When It All Goes South
It was announced by various Confederacy remembrance groups that on February 19 in Montgomery, Alabama they were going to re-enact the inauguration of Jefferson Davis. Jefferson Davis being the president of the Confederacy. The expected groups are protesting this racist and commemorating someone who encouraged slavery. The expected groups are protesting THAT by saying this is about heritage, not hate, and they're just showing how proud they are to be southern, not how proud they are to be racists. The parade route chosen is along the path where Rosa Parks famously refused to give up her seat on the bus and also near where several northern, white "freedom riders" came down to help blacks register to vote for the first time, but instead were beaten within an inch of their lives while police just looked on. All of this is going on to celebrate 150 years of Jefferson Davis being declared president of the Confederate States of America. Other notes to add into this celebration are the recent announcement by the state of South Carolina wanting to print its own money (despite that violating two sections of the US Constitution) and the rise of Tea Party using the Confederate flag (called "The Stars and Bars") as a symbol of defiance against the government. The past 15 years has seen a rise in Southern pride, which tends to be expressed through the prism of the Civil War. A lot of historians have come to the fore with theories about how the entire Civil War was only about states' rights and slavery played no role, or was only a proxy role at best. Stories have come out about slaves proudly fighting for the South and how that proves it couldn't have been about slavery. Regardless, as the historical fight goes on about the nature of the Civil War and Southern pride, the new political angles involved make this old fight a little more germane to our time
Let's face one thing upfront, being anti-Southern is one of the few prejudices left to Americans. We all know the stereotype of the average Southerner being poor, uneducated, racist and generally unpleasant. That kind of attitude is itself a throw back to pre-Civil War days when the South was less developed industrially and tended to rely more on farming and agriculture while the North relied on skilled labor and had more universities. On average, a northern was more educated than his southern counterpart. The north had, by 1861, abolished slavery (except Maryland and Kentucky) while in the south it remained a key part of society and the economy. Free blacks of the north were able to vote, hold property and were, by every account, citizens. Blacks in the south were more divided into field slaves and house slaves. House slaves lived pretty well, even better in some ways than their northern counter parts (if you're willing to over look rape and whipping). Field slaves were often treated about the same, if not worse, than livestock (owners would wash horses to make sure they looked good, which could not be said of field slaves). But on the whole, given the Civil War, its aftermath and some of the ways the South reacted to the aftermath of the Civil War, there are still strong stereotypes about Southerners. Unlike race, gender, pure ethnicity or even sexuality, you generally chose to be very proud of one's heritage. And, for example, the South had to chose to have Jim Crow laws, which all but made it a crime to be black (as opposed to the north, which was more content to have subtle racism). Also, the South continued to be proud of losing a war that many people disagreed with, and even still teach it as the fault of the north.
Yes, there are still parts of this world that refer to the US Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression". This is, of course, despite Ft. Sumter being fired on first by South Carolina forces. As well as US troops who were coming to re-supply the fort. South Carolina had, to its mind, seceded from the US and therefore anything left there was theirs. The US government, having paid for the fort, the guns and the flags with tax dollars from all over the US, felt all that stuff still belonged to the US. So, states broke away from the Union, appointed a president in Jefferson Davis and called themselves a nation. Every state gave reasons for their secession. Many invoked the Declaration of Independence (leaving out the "all men being created equal" bit) and all invoked the need for greater state autonomy. And they all invoked the need to protect slavery. They were all coming together as a nation to make sure no individual state could against the national right to slavery. After all, if they were so keen on states' rights, they would have moved against the Fugitive Slave Act, which let them overwrite the laws of other states when it came to returning slaves to the South. They had no problems asking for federal troops and help when it came time to deal with the native Americans. They had no problems taking their share of tariffs and the like from federal sources. It was a creative re-writing of history to suit their needs as justification when they decided that a government that promoted equality and a social agenda was too much to bear since it came at a cost to them.
