The College Formerly Known as Yale

Interesting thought piece : Most losing sides of Civil wars lose their cause and the symbols of their cause; their leaders are sent to camps prison or shot… Not in the US Why?

In short: As punishment for losing civil wars go, the South got pretty lucky. It got to honor its military leaders with bronze statues. It got to name its streets and schools after Confederate leaders. It even got to keep symbols of the war, like the suddenly at-issue Confederate flag.

“In the U.S., the southern losers were treated with extraordinary leniency,” said Harry Watson, a history professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

Compassionate repatriation isn’t always how these things conclude. According to civil war protocol (to the extent that such a thing exists), the losing side “is supposed to be reconciled to the loss of its cause and symbols,” said Thomas Keaney, a military strategy expert and professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

Often, that reconciliation isn’t pretty.

“In most of the civil wars that I know anything about,” Watson said, “the losers were subject to much more serious repression than the losers of our civil war. They were sent to camps or they were shot or put in jail or any number of horrible things like that.”

Two high-profile gruesome examples: The French Revolution in the 1790s that popularized the guillotine, and executions during and after the end of the 1920s Russian civil war that reached genocide levels.

The losing sides’ flags in these cases were most certainly destroyed. In the case of the Russian civil war, “if you flew the czarist flag after that war was over, or in Communist-controlled territory while the war was going on,” Watson said, “you’d have been in very big trouble.”

And among the civil war losers who got to keep their leaders and symbols, they mostly found their own geographic space to do so. The nationalists who lost China’s civil war in 1949 fled to Taiwan and set up their own country, taking their flag with them.Watson says he still sees South Vietnam’s flag flying in several parts of the United States where refugees from that war congregated. And certain parts of Spain still have a rebel streak after their 1930s civil war.

But none of them compare to the longevity and prevalence of the Confederate flag. Nor did Confederate leaders or supporters have to flee. No Confederate general even went to jail.

So why did the North go so easy on the South?

Keaney said the North just wanted to hold on to its tenuous peace agreement. The South was allowed to honor its leaders “as long it was recognized that the war was over and would not be renewed.”

Watson thinks the North didn’t have the political will to remake Southern society after the war. He sums up the North-South peace deal this way: “‘As long as you [the North] give us the right to rule these states,’ said the South, ‘we will not demand national independence.’ That was essentially what it amounted to. And the North said ‘OK.’”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/10/why-is-the-confederate-flag-still-a-thing-even-though-the-south-lost-the-civil-war/

But let’s not pretend the Northerners were a band of angels in all cases either. Even though they were technically fighting to free the slaves, a lot of them were racists as well. Even the Emancipation Proclaimation only applied to states still in rebellion at the time - it was meant as a slap in the face to the remaining Southern states still fighting.

If there is any whitewashing of history going on, it seems to me it is being done by all of the bronze statues, streets, military bases, schools, and buildings named in honor of and paying homage to the confederate side of the civil war.

As if to give them legitimacy… that theirs was an admirable and noble cause…

one fifth of our military is black and we ask them to serve in places named for a defenders of a racist slavocracy … places that were named when segregation was still legal…

The horror and inhumanity of slavery is being glossed over… just look at Texas schoolbooks

Thousands of black students attend schools honoring racist leaders… and in this discussion the answer has been given that the black students are at fault for “CHOOSING TO BE OFFENDED”…

This is deplorable… the fact that its taken so long in history for our country to start having a national conversation and push to remove these racist symbols is mind boggling to me… its as if real history is indeed being whitewashed but by the confederate side…

^And it was meant to prevent British support of the Confederacy, since Britain did not want to support the slavery side.

But this is all getting pretty off topic.

^ Not really off topic since it seems that Calhoun’s life was defined by his slave ownership.

Taking this even more off-topic - Russia is on track to completely rename everything back to how it was before 1917. They even have a new czar - V. Putin. They just need to put the body of the leader of the revolution underground and that will be it. The losing side of the civil war finally won.

The Revolutionary leaders clearly hated the British king and monarchy. Yet they didn’t go around renaming all the American places names that honored British kings and queens.

Virginia - For Elizabeth !
Georgia
North and South Carolina - for Charles
Charlotte, NC
Maryland
Williamsburg - even in the capitol of Virginia at the time a hotbed of revolution, there never was any mention of renaming the place. They had more important things to do.

How many times do people have to say that what defined Calhoun was NOT the mere fact that he owned slaves, but the fact that he was the MAJOR PUBLIC PROPONENT OF SLAVERY?

Who is doing that? No one in this thread that I’ve seen post in the last umpteen pages.

Stop with the strawmen.

BTW, your explanation of the Emancipation Proclamation is simplistic, to say the least. Be aware that Lincoln and others were involved in an ongoing balancing act, trying to preserve the union, and having to manage radical abolitionists, radical seccessionists, and everything in between. To accomplish the twin goals of preserving the union and eradicating slavery was a long, delicate, and bloody process. I suggest you read Team of Rivals.

Interesting that you bring that up, since one of Yale’s peers is “The College formerly known as King’s College”

For me it’s not really useful to compare enshrining names of colonialist overlords in public spaces in the USA to enshrining the names of those who enslaved their fellow men and women in the USA., unless you want to argue the American colonists were literally enslaved by the King, a position with which I don’t agree.

Very well then, Calhoun’s life was defined by his promotion of slavery. Happy now?

I agree there was much more to getting rid of slavery than the Emancipation Proclamation.

Who would be a suitable person to name Calhoun College after? I know nothing of Yale’s history, so I can’t suggest anyone in all seriousness, but I’m sure there must be better people associated with the college. Perhaps name it for some more recent graduate (aka, last 10 to 20 years) who has done something to champion human rights?

Here are some ideas: http://features.yaledailynews.com/blog/2016/03/02/the-name-game-alumni-pick-sides-in-the-naming-debate-at-yale/

The article said that Georgetown renamed it’s halls after things no one can disagree with Independence and Freedom. Seems like a generic word that everyone likes is the way to go.

^ That’s a good idea. How about Diversity College? That’s to the point and surely won’t offend anyone.

@pizzagirl

If one assumes that today’s standards are higher than historic times, then I would argue that they are, in fact, the best available standards for evaluating historic figures.

But I would also argue that the evaluation would compare historic figures to their contemporaries as well as their successors.

In an environment of rising standards, the people (or institutions) that I would hold in highest esteem would be those who were demonstrably “ahead of their time”.

Given that the seeds of the abolitionist movement were sown before the time period we are discussing I have no problem knocking slave holders and their associated institutions off of their respective pedestals and replacing them with people/institutions that supported ideologies that were more “ahead of their time”.

In this sort of framework, history is a dynamic subject.

Ideally, constantly re-evaluating the past in the context of the present allows us to learn more from it and better apply it to the future.

Mastadon : Thank you for that post. I agree.

Calhoun would be the guy who, 100 years down the world destruction road, says “no, guys, more CO2 is good for the plants” as he continues to make a profit selling used Hummers.

John C. Calhoun was a slave owner who advocated for slavery. I am uncomfortable comparing his misdeeds to other hypothetical misdeeds. I am okay with universally condemning slave ownership, even if it was a norm within some groups and even among some free Blacks. I am sure no one here wants to minimize the evil of slavery.

Like Washington and Jefferson?

I am fine with taking their names off everything if there is support for that step. I sure wouldn’t argue about it.

I think you bring up an excellent point regarding the founding of this country.