July 1863 All Over Again

July 1863 All Over Again

When I started writing my book, Magnolias and Cornbread, a little over two years ago I sensed a growing trend in academia in which I felt compelled to offer my compatriots advice on how to best defend our cause against attacks from this quarter. The onslaught has come much faster and is much more serious than what I anticipated when I started my project. In 2008 James W. Loewen and his friends, most of them associated with the Southern Poverty Law Center hate group, made their attack with Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction. My concern over this book intensified when I saw the favorable review they received in the November 2010 issue of the Journal of Southern History. This is the publication of the Southern Historical Association which is made up of those professional historians interested in Southern history. Then in 2010 Loewen and Sebesta struck again with their The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader. They claimed to have proven that the war was fought over slavery with this publication. The latest attack came in the April 2011 issue of the Magazine of History. This is not the more academic oriented Journal of American History which is published by the Organization of American Historians, but in many ways more devastating. This publication by the same organization is aimed at secondary teachers. This magazine is published with the academic authority of the Organization of American Historians designed to keep the lower ranks in line with the liberal revisionist, who I call Librevs in my book. Compatriots, I feel like our forefathers must have felt in July of 1863 after the twin defeats of Gettysburg and Vicksburg. Our position is very serious. These recent attacks have taken shots specifically at the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Their attacks are made on the basic assumption that no matter what approach one takes in explaining the causes of the Civil War it must conclude that slavery was the primary cause. Their main objective in doing this is to further the political agenda that to defend the Confederacy must therefore be defending slavery. The professional historians are making it so that to honor our ancestor for their deeds of a century and a half ago we appear to be on the lunatic fringe. In the future our only option to express pride in our heritage will be as guest on the Jerry Springer show where we can expect to be harassed by a room full of guest with double-digit IQs, and perhaps flashed by women we have no desire to see anyway. We must take action to defend ourselves with a unified front.
The Latest Attack

The April issue of this magazine takes pride in stimulating intellectual debate over the causes of the War and presents five articles with differing interpretations as to the causes of the war. They say “this should come as no great surprise, since the question of what caused the war has provoked more arguments than almost any other in American history.” So why is this a problem for us? The answer to that is that even though each of the articles in this issue argue a different cause for the war the one thing they have in common is that they all come back to slavery. Not only that but, but when combined with editorial comments and essays it makes it sound like the cry of “states’ rights” is absurd. They try to present themselves as intellectually objective, but it is clear to me that they are on the side of those who protest against anyone who will not admit that our ancestors were wrong. This is what the North has wanted ever since 1865. They are not satisfied with a surrender to military defeat, we must be grateful for it. We must declare that the South was wrong and that the North was justified in the death and destruction they dealt out to our people.
The articles did take different views and I can see intellectual credibility in each of them whether one agrees with the authors or not. In the first one Jonathan Earle wrote about the power and influence of the slave owners in the Federal government. There is no doubt that the interest of the slave owners were well represented in the early decades of American history. That is why Paul Finkelman claimed that the main problem centered on the Constitutional differences between North and South. Going back to the Continental Congress, the Articles of Confederation, and then with the Constitution there was always compromise between those who did not believe in slavery, such as John Adams, and the planters of the South. Lea VanderVelde and Elizabeth Varon go with more trendy family and gender history as an explanation. This is not my cup of tea when it comes to historical research so I just do not have a lot to say about these two essays one way or the other. The last one, by Marc Egnal, is more along my lines. I especially liked his concluding statement “Economics more than high moral concerns produced the Civil War.” This sounds very close to the main claim I make in my book that the differences between North and South were not due to moral superiority. I am also partial to economic explanations for the conflict.