Unfortunately, this is not a lost trend. Sherman, in his march through Georgia, intended to make Georgia howl and to tear the heart out of the Confederacy. His goal, as he stated to the citizens of Atlanta, was to bring the war to Georgia. Georgia had been happy to send troops, materiel, and other supplies to Tennessee, Virginia and Pennsylvania to continue the war there and call themselves the heart of the Confederacy. Sherman said "My aim is, to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. 'Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.'" His goal was to wage a war so terrible no one would want to do it again. Unfortunately for General Sherman, historical revisionism is starting to win the battles he thought he had won. Then entire Civil War, instead of being cast as at least part about slavery, is now cast entirely in the guise of states' rights, which supposes that STATES have a right to enslave citizens but nations do not. And while there are legitimate stories of slaves fighting alongside other Confederates, they were not fielded in the divisions that the North had. But no matter, since there were blacks fighting, that must mean the Confederacy couldn't be racist, therefore no Southern pride can be racist. In the modern era, this has the reflection in illegal immigration or even Obama criticisms. Recent Republicans have been reluctant to deny false beliefs that Obama is a Muslim or that Obama isn't a citizen. They're not outright saying he isn't, but they're also not correcting incorrect facts. No, not a belief, a mistake in facts. But, there are those who think things would be all the greater if the South could have been its own country (glossing over the slavery bits) and been free to have more guns and less government. This ignores that two divided countries trying to take on the Nazis would have been defeated a lot more easily.
But none of this matters. We have entered an age of political thought where thought consists of little more than emotional rhetoric with little regard to facts and truth. After all, if I THINK Obama is not a citizen, then it's obviously a trick when people present a birth certificate. If I feel that Jefferson Davis should be recognized as a key part of American history, then I am free to ignore the fact the CSA attacked the USA and killed thousands of its troops. After all, if we take the Confederacy-lovers at their word, the Confederacy was a sovereign nation having severed its bonds to the US. Which means, they were an aggressor nation attack the US, like Japan at Pearl Harbor. But that doesn't matter, since if I feel I can love my heritage, then I can do so as I choose. People can hate taxes and government spending, forgetting that so many things they came to rely on were made possible through those kinds of programs. After all, the War on Terror has cost trillions more than healthcare will, but I see few willing to cut off everything. Many talk about removing all of our troops from overseas posting, with little regard to how this would affect American interests, notably withdrawal of American investment in foreign business which gets us cheap goods. Sarah Palin isn't the most educated of the bunch, but by god she garners the most attention. Why? Passion, pure and simple. Political debates are not about two sides arguing facts to see what can be worked out. Now we have beliefs based on opinions on what may have happened. Sen. Moynihan once said "People are entitled to their own beliefs but not their own facts" but that's what's happening. Remembering a man who led a nation who attacked the US and calling him a patriot is not a disagreement of fact, it's a disagreement of reality.
And that's the way they'd see it too.
So it is written, so do I see it.
Let's face one thing upfront, being anti-Southern is one of the few prejudices left to Americans. We all know the stereotype of the average Southerner being poor, uneducated, racist and generally unpleasant. That kind of attitude is itself a throw back to pre-Civil War days when the South was less developed industrially and tended to rely more on farming and agriculture while the North relied on skilled labor and had more universities. On average, a northern was more educated than his southern counterpart. The north had, by 1861, abolished slavery (except Maryland and Kentucky) while in the south it remained a key part of society and the economy. Free blacks of the north were able to vote, hold property and were, by every account, citizens. Blacks in the south were more divided into field slaves and house slaves. House slaves lived pretty well, even better in some ways than their northern counter parts (if you're willing to over look rape and whipping). Field slaves were often treated about the same, if not worse, than livestock (owners would wash horses to make sure they looked good, which could not be said of field slaves). But on the whole, given the Civil War, its aftermath and some of the ways the South reacted to the aftermath of the Civil War, there are still strong stereotypes about Southerners. Unlike race, gender, pure ethnicity or even sexuality, you generally chose to be very proud of one's heritage. And, for example, the South had to chose to have Jim Crow laws, which all but made it a crime to be black (as opposed to the north, which was more content to have subtle racism). Also, the South continued to be proud of losing a war that many people disagreed with, and even still teach it as the fault of the north.
