The Neo-Confederate Seal
Seal of the Neo-Confederates

Recently I posted a link to an interview from Remapping Debate titled
James Loewen on telling the truth about Confederates and their latter day sympathizers.”  James Loewen is co-editor of the recently published “Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader.”

There was some discussion on it in O/T and we decided to post it for broader discussion.  For years I have heard many reasons for the cause of the Civil War.  One favorite seems to be “It wasn’t about slavery, it was…..(fill in the blank)
Mr. Loewen argues, with those pesky facts in hand, it was about slavery and the line of the Federal Government has no right to enforce laws in their state is just fabrication.  We have seen this occur during the Health Care Reform, often from states of the old Confederacy—The Neo-Confederates.

I choose not to post much of my take of this interview, instead, I hope you take the time to watch (over an hour) and discuss this in your comments.

This interview is property of Remapping Debate, please go to  Confederates and their Latter Day Sympathizers to view.

Kesmarn, the real author of this post offers her excellent understanding on the interview.

Everyone has heard the cliche. “Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.” But how do you know if what you know is real history? Not just someone else’s take on it?
Any reputable historian (not the Tea Party version) will advise you to go to primary sources — documents and/or evidence like court records that date directly from the period being studied. Unfiltered by “interpretation.”

This is how James Loewen, Harvard-trained sociologist, approaches history. Using strictly primary sources in his latest book “The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader,” he presents his case that the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. Period. Heard the argument that it was really a states’ rights issue when all was said and done? Wrong.  That there were numerous black Confederate soldiers battling side by side with whites against Union troops?  Nope. Been told that the issues involved in the Civil War were settled by 1865 and people should “get over it”? Don’t think so. That the South cited states’ rights as a reason for the conflict from the beginning? Not what the documents tell us. And Loewen has the goods to back up his claims.

In this interview, Loewen links the Civil War era to the later era known as the Nadir of Race Relations (1890-1940), and further, to the modern day Neo-Confederate movement, which tends to look amazingly like it’s twin brother…the Tea Party.

49
Leave a Comment

Please Login to comment
10 Comment threads
39 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
For America and RooseveltpfzghostriderKhiradQuestinia Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
For America and Roosevelt
Member

Thank you linking to this very exceptionally illuminating and relevant discussion. James Loewen’s un-/de-revisionist overview, not only of the causes ( in both senses ) of the Civil War, but of their repercussions to the present day and their centrality in the political life of our nation, was very relevant for me personally as someone who has been deeply alarmed by events of the part two and a half years. In the light of his lucid and forceful analysis, the eruptions of racism, secessionism, and supposed “grievances” of those who feel they are being denied their entitlements ( ironic, that ), are not mere baffling aberrations, but the logical present development of a narrative extending back to the pre-Civil War era ; and the deeply ugly and threatening picture they present is not a paranoid, conspiracy-minded illusion induced by too many hours on the web, but is indeed very real, entirely consistent with our insufficiently acknowledged and understood history, and is exactly what it seems. Such things as Sarah Palin’s secessionist affiliations, or the murmurings of “the problem isn’t Obama, the problem is the fact that he could be elected” ( along with more explicit moves towards voter disenfranchisement, such as the destruction of ACORN, or Tom Tancredo’s call to restore “literacy” tests ), are not mildly alarming but inexplicable, isolated oddities, but logical parts of a very real and very encompassing picture.

To give an example of the power and sweep of Mr. Loewen’s argument, we are all aware of the reactions to the election of the current President, and are able characterise them in a manner which is accurate but superficial ( that is, that many people are displeased by the occupation of the White House by an African American ). When, however, Mr. Loewen states — using “neo-Confederacy” to mean not some contemporary fringe revivalist oddity, but a main sociopolitical current in our nation which has proceeded in direct continuity since the Confederacy itself — “the election of President Obama was a serious blow to the neo-Confederacy”, he draws the entire history of our nation, in all of its depth of significance for the present, into a single observation which perfectly encapsulates the present historical situation.

