The Grande Experiment

I was watching the making-of Special Feature of the movie Gettysburg. The narrator said, “This grande experiment of the United States of America was on the brink of complete and desperate failure that summer of 1863.” I've heard that expressed before, but something never occurred to me until now. The right to secede, as we have seen, was established and provided for in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. According to common accounts, the “experiment” would have been deemed a failure had the south won independence. I put it to you: the experiment was a failure because the south did not win independence. The intent of the founding fathers was plain in the design of the new government: that it never become a tyrant's yoke upon the shoulders of the unwilling. From its birth in the minds of its architects it derived its authority from the consent of the governed, and should that consent ever be withdrawn, they (the governed) were charged with the duty to separate and form a new government. Had the southern states been allowed to do that peacefully and without obstruction from Mr. Lincoln and his Federal army, then we could have termed the grande experiment a success.

Rebel Pride

Imagine with me for a moment . . .

A New York newspaper reports:

APRIL 1861  Relations between the Federal government in Washington D.C. and the newly formed Confederate government in Richmond, Virginia, continue to be strained. President Lincoln continues, however, to seek a peaceful solution and an amicable separation for the disgruntled Southern nation. Having no wish to part on hostile terms, Mr. Lincoln is working hard to insure that the newly independent South will be peaceful neighbors and allies now that they have disassociated themselves from the Union. Delaware remains a prickly subject, however, since it is decidedly pro-slavery, and equally decidedly within the Federal demesne. The Confederate president, Jefferson Davis, has demanded a swift and equitable solution for the Confederacy's “isolated and beleaguered kin”.

AUGUST 1861 A proposed Constitutional Amendment was introduced into Congress earlier this week that proposes immediate freedom for all slaves currently held in Federal jurisdictions. This amendment would also outlaw the institution in all states currently in the Union, as well as any territories seeking statehood. By all accounts, this amendment should pass swiftly, and, it is expected, quickly pass through the ratification process as well. This proposal lends a new urgency to the so-called “Delaware Crisis”. Delaware, which remains a part of the United States, is openly pro-slavery. It is, however, politically aligned with the government in Richmond, and is cut-off from them geographically by many hundreds of miles. The state is unwilling to secede for fear of Federal reprisal and its isolated condition.

OCTOBER 1861 As the Anti-slavery Amendment continues to pass ratification, another potential solution to the Delaware Crisis fails to satisfy the Confederate government in Richmond. The Confederates are not wavering in their demand for a 50-mile wide corridor from Virginia to Delaware. The lands within the corridor, according to demands, would be sovereign Southern territory, including any cities, farms, or industries. As may be expected, President Lincoln has no intentions of acquiescing to this demand, and has offered numerous compromises, to no avail. Tensions continue to grow, as with each state that ratifies the amendment more Confederate troops drift toward the Virginia-Maryland border.

JANUARY 1862 The Delaware Crisis reached full boil this week as the final state needed for ratification of the Anti-slavery amendment was heard. Delaware immediately announced its secession, while simultaneously wiring the Confederate government for assistance. Unyielding on the topic of abolition, President Lincoln declined to recognize Delaware's secession, being unwilling to have a slave-state within his borders. Even one that was ostensibly part of another nation. Federal troops have been sent to the tiny state in order to insure that the new law is properly followed. The government in Richmond has vowed to secure Delaware's sovereignty, by force, if necessary, declaring that no foreign power shall enact legislation within its borders or against its states.

     In a statement made from his office in the Confederate capitol, Jefferson Davis said, “We fully support Delaware's right to maintain slavery as a necessary component of its economy. Having heard Delaware's petition to enter our Confederacy, we welcome that state as a brother, equal in rights to Virginia or South Carolina, or any other state of our country. We  shall strive by all means available to us, including military action if necessary, to come to the aid of the good people of Delaware and secure their right to maintain that integral part of the functioning of their economy, namely the institution of slavery.”

MARCH 1862 Confederate troops, with the ultimate goal of perpetuating slavery in Delaware, crossed the border into Maryland today. . .

Now, that would have been a war about slavery. A Confederacy that fought that war would have richly deserved to be remembered as contemptible. Of course, that isn't remotely close to the truth. So, why are we in the South repeatedly told that we descend from a racist heritage? We are swiftly vilified should any image we bear, whether a tattoo, t-shirt, flag, or school mascot, depict an image associated with a Confederate south. If we express any degree of pride in our heritage we are instantly, and without need of further evidence, labeled “racist”. In fact, it doesn't have to be an image of the “Confederate” south. Any association with the south qualifies.

Think about it. Germans can be proud to be Germans, even though in their past they exterminated millions. It is fine for Japanese to take pride in their heroism in WWII (Clint Eastwood even made a movie celebrating it), even though they launched an unprovoked sneak attack that cost thousands of American servicemen their lives. We're even tip-toeing around Muslims, trying to foster mutual goodwill and understanding designed to prevent our prejudging of them, even though it was Muslims that brought down the Twin Towers. They are free to practice their cultural traditions, such as veils and turbans, and it isn't right to judge them for their association with the bombers. But let me fly a confederate flag and watch the labels start flying.

