I’m using “United States” and ditching “Union”
The words we use shape our reality. This makes a concise case for not using the term “Union Troops” when we are talking about the armies of the United States of America.
I suggest we follow the lead of Finkelman and Baptist and alter our language for the Civil War. Specifically, let us drop the word “Union” when describing the United States side of the conflagration, as in “Union troops” versus “Confederate troops.” Instead of “Union,” we should say “United States.” By employing “Union” instead of “United States,” we are indirectly supporting the Confederate view of secession wherein the nation of the United States collapsed, having been built on a “sandy foundation” (according to rebel Vice President Alexander Stephens).
In reality, however, the United States never ceased to exist. The Constitution continued to operate normally; elections were held; Congress, the presidency, and the courts functioned; diplomacy was conducted; taxes were collected; crimes were punished; etc. Yes, there was a massive, murderous rebellion in at least a dozen states, but that did not mean that the United States disappeared.
The dichotomy of “Union v. Confederacy” is no longer acceptable language; its usage lends credibility to the Confederate experiment and undermines the legitimacy of the United States as a political entity. The United States of America fought a brutal war against a highly organized and fiercely determined rebellion – it did not stop functioning or morph into something different. We can continue to debate the nature and existence of Confederate “nationalism,” but that discussion should not affect how we label the United States during the war. – See more at: HistoryNewsNetwork
The problem with this argument is that it is, in itself, historically revisionist. The term “Union” was generated in and used by (how do I put this without being grammatically tied up) loyalists in the United States during the 1860-1865. “All for the Union!” was a Northern US battle cry, and “Union” at that time was considered a stronger formulation for the ENTIRE United States than saying “United States.” It directly contrasted the idea of a permanent nation as opposed to a (false) league of confederated states. The usage was also incredibly important in winning the support of Southern unionists, over 175,000 of whom served in the US Army during the war.
That “pro-Confederate” usage of “Union” that you’re so worried about is actually where the “defeat” at the hands of historical and linguistic revisionists came in. As David Blight’s incredibly important book “Race and Reunion” will explain (if anybody actually reads books any more), this ahistorical sanitizing of the language is a ridiculous position to take, that in effect tells neo-Confederates that they already won the battle of words.
Let’s re-write the history books, too. But, we all have opinions, that’s what’s great about this country.
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”
Abraham Lincoln – August 22, 1862 – Letter to Horace Greeley
It’s “Union,” a word deliberately meant to be more powerful and earnestly stark than simply “United States.”
That’s great for Lincoln. He didn’t have to contend with 100 years of southern disembing. I’m going with United States.
Also BTW I favor the term Traitor over Rebel. Let’s be honest. They were Traitors.
Separatist would be more accurate.
Traitors.
Also, “Slave Labor Camps” is much more accurate than “Plantation” which evokes some genteel and civilized farming operation. I’m sure even Steve Newton will agree to using “Slave Labor Camps” instead of “Plantation” in the interest of historical accuracy.
You are why you fail.
While I’m at it, “Christians” doesn’t seem to be a very appropriate or accurate word to describe Americans who purport to follow the teachings of Christ. Hmm… what could we use instead though?
Same could be said for “progressives” whose twitchy-eyed foamer logic often causes disruption and regression.
How about an example of a twitchy-eyed foamer and the regression said person created? It’s a very neat sentence that means very little.
Rather than Rebel, Separatist, or Traitor, I before Big Ol’ Treasonous LOSERS. 😉
I’m sure all the dead Confederates are crying from the shame of being pwned by your smug ALLCAPS. That will show those…..dead guys.
Seriously, watching you guys argue is like watching librarian spinsters having a pudding fight.
Weak.
You’re very clever and have nothing to say. It’s a cool party trick, like Mad Libs was – when I was 9 years old.
Since people still fly the confederate battle flag (I saw three just this past weekend driving back through Sussex Co.) I’d argue that those who still hold a place in their hearts for the CSA aren’t all dead. So pointing out that the side who flew that standard were on the losing side still seems salient in my view.
Those who fly the Stars and Bars or the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia probably do it more to annoy the likes of YOU than to make any grand philosophical statement about race or the Confederacy. I really think it’s that simple. You’re looking for deeper meaning in a puddle of pettiness.
Your alliteration is adorable.
Of course your explanation is based on nothing but your speculation (unless you’re speaking from personal experience), but let’s play it out.
Does that explanation make those people more or less sympathetic do you think? Perhaps they don’t understand their history and just do it to insult me. OK. Does that say more about the likes of me or the likes of them?
By the way, the sight of the flag is more confusing than annoying. This is America (the side the won). One may fly whatever flag one wishes. If putting a sign out that indicates the flyer is an ignorant hillbilly racist is simply a way to insult me, by all means. It still continues to remind me of victory.
jason, since you mentioned me, let’s try how absurd it is for anybody to play these games–when you conflate “treason” and “slave labor camps” as your politically correct words of choice, you sort of willfully ignore that those “slave labor camps” existed with United States government support in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri all the way through the end of 1865. That the United States government was still involved in enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act in those states well after the Emancipation Proclamation. Or that the United States government during the period of 1861-1862 actually engaged in repatriating slaves to loyal Southerners and took judicial action against United State Army officers who moved to help African-Americans escape slavery.
Lincoln’s response to Horace Greeley is just as historically ambiguous and uncomfortable for your position as the fact that (check the records) he ran for re-election on the “Union Party” ticket.
It’s perfectly intellectually consistent to make arguments, and to back them up with facts, but what you’re doing is in fact the intellectual equivalent–from the other side–of the neo-Confederates who think we should be honoring all those Black Confederate soldiers whose existence has been hushed up through a giant conspiracy to rewrite history.
It’s being provocative in support of being provocative rather than having anything to do with historical truth or accuracy.
Again, if you actually want to read something from scholars who’ve actually taken up the “cause” you claim to be espousing, try David Blight, whose work only won the Pulitzer Prize six or seven years ago.
I am familiar with Blight’s work too. Older book though – about Frederick Douglass. Great comment and recommendation, as usual. Thanks, Prof. Newton.