the Founding Fathers initially petitioned King George III to intervene on their behalf, and had good relations with King Louis XVI of France.

en.chateauversailles.fr/discover/history/key-dates/versailles-and-united-states-america-1778-1783
0
0
1
(Sort of monarchism in the revolution)
3
0
17
The revolutionary war defeated colonialism, monarchism was defeated when Washington refused to be a king.
1
0
10
Sort of on all three accounts, but the stories we tell ourselves matter.
1
0
2
Well, part of it, and Lord North was definitely not Hitler. Also colonialism, anti-independence, being unrepresented in Parliament, etc. Doesn't quite boil down to as neat a single term to define it but we generally know what we're getting at, antithesis of the Declaration and all that jazz.
1
0
16
This is true and a haunting reminder of the effectiveness of the Lost Cause myth.
0
0
21