The States Rights Myth Revived

I'm a proud Texan.  While I think Sam Houston was in many ways an egotist and a lousy general. His treatment of the heroic Texas Navy was reprehensible. His men forced him to fight at San Jacinto. He was something of a drunk.  But he was absolutely right about secession being wrong.

I used to have a Confederate battle flag and used to irritate my Yankee boss at summer camp by flying it all over the place as a prank. I never thought anything about it. I'm the furthest thing from a racist you'll ever find. To me the flag was a bit of Southern rebelliousness and I thought it was a pretty flag.

There has been an effort of late to argue that the Confederacy was all about states rights and not about slavery.  Well, certainly there was a lot of noise about state's rights in the early days of the war, but everyone, I thought, knew the fight was over slavery.  The states right the CSA particularly wanted was the right to own slaves.

In trying to make the argument that the Civil War was all about state's rights and had nothing to do with slavery, one of the proponents of this rehabilitation of the Confederacy disdainfully urged those who disagreed with him to "...study history before we say stupid things".

So I did.

First I read the Constitution of the Confederacy and found these passages:

• Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired. 

•  In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States. 

•  (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

This was pretty mild language in the actual document, but it certainly legitimized slavery and enshrined that "peculiar institution" in law.  The rhetoric in the Confederate Congress was far less polite than the constitution was.  If you want a clear view of what the Civil War was about, read this excerpt of a speech given by Alexander H. Stephens, March 21, 1861 in Savannah Georgia.  Called the "Cornerstone Speech" it makes it quite clear that the patriarchs of the South understood that the founding fathers of the United States had never supported slavery and had always intended that it would eventually fade away.  His speech makes it clear that the founding fathers of the CSA were very deliberately fighting to preserve the institution of slavery.  Here is a refreshingly honest admission of this from CSA Vice-President Stephens. It's about all the history you'll need.  Stephens tried to back off some of what he said when he ran for Governor after the war, but he never backed off the idea that the negro was inferior to the white man. Never.  Here are his own words.

•  The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

• Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal. 

Okay, I studied the history.  The Civil War was most certainly about slavery and I can see why the Confederate Battle Flag, as beautiful as it is as flags go, is seen as a symbol of racism by black Americans.

That's why I hauled it down and raised the Texas Flag in its place.

Tom

Would We Be Better Off If the South had Won the Civil War

There is a cadre of so-called conservatives - I think they're mostly Libertarians - that have been lately arguing that Lincoln was evil and that we'd all be better off if the South had won because slavery would have ended "naturally".

Really?

The problem with that idea is that the South was NOT anything like a free market, pro-liberty democracy at the start of the civil war (or as my Libertarian friends know it, the "War of Northern Aggression"). The Old South was an Oligarchy back then, much like Mexico is today.  An elitist class of plantation owners dominated a poor peasant class of small farmers and merchants, who didn't argue much with their betters. The elite ruling class also owned the serf class (black slaves who were treated as little better than cattle).


You know, I might buy the argument about the South being all about "states right"except for that pesky Confederate constitution. That thing absolutely established slavery as a cornerstone of the new nation. You don't put something like that in a CONSTITUTION if you plan on letting it "die naturally".

Slavery was wrong and needed to be ended, period. The rather sudden and violent end it came to may have been God's own judgment against the South for condoning of slavery in its most vile forms. Religious leaders of the time argued that until the Union and the President came out against slavery, God would withhold His hand from blessing the war effort. Lincoln's reluctance to come out rock solid against slavery was because, as some Libertarians point out, he first wanted to preserve the Union. It was a mistake. It was like slowly pulling a band-aid off a healing wound. Better to yank it hard and quick. The war concentrated the misery over a few years instead of stretching emancipation out a hundred years or so.  It would have been a mistake to do so.  Even though the Southern oligarchy fought tooth and nail to maintain it's "good old boy" power structure for more than a century, the Civil War greatly reduced their ability to lord over the middle class the way they had before the war.  The middle class got a really clear look at how they had been used in the antebellum South by the fancy folks in Atlanta and Richmond and the local gentry in their slave-maintained mansion houses. When it came down to it, the plain folks were the ones that did most of the dying and for what. So the massa's could have their mint juleps served to them on the veranda by servants who properly knew their place?

