Edward Rothstein contributed an interesting article on how after one-hundred and forty-four years since the end of the American Civil War, debate and misunderstanding still surrounds the causes of this bloody conflict. Mr. Rothstein notes that:
when a statue of Lincoln was donated (2003) for display outside the Civil War Visitor Center of the National Park Service, in downtown Richmond, immediate protests erupted — not over its maudlin character, but over the very idea of honoring an oppressor. The dedication ceremony was buzzed by a plane trailing a banner proclaiming, Sic semper tyrannis, which is not only Virginia’s motto (meaning “Thus, always, to tyrants”), but also what John Wilkes Booth is said to have called out while assassinating Lincoln.
Rothstein further writes that:
. . . the Museum of the Confederacy and the American Civil War Center - argue that the war should be seen, at least in part, from the perspective of the losing side, and that such understanding need not be completely derailed by the moral outrage of slavery . . . Both institutions also inadvertently provide lessons on the limits of relativism. Yes, the Confederacy is a part of American history that needs to be better understood, and slavery and race should not be the only windows through which it is viewed, but another kind of judgment is also needed here. Much depends on whether we view the Civil War as the apocalyptic end of a roseate past or the bloody beginning of a promising future and that is what contemporary controversies over the Civil War are all about.
Compare this to how the current historical view of modern Korea is still shaped by the ideologies of the time and how a national divide persists by force of arms, to this very day. Perhaps the current difficulties that Koreans have in attaining a dispassionate view of their history is not so uncommon a fault, considering the stir still found in some quarters over the American Civil War.
It is notable, however, that the vaguely similar protest of General MacArthur’s statue in Inchon (2005) was not so much an act of disgruntled citizens upset over the disregard for the thoughts and sentiments of the period, but rather was yet another mean little battle fought in a still unresolved war.
30 Comments
Would Virginians be opposed to the construction of a Kenny Rogers statue or chicken outlet. For arguably the song Country Roads has done a lot to put Virginia (albeit West Virginia) on the map globally. Or maybe a big cigarette in the town (city?) square.
I read this interesting article in the paper this morning.
I went to Richmond once. Some cousins live there. I still remember something my aunt told me: that the Civil War is sometimes referred to as “The War of Northern Aggression” in the South.
What a joke! Reminds me of when I first heard of Koreans referring to “The IMF Crisis.”
You do realize of course that The South WILL rise again.
#1 Pete
[NES trying to do his best impression of Sonagi] Actually, Peter, it was John Denver who sang “Country Roads.”
Then the real Sonagi comes along and says: “Actually, NES, John Denver’s real name was Henry John Deutschendorf, Jr.”
Perhaps the current difficulties that Koreans have in attaining a dispassionate view of their history is not so uncommon a fault
Particularly when there are so many foreigners willing to succour their beliefs: http://www.ghosttreemedia.com/?p=99
Too many people interpret history to suit their ideologies, rather than the other way round.
“You do realize of course that The South WILL rise again.”
I am the same believing, Anton, but its not going to happen under a dog like lee myongbak.
Van, you have to remember that you have an opinion. It is merely based on whatever knowledge and wisdom you have. Everyone is the same.
“Too many people interpret history to suit their ideologies, rather than the other way round.” The other way around being you interpreting history to suit your ideology, or to establish an ideology by interpreting history.
I am confusing %)
Pray tell, what makes you the objective observer, Van? 10 years of study? 20 years of study? A Korean girlfriend?
Perhaps that wasn’t the best turn of phrase. I tend to think of myself as a pretty moderate person, and I have the most respect for people who look at history dispassionately. Naturaly it follows that I have very little respect for people who try to twist and distort history to suit their ends. Of course, you could debate al day about which party is being objective and which subjective, but sometimes it strikes me as pretty obvious. Case in point: Korean revisionists who say that the U.S is responsible for the division of korea, and should be held to account for it.
By the way, what does a korean girlfriend have to do with it?
