My thoughts on Confederate History Month...

There is much debate and discussion on this topic in the news today, especially with the comments from McDonnell and Barbour, both GOP governors from Southern States. While both of these governors have seen their thoughts and words taken out of context (especially Barbour's), it is simply not possible to say with any accuracy that the Civil War was NOT about slavery in America.

Let me start my thoughts with this: While there is a degree of revisionism in the attitude that the South left the Union over the question of "State's rights", there is an equally revisionist position in the attitude that Lincoln and the North fought the war to free Southern Blacks from the bonds of slavery. One cannot attack one side of this coin without understanding the other.

In my youth, I often argued the "state's rights" cause of the war. Slavery was an issue, no question, but it was only part of the picture. Slavery, tariffs, Congressional compromises made outside of Constitutional standards, and the growing perception that each side of the North/South line was working to impose its views on the other were all equal reasons for the conflicts inevitable beginning. I supported this position with the evidence that the Constitution of the Confederate States of America provided for the eventual elimination of slavery after a period of ten years from the conclusion of hostilities with the Union. I also used the Vice President of the CSA, Alexander Stephens, as an example of the "moderate" position of some Confederates because of his stated position that "State's rights" were the cause of his support for the CSA.

In the years since, I have come to realise that both the Constitution of the CSA and Stephen's positions after the war were terrible examples, because both emphatically supported slavery as the primary cause of the war and the Southern cause. The Constitution specifically prohibited any act that would limit or eliminate the ability of a citizen of the CSA to own Negros as "property", and Stephens gave a long, and entirely preserved speech in Savannah, GA, detailing (amongst other things) the FACT that negro servitude was inherently part of the natural order and was emphatic in his position that Thomas Jefferson was 100% WRONG in his position that all men were created equal... the negro is naturally subservient to the superior white race.

Understanding the above, I am forced to conclude that the only way slavery would have been eliminated in the Confederacy was through the process of constitutional amendment as detailed in the Constitution itself, and since the vote was denied to blacks as a matter of course throughout the CSA, the possibility of such an event was highly unlikely. While Stephens championed the cause of allowing States to determine their own status as Free or Slave, he wasn't able to keep the Constitution from being written in such a manner that allowed the entry of a "free state" into the Confederacy, and the owning of slaves was protected under the Constitution, regardless of a State's position on the subject... making the whole point rather moot.

Now, regardless of what was said after the war was over, both Stephens and Jefferson Davis are known to have stated very clearly that SLAVERY was the cause they were defending and protecting when they took their positions in the Confederate government, and it is historical fact that Davis, while executing his duties as President of the Confederacy, made many of the same command decisions that he so reviled in the actions of Lincoln, including the suspension of habeas corpus, conscription, impressment, and the institution of an income tax. Thus, my position today is that the Southern effort during the American Civil War was primarily to preserve and protect the institution of slavery within the Confederate States, with ample evidence from the Constitution of the Confederacy and the stated position of it's two highest elected leaders to help make that case clear.

Now, can modern leaders and politicians support the memorializing of those who fought for the defense of the Confederacy? Certainly they can. It is simple fact that 89% of everyone that fought for the South never owned a slave, and the 11% that had were mostly officers and elected officials of wealth and means. The average Johnny Reb cared no more for the defense of an officer's lifestyle than Billy Yank did for his... but the perception that the Union was dictating the manner in which the citizens of the Southern States should and would lead their lives was very real, and very offensive, to the common soldier. They were fighting to defend their homes, farms and families, even if they didn't have slaves working under them. It is my opinion that the common "rank and file" soldier saw the War as one of "Northern Aggression" more than a defense of slavery.