Don't believe me? Take a drive to Oxford, MS, some Saturday afternoon this Fall. Take in a football game at Ole Miss while you're there. Gone is the Colonel Rebel mascot walking the sidelines. No longer will you see flags waving that bear any portion of the Confederate battle flag. These were deemed to conjure images of Mississippi's Civil War racist past.

Colonel Rebel

Ole Miss Rebel Pride Flag - Now out of favor

New Less-offensive Flag (No mention of "Pride")

(Incidentally, slavery was not about racism. The Negroes were slaves because they were available. If Spaniards had been selling each other into slavery, the slaves would have been Spanish. However, the cold truth of it is that it was the Africans selling each other into bondage, so the slaves were Negroes. It isn't as if there were hundreds of thousands of free blacks living in the south and one day it was decided that they were inferior because they were black and so they were pressed into slavery. Racism came later, after they were enslaved, not before.)

So, back to Mississippi. The school decided it was impossible to move forward with such a despicable and backward-looking mascot to lead them. They became concerned that black students may be so insulted by these things that they would pass Ole Miss right on by. Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that the way to attract students is by hiring top-shelf faculty, constructing the finest facilities, and offering world-recognized degree programs, rather than trying to make sure the school's mascot is as PC and inoffensive as possible. My chief concern when selecting an institute of higher learning will be the quality of my education and not insuring that my social sensitivities won't be offended.

One last point do I impose on your kind indulgence. Imagine a school whose team was called the Kamikazes, they had a samurai mascot stalking the sidelines, and the team flag had as one of its components a “rising sun” as used by the Japanese military in WWII. One of two things would have come out of it:

1)                  Japanese people would be offended and demand that their heritage not be reduced to a caricature for use as a mascot;

2)                  It would be deemed offensive by Americans who remember WWII. They would petition for it to all be changed. A Japanese group would find out about it and raise a stink about being denied their cultural heritage.

But because the Cult of Lincoln has colored and slanted history as they have, not only is it impossible for me to express pride in my heritage, it is also impossible for me to defend my desire and right to do so. Impossible, at least, without being labeled.

Aristocrats and Industrialists

I fancy myself something of a self-educated, amateur historian. I always try to present the historical materials upon which I am commenting so that the reader can draw his or her own conclusions, independent of mine. There is something, however, I wish to comment on without being able to follow that format. I haven't seen anything speaking directly to the point on this topic (yet), I have only caught “glimpses” of it in different sources.

I have developed the impression, through experience with multiple media, that the South and Southern way of life was likened to the English aristocracy. Unfortunately, the only source I can cite for this is The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara, and the movie Gettysburg, based on that work. The character, Buster Kilrain, goes into a speech about wanting to be judged on his own merit, not based on who his father was, nor wanting someone to be counted superior to him based on his lineage, like it was in the Old Country. He went on to say that he personally was fighting the war for the cause of justice, and to put a stop to the aristocracy, the “stinking plumed chivalry”, which he associated with the Confederacy. Little references like that keep catching my attention, but not enough singly, which would be easier to cite. It does seem, though, that they have accumulated enough mass to get me thinking.

I would not want to live in any sort of feudal or caste system. I want to rise or fall by my own hand, and God's will for me, not due to a circumstance of birth. I think a gentle aristocracy, one that promotes honor and moral virtue, is not a bad thing, though. One where the strong feel a natural and genuine responsibility for the weak or misfortuned. However, it must be attainable and not the province of a privileged minority.  But the Confederacy lost, and with it was lost that ideal of a just and decent aristocracy.

In the movie Gods and Generals, Jackson is talking to Stuart, explaining to him his feelings on the war. Jackson says, “If the North triumphs, it is not alone the destruction of our property. It is the . . . end of free and responsible government on this continent. It is the triumph of commerce, the banks, factories.” I have no idea if, historically, that is a direct quote or conjecture, but it isn't important either way. What is important is the truth of it.

We live in a modern interpretation of a feudal system. The notable difference being that the “nobility” in our case bears no responsibility for the “commoners”. We are exploited at almost every turn. S&L bailouts, corporate bankruptcies that are then “saved” by the government. The military being used to provide security, not for the welfare of the citizenry, but security for the welfare of corporate profit. In the feudal ideal the commoners provided for the day-to-day function of life on the medieval manor, while the lord provided for the common defense, enforced the laws of the land, and ruled impartially on civil disputes. Ideally, it was a symbiotic relationship.