The underlying and integral theme of the rewriting of history is, in itself, of the most pressing concern when it is asserted that America is a “Christian nation”, a “Republic, not a Democracy”, that Naziism and Communism were both the spawn of Liberalism ( when Naziism had — and continues to have — far wider and stronger support among conservatives than Communism ever did among liberals ), that Liberalism disenfranchises and enslaves the oppressed.

Mr. Loewen analysis of conservative revisionism and the survival of neo-Confederacy as a major political force casts a particular light, as well, on District of Columbia v. Heller. District of Columbia v. Heller is, I believe, far beyond Dred Scott or Plessy, and in an unapproachable category by itself as absolutely the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court – it is, perhaps, the worst decision that could *possibly* be made – as it literally constitutes a profound and monumental act of treason.
In wholly fabricating a “right to resist tyranny” which implicitly legitimises violence against the government — in direct contradiction to the basic founding principle of any state, the monopolising of force — the conservative “Justices” have placed a legal nuclear time bomb at the very foundations of the United States itself. The next Timothy McVeigh will be able to plead his Second Amendment rights.

The majority decision was authored, of course, by Antonin Scalia, joined by John G. Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito The apparent improper association of Scalia and Thomas ( and probably Roberts as well ) with the Koch brothers — well known to be Bircherite, and thus, yes, neo-Confederate — is a developing story.

ghostrider
Member

There was a book written back in the 50’s or 60’s? Not sure of the exact time frame. It was also probably portraid as a fantasy or science fiction book.

It was about what the US would be like if the South had actually won the Civil War and seceded. Anybody out there happen to remember that book and what the title was?

I have searched various book sites but not getting a hit on it yet.

pfz
Member
pfz

It was called; If the South had won the war, by Kantor. Published in 1961. Is that the book your thinking of?

Khirad
Member

Spike Lee made a movie like that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWtbfx7LJdM

His alternative history was more humorous than the Apartheid CSA state would have been though.

Khirad
Member

Missed this.

Celebrating Secession Without the Slaves
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/30confed.html?_r=1&hp

kesmarn
Admin

I had caught that article, Khirad. Meant to link it and got distracted; never got back to it. I see our friend, Prof. Loewen, is pictured and cited.

Nothing quite like having one’s whole history of oppression erased, eh? This and holocaust denial can really cause blood pressure to rise.

Khirad
Member

This deserves an encore even if you’ve seen it.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-9-2010/the-south-s-secession-commemoration

Saying slavery was the cause of the South’s secession during the Civil War isn’t politically correct — it’s correct correct.

Khirad
Member

The first Little Green Footballs link reminded me of this (curious conservative site that is, to take on the whackjobs on the right).

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/summer/neo-confederates#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hk_edgerton

[imgcomment image[/img]

Which in turn reminds me of:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtytAfR-2hI

Khirad
Member

I still find this essentially good to peruse over, and nothing dismantles the myth of states’ rights more than reading over the CSA Constitution.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm

Overall, the CSA constitution does not radically alter the federal system that was set up under the United States constitution. It is thus very debatable as to whether the CSA was a significantly more pro-“states’ rights” country (as supporters claim) in any meaningful sense. At least three states rights are explicitly taken away- the freedom of states to grant voting rights to non-citizens, the freedom of states to outlaw slavery within their borders, and the freedom of states to trade freely with each other.

States only gain four minor rights under the Confederate system- the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach federally-appointed state officials, and the power to distribute “bills of credit.” When people champion the cause of reclaiming state power from the feds, are matters like these at the tops of their lists of priorities?

Although, it should be noted, that as soon as the Federal government in Richmond was established, the states further recoiled from it. They couldn’t be bothered to use another state’s scrip and Georgia never saw fit to actually send troops for the cause, until it came around and bit them in the ass in the name of Sherman.