It is my opinion that the honoring and memorializing of such efforts be combined with an understanding that, while the effort was noble and honest, it was NOT morally justifiable. In easy-to-grasp terms, these men fought honorably for the wrong side of the conflict. To condemn the efforts of more modern military leaders, such as Erwin Rommel or Heinz Guderian, or Georgy Zhukov for the Soviets, because they supported and defended immoral and tyrannical regimes, yet support the efforts of Robert Lee, Thomas Jackson, or Jefferson Davis is simply hypocrisy in action and words. One cannot separate the immoral causes being defended from the men fighting to defend them, even if the culpability for the defense can be removed. In short, one cannot memorialize and honor the Confederate soldiers who fought and died for their country without acknowledging the immoral and unjust nature of the cause they defended.

Now, for those that decry and deride the "Southern Pride" position of many Southern States, the same is true: One cannot ignore certain historical facts when discussing the Union's position (and especially Lincoln's stated opinion), simply because the "North won".

Shouting from the mountain-tops about the racist-nature of such symbols as the Confederate flag (be it the "Stars and Bars" or the Confederate battle flag) is unsupportable in a strictly historical sense, because the institution of slavery existed for far longer under the Stars and Stripes than it ever did under the Confederate flags, and was just as vigorously defended by "American" policy and planning, as well.

This hypocritical and revisionist view of history is just as true when seen in light of the opinion that Lincoln fought the war to "free the slaves" or that he was an abolitionist in his views. Lincoln did all that he did with the understanding that slavery was immoral, but NOT ILLEGAL, and that his primary purpose as President was to preserve the Union... not abolish slavery. Furthermore, it seems the popular opinion of today's "politically correct" liberal leadership that Lincoln was an advocate of equality under the law... a forerunner of the civil rights movement, if you will... which I feel is patently false. I offer this example to make my case, which is taken from the 1858 debate held in Charleston, IL:

"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the Negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of Negroes. " Abraham Lincoln, Sept 18, 1858 Charleston, Illinois

I think this is a very telling example of just what Lincoln thought about the issue of race before and during the Civil War. Many people continue to make the case that Lincoln "freed the slaves" when he made the executive orders in 1862 and 1863 that became known as the Emancipation Proclamation, which is also not entirely true. The States of Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Delaware, West Virginia and Maryland (all slave states) were exempt from the order, and slavery remained a protected, legal institution in those states until the Thirteenth Amendment went into effect in Dec of 1865. Furthermore, 48 counties in Virginia, the City of New Orleans and 13 other Louisiana parishes were also exempt from the orders. Finally, the biggest flaw of the Proclamation was that it "freed" slaves in certain states and in areas were Union military forces had gained control, but did not make "slavery" illegal at all... a fact that didn't change until Dec of 1865.

I'm not denying the fact that Lincoln's orders freed more than 4 million men and women from bondage, but it did this in a way that could not be enforced or even enacted because it only applied to areas outside of Union control. It is pure speculation as to how many slaves actually enjoyed "freedom from servitude" as a result of the Proclamation and not as a direct result of Union Army occupation of Confederate territory.

I rank Lincoln as one of our greatest leaders... ever. He is a "Top Five" President in my book, and will probably find his place at #2, right behind Washington himself, in almost every category we care to discuss. However, I rank this position with the clear understanding that what he did as President was for the preservation, protection, and benefit of the UNION as a whole, and not for the morally-superior position that slavery was evil and needed to be ended, once and for all, and certainly not for furthering the promise laid down by Jefferson in the formative years of the nation that "all men are created equal" and deserving of equal rights and justice under the law. He was an outspoken support of an institutional separation of races, and didn't seem to feel that even voting rights should be equal. This is NOT the contemporary image that most critics of Southern "pride" promote when invoking Lincoln's words and efforts during the Civil War.

So, in conclusion, I maintain that any support for the glorification and memorializing of Confederate leaders and soldiers be tempered with the understanding that their cause was immoral and unjust MUST BE MIRRORED by those taking the opposite position. The leadership of some anti-slavery movements in the North (John Brown, for example) were every bit as immoral and unjust as the institutions they were fighting, and not every Union leader or official was advocating the "emancipation" of blacks in the same way we understand it today.