I take no exception to the intellectual integrity in any of the five articles in this issue. Where I feel threatened is in the political statements the magazine is making in between the articles. The editor begins with talking about recent attacks on the Secession Ball in December of 2010. He speaks of a comic jab with the Nat Turner Rebellion Cotillion, comparing our pride in the secession ball as comparable to the Nat Turner Rebellion. A massive stretch made by a comic not a historian. When he got to the December event I got the distinct impression he sided with the protesters outside rather than the participants inside. He quoted our Commander-in-Chief, “we’re looking at the bravery and tenacity of the people who rose up,” but it is clear that he does not see this bravery in our ancestors. The mantra of the majority of professional historians is that the war was over slavery and any attempt to glorify the Confederate soldier or politician is to glorify slavery.
The editorial comments cemented with other essays is where I see the bias against us. There are two essay, as well as a cover photo, on John Brown. The message here is that this man may have broken the law, but he was right to do so and that the end justifies the means. This is a man who not only murdered slave owners but mutilated their bodies. He attacked a Federal arsenal, killed several private citizens in Harper’s Ferry, including the mayor, and incited rebellion. He was tried, convicted and executed for acts of terrorism, yet this magazine makes him sound like a martyr. When one is done reading this issue they are likely to concluded that John Brown was respectable but the Sons of Confederate Veterans are a bunch of narrow-minded ignorant boobs.
Speaking of ignorant boobs, James W. Loewen got to do an essay in which he took the a truncated view of the war that he presented in his The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader. He is convinced that he offers proof that the main cause for the war was slavery. I know when I read his book, as well as his essay in this issue, I saw nothing new. I was well aware of the numerous quotes from Confederate leaders, both civilian and military, who expressed concern about the future of slavery under the Republican administration. I am also aware of something which Loewen prefers to ignore, that numerous Union leaders, both political and military, said they were not fighting over slavery. I also understand the concept of states’ rights and realize that the role of slavery in the conflict does not negate the issue of states’ rights. Loewen seems to have no intellectual grasp of states’ rights. More on this to come.
The last opinion piece in the issue dealt with the history of Confederate history month in Virginia. The author, Carl R. Weinberg, makes it clear that he agrees with protestors who complained of no mention of slavery in the first proclamation. Not only that, but it is clear that he objects to claims that the Confederacy fought for “independence and sovereign rights.” He is not satisfied with those declarations of Confederate history month that admitted that slavery was a major issue, or even that slavery was “a practice that deprived African-Americans of their God-given inalienable rights.” It is clear in this essay that slavery must be identified as the “key cause,” and any glorification of Confederates is a glorification of slavery.

Our Defense
We have some great books at our disposal such as the ones by the Kennedy brothers and Thomas DiLorenzo. I respect these works that have done much to educate the public to our cause. However, I do not see that we need to go to that extent to defend ourselves. I see basically a three prong attack. First, we need to make sure we have a good understanding of states’ rights and how the issue existed well before 1861 and extends well beyond America and its war between the states. Second, is that there is no doubt that slavery had a lot to do with secession, but that does not negate states’ rights. Third, and most important, is to remind these people that it was not the South which caused the war; it was the North.
States’ rights has been, and to a much more limited degree still is, a major issue since the founding of the nation. I have a separate essay I wrote on this subject which I have included as a page on my web page at lestucker.com. In this essay I have pointed out that this position has been defended by both North and South over issues other than slavery. More importantly, in this essay I have pointed out that this is an American term used to describe a broader issue known as localism versus centralism. This is a conflict that has existed throughout the ages and to some degree in most other nations, kingdoms, and empires.
It is critical for us to understand that we should not deny that slavery had nothing to do with secession, though I know many of you will object to admitting this. The evidence is overwhelming that many of those who wanted to secede were concerned about the future of slavery. Even though there were many who had other concerns, slavery had a lot to do with it. This does not detract from states’ rights, rather it was a catalyst for the bigger issue. If we read the various articles of secession, as well as look at the Confederate Constitution, we can see that Loewen is right when he says that slavery was of importance. If we deny this we will be dismissed as ignorant and in denial. What Loewen and his fans do not seem to understand is the fact that states’ rights is a much broader topic and that is why his book does not prove that states’ rights was not the main cause of the war. In other words, we can admit that slavery had much to do with secession, and it may have even been the main cause for secession, but that does not mean that it was the main cause for the war. This is why the most important point for us to make is that it is the Abraham Lincoln and the Union which made war and that when he did so the people of the South, whether they were initially for or against secession, were then in the position that they were defending themselves from an invasion.