Yes, I guess the statement in question was ambiguously worded, and many people would agree with your first few sentences. However:
” Of course, you could debate al day about which party is being objective and which subjective, but sometimes it strikes me as pretty obvious. Case in point: Korean revisionists who say that the U.S is responsible for the division of korea, and should be held to account for it. ”
What strikes you as pretty obvious does not make it true, for that is why it is something that can be debated all day ( or for 60 years)
By the way, what does a korean girlfriend have to do with it?
Oh, just that this is the often the jumping off point for many ‘expat experts’ . I wasn’t implying anything personal about you yourself, although that does not mean that your Jeju partner in crime does not look like she wouldn’t mind a bit from peter63. Excuse me, but is been a while since Robert posted girly photos and my eye is starting to wander…
@NES:
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
The irony in your analogy, R. Elgin, is that it was the South’s umbrage at Northern capitalism that played a role in the Civil War, while in Korea it was the North’s resentment….
However, the real mystery in South Korea is why some people here persist in making apologetics for a genocidal tyrant.
#10 Sonagi
So it worked?
I believe the correct side won in the American Civil War and that a truly institution in the form of slavery ended in the US.
Having said that, it makes me wonder who the “good guys” were in the American Revolutionary War; if the British had won, there’s a good chance that slavery would have been abolished MUCH sooner in America as it was outlawed in many parts of the British empire. To at least a generation (or two or three) of African-Americans in bondage, an earlier end to slavery would have been appreciated.
And since Gbevers likes to talk about how Japan’s colonization of Korea was good for the latter country as it ended “slavery” in Korea (never mind the slavery the Japanese instituted in WWII with Korean women), it makes me wonder if he would have said that a complete defeat and occupation of the US by Japan in WWII would have been good for the US because the Japanese, in forcing all Americans to adopt Japanese names and speak only Japanese in schools, would have presumably ended Jim Crow laws that discriminated against African-Americans in the US.
JK,
There is an excellent book called “What ifs of American History” that deals with the exactly scenario you described. (British winning American Revolution, not Japanese taking over U.S.) The author argues that if only William Pitt the Elder lived out 5 or more so years, American Revolution would never have happened, British would have achieved world domination such that there would be no WWI and WWII, and all would have ended well. Worth a read.
well… initially the north didn’t wage war to abolish slavery, but to retain the union… initially at least, the south was fighting for state’s right to secede. (at least, the right to secede so they will always have right to force blacks into chattel slavery.) It wasn’t until antietam union resolve changed… Then you figure that Lee never did stuff like what Sherman did when he invaded north. They say that the Nazis got a better deal from the allies than the confederates when they lost the war.
But all in all, i have to say, I’m glad Abe Lincoln won the war. It took another 100 years for civil rights to give blacks full rights. I don’t buy the story that South would have abolished slavery on it’s own.
JK, i just want to point out where I agree that if the Tories won that war, slavery would have ended earlier in the colonies, but…
Something galls me here, since it was probably the brits who were the largest slavers in the history of the world.
as for the american south… sure the north didn’t initially fight to abolish slavery… sure general lee didn’t do anything like what sherman did when lee invaded North. Still, I have very little sympathies to the Southern cause. It took another 100 years since the civil war for civil rights movement to gain headway. I seriously doubt the south would have abolished slavery on her own in any acceptable time frame.
virtual wonderer,
We’re on the same page about the South and its defeat in the Civil War. Totally. I am glad the North won for a variety of reasons.
But the separate topic, regarding the American Revolutionary War (as opposed to the Civil War) that I was making was that perhaps slavery of black people would have been abolished much sooner if the Brits HAD won the war against the Americans since Britain outlawed it well before the US did. I don’t know.
Oh wait, Virtual Wonderer, I just read your first sentence in #15, so never mind. My bad.
sorry for the semi-double post.
I know JK wrote this mainly to stick a finger in gbevers eye (much like he probably raises certain facts to stick it to Korean nationalists), but there are simply too many counterfactuals and unsupportable suppositions here to make this any kind of meaningful exercise.