This country was, I believe, established and blessed by God for the purpose of providing a harbor for his children - red and yellow, black and white. We've lumbered toward the freedom and respect for the rights of others for the past 200 years, making fits and starts and occasionally backsliding. In the process, His church has grown strong and mighty, protected within the borders of the United States. My own church, established here in the U.S., has over 150 some odd years spread throughout the world so that there are many more members of our denomination outside the U.S. than there are in it. I think that's the real reason God made this country the way it is.

I think God put Abraham Lincoln where he was, knowing full well He had a tool He could use to accomplish His will. I think He put Lee in place to punish the North for tolerating slavery for its own purposes and He put Grant in place to finish the work Lincoln started with the Emancipation Proclamation (despite its obvious initial inadequacies).

He put honorable men in the Southern ranks too, to be used as He needed them. There's that great story where, after the war, a black man entered the Episcopal church in Richmond and walked bravely down the center aisle and took his place at the communion rail to receive communion. Everyone was shocked and sat rooted in their seats. This was an all white church and only months after the end of the Civil War. The pastor stood frozen in place. Then a gray haired gentleman in the congregation rose from his pew and walked straight down the aisle. He knelt at the rail beside the black gentleman and waited for the pastor to administer the rites of communion to them both.

The pastor did so. After all, how could he not. The white gentleman kneeling beside the black man was Robert E. Lee.

I will not presume to second guess God's guidance in the events of the Civil War as some of my conservativish colleagues do. It was a horrible and bloody episode to be sure and no one had pure motives.  All the same, I am not sure letting the South go in peace as has been suggested, would have created the world we have today or given us the opportunities we have. The USA and CSA would likely have both been second rate powers in the world and dominated by the likes of Britain, Germany or Japan or some combination of those old European powers.

I don't think God was quite ready for the world to end and I think that He preserved the Union for His own purposes.

I, for one, having grown up in the South and having an intimate knowledge of how the white oligarchy works, even in its faded state 150 years after the Civil War and am heartily glad those arrogant gentleman took a thorough beating and had their power much diminished. I would not want to live in the CSA had they won their war. What a horror that would have been.

Texas should never have joined the South in seceding. Sam Houston, who was wrong about a lot of things (particularly his unreasonable hatred for the Texas Navy), was right about not seceding from the Union. He wasn't alone in that sentiment and after all the bigoted idiots went off to war and had their numbers thinned dramatically, I think Texas wound up with a better quality of human being living here. So, that too may have been God's will.

At any rate, I have good evidence that God used Abraham Lincoln, shortcomings and all at a time when God needed someone to stand in the breach.

I don't think God cares about capitalism or state's rights, socialism, libertarianism or whether or not an oligarchy gets preserved in the south or an industrialist robber baron dominated culture gets preserved in the North. "The King's heart is in the hands of the Lord and He turns it whichever way He will." I believe God works whoever thinks he is in power to God's own purposes, though we may not understand those purposes.


I admire Lincoln because he came to see that he was wrong about slavery and that it cannot be tolerated and he did the right thing. I admire Lee because he helped heal the damage done in the South by his example in the years following the war. I admire Grant for his tenacity and stubborn belief in the righteousness of his cause. I admire Sherman for his magnanimity toward the Southerners in establishing surrender terms (it almost got him arrested by Congress).

If letting the South win the war had been a good thing, then I do believe God would have let them win the war. You guys who argue that He was wrong, are braver than I. I wouldn't want to try and argue that God made a mistake - not when Scripture so obviously predicts the role the US will play in the ending of the world and the Second Coming.