The most serious error I saw in the Magazine of History was more implied than stated. When I read the quote included in the introduction from the editor I got the impression that he was in agreement with the protestor who said “It’s disgusting and unbelievable they would have a celebration to honor a day that ended up causing so much suffering.” South Carolina did not declare war on the North. All they wanted was to be left alone. Finkelman pointed out in his article that “Lincoln argued that under the Constitution slavery was secure, but once the seceding slave states left the Union and made war on their own country, they could no longer claim the protections of the Constitution.” He then added, “Thus, while Lincoln had no power to end slavery when he took office-because the national government could not interfere with slavery in the existing slates-he could interfere with slavery in those states that had made war on the national government.” Finkelman makes the same mistake that the protestor mentioned above made, South Carolina did not declare war on the national government. None of the Confederate States declared war on the Union. They believed that their declaration of independence was constitutional, regardless of whether slavery was their motivator or not. I can see why Finkelman took the position that he did, the real issue is whether or not it was constitutional. Lincoln always said he was fighting to preserve the Union. He believed that it was unconstitutional for the states to leave. A war to preserve the Union is a war for centralism. Therefore, it is logical that those they were fighting against centralism were in favor of localism. Localism is “states’ rights.” It makes no matter whether the participants were interested in slavery, Tariffs, internal improvements or just plain contempt for Yankees. If the invader is doing so to preserve the Union, which is centralism, then the defenders must be fighting for localism. In American we have called localism “states’ rights.” If Lincoln was not fighting to free the slaves then it is logical that those defending themselves against his attack were not fighting to preserve slavery.
To recap what I believe should be our stand. The threat to our heritage that we face today is quite simply put that our detractors claim that the war was mainly fought do defend slavery and therefore it is evil and wrong. The best defense to this is that the leader of the opposition, Lincoln, made it clear that he was not fighting to free the slaves. Finkelman included the quote we are all familiar with from Lincoln’s inaugural address in which he said he had “no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.” Why do we need to say more? The man who lead the attack said he was not going to interfere with slavery.
As to the idea that South Carolina or any other Southern state made the war, it is clear that the North was the aggressor. The feeble attempt to claim that the South started it with the firing on Fort Sumter was not even accepted by many at the time. The United States Army was occupying a fort in the Confederate States of America. When the Confederates fired on this fort all they wanted was for them to abandon occupied land in Confederate Territory. If the Union troops would have peacefully left there is no doubt that the shots would never have been fired. It is when Lincoln called for the 75,000 troops and began the invasion of the South that the war began. It is they who declared war. He said he did not do it to interfere with slavery, but to preserve the Union.
Compatriots, we must be careful in our defense. We must not claim that slavery had nothing to do with the secession. It clearly did. We must take the position that it does not negate the broader issue of localism versus centralism, which is known more commonly among Americans as “states’ rights.” The most important point is that it was Mr. Lincoln and the North which turned it into war and the resulting death and destruction. The cause for secession is related to the cause of the war, but they are not exactly the same thing. Secession does not have to lead to war.
I am sure that if these people who hate us so much opened their minds long enough to accept this, many would then claim that if it was not for the war we would have slavery today. This would be a totally absurd claim. In 1860 there were still many nations on the planet which had slavery. Today there are none, at least legally. How could any rational person believe that it was necessary to reap such death and destruction to end slavery? No other nation on Earth killed hundreds of thousands of people to end slavery. This is the way it was done by Lincoln and his friends. Not only did they cause massive death and destruction, but the way in which it was done may very well have made the adjustments after abolition much harder on both the former slave owners and the slaves. For this we are supposed to think that Lincoln was such a great man? This would be another essay, for now remember that Lincoln said he had no intention to interfere with slavery and was not fighting to end slavery, therefore the defenders could not have been fighting to defend slavery. That is a fact these Liberal Revisionist like to ignore and then claim that we are in denial.