–We can’t assume there would have been just one Revolutionary War, had the Yanks been defeated in 1776. One would expect continued anti-colonial agitation and violence, not to mention deeper involvement by the French or others.
–There is no way to say whether the Brits would have been able to end slavery in the US South any more quickly or peacefully than the way it ended up happening.
But in the real world, Japan did in fact drag Korea kicking and screaming (and certainly not out of the goodness of Japanese hearts) from medieval obscurantism and social backwardness into the modern world. You gotta get over that.
@slim
Well, considering the colonial population roughly divided itself between loyalists, patriots, and don’t-give-a-shits by 20:40:40, I’m not too sure how feasible a second revolution is had the original failed. Keeping in mind that the American Revolution was mostly a disastrous military campaign until the French arrived (which bankrupted the throne in the process, meaning that the French would not have been able to help the Colonials in the hypothetical second revolution), I think a pacification process of the colonies would not have been a difficult task for the British empire.
Slavery, at least as far as I know, didn’t really hit its peak until after the cotton gin was invented. Slaves were expensive (my history teacher compared the financial cost to a Mercedes), and the upkeep was too high (food, clothing, housing) for slavery to be an efficient labor practices for low-scale cash crops like tobacco and pre-Eli Whitney cotton. Indentured laborers or just laborers were much, much more cost-effective labor sources at the time (this would change later when cotton became helluva lot easier to process and demands for it spiked due to the rise of the textile industry).
I think brits would have ended slavery. it’s not like virginia had a representative in imperial politics.
and those redcoats were dang good stormtroopers.
a Tory victory would have also probably would have been better for native americans too. But then the Statue of Liberty would be morphed into Queen Elizabeth. No thanks.
#19 Slim
Slim, similar arguments you use for the Revolutionary War can be applied here as well. Korea would have modernized without Japan and without the baggage that Japan left behind, unless you think that they would still be living today like they did back during Joseon. Eventually, the US and UK probably would have opened Korea up to the outside in a more civil and less oppressive manner, allowing Korea to modernize more on its own terms without Japanese subjugation. Korea probably also would have avoided civil war and not become a divided country had it happened that way. They would have become a stronger rival and competitor to Japan much sooner rather than playing catchup today.
It’s not an exaggeration to say that Japan built the South Korea of today!
deleted (off-topic)
@23
that sounds similar to what my Korean Koolaid (and soju)-intoxicated teachers taught me in my Korean history classes in 고등학교, except you manage to credit the whiteman (US and UK civilly opening the country) in your hypothetical version, where they didn’t. Anyway, I don’t buy it. Considering the trajectory toward modernization that the Koreans happily and Confusciusly chose to be on in the Joseon days, I think the forced development by the Japanese and the post-war stability provided by the USFK were irreplaceable in the country’s advance. Oh, and there were other options. If Japan hadn’t have come, Russia would likely have, and most historians agree that would have been uglier for the hanguk than the Japanese occupation.
deleted (off-topic)
#25 cmm
I didn’t say that is what would have happened. I challenged that Korea would not have modernized without Japan and would still be living like Joseon today. You imply that Korea would not have modernized based on the their trajectory in the late 1800s/early 1900s. I don’t think that mentality would have lasted, and I think that Korea would have been further ahead today without 35 years of occupation, a civil war, and a divided country. Don’t forget that the Japanese got where they were through the “forced development” by the US and UK.
My hypothetical scenario was to present a better case, not a probable case. I should have excluded both Japan and Russia in my dream scenario. You are right that Russia would have come in and messed things up in other ways, but one can argue over which would have been worse.
As far as the stability provided by the USFK, that has also retarded the development of native military defenses based on dependence in US security (at the fault of Korea, not the US). It’s too bad that early “postbellum” Korean leaders wasted the opportunity to develop independent security under the US security umbrella in order to embezzle money out of the country.
“My hypothetical scenario was to present a better case, not a probable case.”
I’ll accept that.