Yes, there are still parts of this world that refer to the US Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression". This is, of course, despite Ft. Sumter being fired on first by South Carolina forces. As well as US troops who were coming to re-supply the fort. South Carolina had, to its mind, seceded from the US and therefore anything left there was theirs. The US government, having paid for the fort, the guns and the flags with tax dollars from all over the US, felt all that stuff still belonged to the US. So, states broke away from the Union, appointed a president in Jefferson Davis and called themselves a nation. Every state gave reasons for their secession. Many invoked the Declaration of Independence (leaving out the "all men being created equal" bit) and all invoked the need for greater state autonomy. And they all invoked the need to protect slavery. They were all coming together as a nation to make sure no individual state could against the national right to slavery. After all, if they were so keen on states' rights, they would have moved against the Fugitive Slave Act, which let them overwrite the laws of other states when it came to returning slaves to the South. They had no problems asking for federal troops and help when it came time to deal with the native Americans. They had no problems taking their share of tariffs and the like from federal sources. It was a creative re-writing of history to suit their needs as justification when they decided that a government that promoted equality and a social agenda was too much to bear since it came at a cost to them.
Unfortunately, this is not a lost trend. Sherman, in his march through Georgia, intended to make Georgia howl and to tear the heart out of the Confederacy. His goal, as he stated to the citizens of Atlanta, was to bring the war to Georgia. Georgia had been happy to send troops, materiel, and other supplies to Tennessee, Virginia and Pennsylvania to continue the war there and call themselves the heart of the Confederacy. Sherman said "My aim is, to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. 'Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.'" His goal was to wage a war so terrible no one would want to do it again. Unfortunately for General Sherman, historical revisionism is starting to win the battles he thought he had won. Then entire Civil War, instead of being cast as at least part about slavery, is now cast entirely in the guise of states' rights, which supposes that STATES have a right to enslave citizens but nations do not. And while there are legitimate stories of slaves fighting alongside other Confederates, they were not fielded in the divisions that the North had. But no matter, since there were blacks fighting, that must mean the Confederacy couldn't be racist, therefore no Southern pride can be racist. In the modern era, this has the reflection in illegal immigration or even Obama criticisms. Recent Republicans have been reluctant to deny false beliefs that Obama is a Muslim or that Obama isn't a citizen. They're not outright saying he isn't, but they're also not correcting incorrect facts. No, not a belief, a mistake in facts. But, there are those who think things would be all the greater if the South could have been its own country (glossing over the slavery bits) and been free to have more guns and less government. This ignores that two divided countries trying to take on the Nazis would have been defeated a lot more easily.
But none of this matters. We have entered an age of political thought where thought consists of little more than emotional rhetoric with little regard to facts and truth. After all, if I THINK Obama is not a citizen, then it's obviously a trick when people present a birth certificate. If I feel that Jefferson Davis should be recognized as a key part of American history, then I am free to ignore the fact the CSA attacked the USA and killed thousands of its troops. After all, if we take the Confederacy-lovers at their word, the Confederacy was a sovereign nation having severed its bonds to the US. Which means, they were an aggressor nation attack the US, like Japan at Pearl Harbor. But that doesn't matter, since if I feel I can love my heritage, then I can do so as I choose. People can hate taxes and government spending, forgetting that so many things they came to rely on were made possible through those kinds of programs. After all, the War on Terror has cost trillions more than healthcare will, but I see few willing to cut off everything. Many talk about removing all of our troops from overseas posting, with little regard to how this would affect American interests, notably withdrawal of American investment in foreign business which gets us cheap goods. Sarah Palin isn't the most educated of the bunch, but by god she garners the most attention. Why? Passion, pure and simple. Political debates are not about two sides arguing facts to see what can be worked out. Now we have beliefs based on opinions on what may have happened. Sen. Moynihan once said "People are entitled to their own beliefs but not their own facts" but that's what's happening. Remembering a man who led a nation who attacked the US and calling him a patriot is not a disagreement of fact, it's a disagreement of reality.
And that's the way they'd see it too.
So it is written, so do I see it.