The aristocracy of the Old South was based on family lineage, and one's attitudes toward honor and duty. Wealth may have played a part, but was not significant. A.P. Hill was courageous, a fine division commander, and wealthy, but he never broke into the Virginia aristocracy, though he greatly desired to take his place among them. So, perhaps lineage was most important. I am only speculating, I am not read on this particular topic. At any rate, the Southern Gentlemen were keenly aware of their duty to their respective sovereign states, and thus to the Confederacy. They were honor-bound to that duty, and considered it a privilege to bear it. It wasn't only the generals, the entire army carried their duty to home and family with pride and dignity, from the drummer boy on up.

Now, I put it to you: Would such an aristocracy, bore with honor, humility, and a sense of duty to home, family, and those dependent upon you be so terrible a thing? We now find ourselves living in a system where the common citizenry is brazenly exploited for the benefit of an elite minority. Families lose their homes, see their children living on the street, while executives from bankrupt corporations are spending tens of thousands of dollars on vacations. Decent, hard-working people forced to live in fear because their neighborhood isn't “important” enough to keep crime in check. Meanwhile, the army, the United States Army, is providing security for oil field workers in a country that isn't even ours (technically). The same oil field workers, by the way, that are making 4 to 5 times as much money as the young soldiers that have been ordered to take a bullet for them.

Make no mistake: corporate interests rule this country. Period. Would a Southern aristocracy have been any better 5 or 6 generations later? Who knows? We can make educated guesses and predictions, but we will never know.  We do know, though, how Jackson's predicted  “ . . . triumph of commerce, the banks, factories” turned out. All in all, I think I would prefer taking my chances with the aristocracy.

A Whole New Month

So far we have spent quite a bit of effort exploding some myths surrounding the cause of the war. The subtitle of the blog concerns unpopular truths. We are going to head off in a new direction, you and I, and examine some unpopular truths concerning the quality and way of life for blacks during the war. I will expose the bigotry and racism that pervaded the Union, from the common soldier all the way up to Mr. Lincoln himself. We will pierce the veil of misconception to discover the true lot of the Southern blacks, both slave and free. That's right: free. There were free blacks living in the south during the war. Some voluntarily served in the Confederate army, some even owned black slaves. All this and more, coming soon, so stay tuned . . .

A Quick Thought

I was watching Gods and Generals the other day. The scene came up where the character of Union Col. Chamberlain was explaining to his brother that an army is power, that its sole purpose is to force an opponent to submit to its will through coercion. He went on to say something about how could the Confederacy be claiming to fight for its freedom while they were willing to continue the institution of slavery. He felt that holding slaves invalidated the South's claim to be fighting for freedom.

Yet, in order to free the slaves, he was more than happy to deny the South the right to be free of the Federal government. He was fighting to deny the Confederate states the right to self-determination regarding secession through the use of the coercive army, all the while claiming the South had no right to be free because it was denying a group their freedom. That smacks of hypocrisy.

Objectives and Agendas

Until now my format has been to introduce you to a historical document and some days later post my opinion and analysis. This post, however, is strictly my thoughts. I am not abandoning the other format, just doing something a little different.

I was ruminating the other day about conflicts the United States has been in, our reasons for being in them, and the ultimate outcome. Consider:

•                     We entered WWI in 1917, with the goal of stopping Germany and its allies. Once we had accomplished that, removed the kaiser from power, and secured the Treaty of Versailles, we came home.

•                     In 1941, we went to war with Germany, again. Once again, we stopped the Germans, along with their new allies, and removed the German leader. Those goals secured, we came home.

•                     In 1990, Saddam Hussein ordered his Iraqi army into Kuwait. We led an overwhelming coalition against him, liberated Kuwait, and restored order in the region (relatively speaking). Then, we packed up our tanks, planes, and guns, and came home.

In each case, the United States achieved its military objectives (which in each case was essentially to liberate a group of people from some sort of tyrannical situation), and left. We left each of these places, the first two we saw to it that they democratically elected new leadership, and in the case of Kuwait, we restored their former leadership. In each case we left them to determine their own future, to chart their own course, as they each saw fit. We did not annex, occupy, or colonize.

If, IF, we are to believe that the War of Northern Aggression truly was fought to free the slaves, why did the United States military continue to occupy the South, even to this very day? Now, before somebody wants to point out that I am comparing 20^th century policy to 19^th century policy, I understand that I am indeed doing that very thing. The point is that once the Confederacy came to the peace table, the slaves were free. Mission accomplished. Occupation was not required. Unless, of course, freeing the slaves was not the objective.

Which, indeed, it was not. The objective was preservation of the Union. There was also a more sinister goal, one not talked about. With the re-absorbtion of the Confederate states, the United States went from being a Union of free, autonomous states, to being a nation of subject states subservient to a strong central government. That was the beginning of a movement that ultimately culminated in a virtually all-powerful United States president unilaterally declaring war against a country that had never attacked us and posed no appreciable threat to us. It was the opening volley against our system of checks and balances and the departmentalization of our government. It all started in April of 1865 with the death of states' rights. The hidden agenda, the secret objective, of the War of Northern Aggression.