Obama and his ilk, the country club Republicans and their cronies are nothing more than tools in God's hands. We are commanded to pray for them. Remember, it was God who hardened Pharaoh's heart and it worked out for His own purposes. I think it was for the purpose of turning the Jews from slaves into the mule-headed independent minded people they are today. He led them for 40 years in the desert and He helped them win when it helped that process and even caused them to lose in wars and campaigns when they needed to learn a lesson. It took hundreds of years for God to teach them to be who He wanted them to be. But, as a result of all this education, when it came time to spread the gospel to the world, Jesus was able to find 12 monumentally stubborn Jewish guys who would do just that in spite of the incredible odds working against them.


I think this country was designed by God to breed and train the stubborn, muley-headed people that stand today in the breach, prepared to fight the last battle in Earth's history. I think a lot of them are in the Tea Party movement, but there are a lot of them in the Democrat and Republican parties as well. There are plenty of these folk who are in no party at all.

God bless 'em and thank God for 'em, I say. So how about let's everybody quit second-guessing our Commander on the subject of history. He knows what he's doing. Perhaps what we should be doing is studying history to figure out just what God, in His wisdom was up to. I think that's a more profitable use of our time.


Tom
(c) 2010


* I use the term "conservative" loosely here noting that the logical abbreviation for both liberal and libertarian is the same. Coincidenc or vast left-wing conspiracy? You decide.

Enough Already With the Redneck Jokes

If we want to hear redneck jokes, we'll tell 'em ourselves. We're better at it anyway.

You know the snide comments from all those Yankee pundits on the liberal news media about those of us who prefer a climate where we don't have to thaw out our oxygen in the winter just to breathe are getting just a little old. To hear them tell it, we're all a bunch of ignorant, in-bred, dull-witted hayseeds whose only religion is NASCAR. Now, while I do admit Dale Earnhardt had a couple of thriving congregations in his day, I maintain that even Yankees have a few collections of individuals that tend to carry things a little over the top.

Three words - New York City.

I rest my case.


Since the Civil War, there has been a steady campaign of slander against Southerners (and even Texans for that matter). The idea that we are invariably racist has been particularly pernicious.

"Particularly pernicious."  Say that 3 times fast in Boston and see how sophisticated you sound!

Look, even back in the 1800's, not all of us in the South were pro-slavery.  During the civil war, there was a thriving guerrilla campaign carried out against the confederacy here in East Texas by locals, who, like Sam Houston, believed secession in that particular case and for those reasons was just plain wrong! The idea that all southerners are slow-talking racist redneck hicks is just not true. 

Many Union soldiers during the Civil War were southerners serving against their own neighbors and family- a long way from home because they believed in doing the right thing. Everyone knew it was about slavery, no matter the high-toned rhetoric. There was a lot of fine talk about states rights, but like today, the real reason for the government's action was somewhat other than what was being put forward by the rebellious states. Everyone in the South knew the war was about the cost to wealthy Southerners of losing all that free slave labor. But, not everyone in the South turned their eyes from the true cost of that vile institution.

We must take a lesson from the one that God taught Abraham Lincoln. You must do what is right and for the right reasons. Merely to preserve the Union was not sufficient for God to bless the Union Army. It took the Emancipation proclamation to secure God's favor and open Lincoln's eyes. In return for his recognition of the true reason for the war, God sent Abe a hard-driving general named Grant and rallied the support of good men and women behind what was now perceived to be openly a war to end slavery.

Ultimately, our founding documents make clear that the rights of the individual trump the rights of the state, the nation, and even the rights of the county and the city. That's what "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" really means.

Like another man who shares my surname, I too look forward to a day when all men are judged, not by the color of their skin, the style of their clothing, the accent of their speech, their religion, or the place where they are born, but by the content of their character. 


I'm just sayin'


Tom King - Flint, TX (secret guerrilla hideout in the piney woods)