Now, for the Declarations of Secession. Mississippi’s is the most blunt about its real reasons, but I thought I’d link to a site with Georgia’s, South Carolina’s and Texas’.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Mississippi

Speaking of, when I went to the Capitol into statuary hall, each state had two personages it had selected to send to the nation’s capital. I had to laugh when I saw a statue of “Senator” Jefferson Davis (like sure, you’re honoring the senator – ironically, Jackson is one of the few Southern capitals without its own), but only recently learned of the other, whom I would not have recognized: James Z. George. What did he do? Well, lots of things to deserve a statue, but perhaps most striking given the discussion here, is that he was a signer of the Ordinance of Secession of Mississippi.

Khirad
Member

Anyone ever see these flags at Tea Party events?

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/20/brown-second-revolution/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Revolution_flag

Yeah, I remember the first flag of the Second American Revolution, as they called it back then:

[imgcomment image[/img]

Questinia
Member

[imgcomment imageamp_[/img]

choicelady
Member

Oh PLEASE, Q – tell me that photo of Mz. Sarah is photoshopped. PLEASE! That’s mind numbing.

Questinia
Member

Photo-shopped most likely by someone who likes MILF.

Khirad
Member

She’s so not on my MILF list.

But, anyhoo,

[imgcomment image?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=E41C9FE5C4AA0A14CA5397E42AF28592D9619EE30A5FBBB57C2EEC5813879666B01E70F2B3269972[/img]

choicelady
Member

bito and kes – thank you SO much for not just this solid synopsis but for the resource materials. As a trained historian (only progressives may try this at home) I’m all too familiar with revisionist history that serves a political end. Loewen does us a huge service in establishing, through careful documentation, that the South had one goal – preserving the human property of its Black slaves. His work is extraordinarily important in ending the mythology, and given the prevalence of same as a GROWING issue for the RW, especially the religious right, it is imperative that his findings be aired.

I think I’ve mentioned historian Stephani McCurry’s “Confederate Reckoning” that strips apart the fiction of the gentlemanly nature of the Confederacy. It was a government that pillaged its own – the poor whites, both soldiers and their families, and thought nothing of exploiting the women who stayed behind to eke a hardscrabble life from their small farms. Merchants routinely gouged them on purchase prices, exploited them on crop sales, and generally abused them while their husbands were gone. When the soliders themselves were abandoned by their commanding officers and left to die, it was not unknown for them to receive help from escaping slaves. This, like what Loewen has discovered, fleshes out the REAL Confederacy, the REAL story.

One question I can never answer from all of this is why poor whites bought into the war and then the mythology. What the HELL was in it for them? What was noble about the Confederacy as it pertained to anyone but the ruling class? Just how stupid are we human beings that we will trumpet loyalty to a movement that fell so far short of honor or even basic utility for its own people?

Historical revisionism has a marvelous role to play – IF it is not based on a tissue of lies but in fact excavates the truth. I once met a visitor to Slater Mill Historic Site who was hysterical that this site rejected telling the myth that Samuel Slater came over from England with the design for a spinning frame in his head. He did not. He had a rough idea of how it worked – but it was the Wilkinson brothers of Pawtucket, RI, both skilled mechanics, who figured it out in design,engineering, and construction. Now isn’t that a GREAT story? Talk about your Yankee ingenuity! But noooo. This woman, an American not a Brit, wanted the LIE and said she didn’t CARE if it was not true. The lie was better.

Huh?

I wonder if any of this, Loewen or McCurry or any damned thing, will cause people to stop putting on airs about a past and a cause that betrayed them. I hope over time things will change and people will give up the lie. I’m not holding my breath.

whatsthatsound
Member

Indeed, history repeats itself. The poor whites who bought into and even gave their lives for the “ideals” of the Confederacy sound just like the poor and lower middle class whites who actually think a.) capitalism is a political system, and b.) it is one that works for them.

kesmarn
Admin

b’ito is way too generous in mentioning me as being the “real author” of this post. He was the one who discovered the author and the fine interview with him. It doesn’t get more “real” than that!

But — moving on — c’lady, I’m sure many people are equally baffled by the willingness of poor Southern whites to fight and die for the cause of preserving slavery. These were, obviously, people who didn’t even own slaves, nor did they ever expect to!

I’m sure I’m not the first person to speculate that part of their motivation would have been the feeling that, under slavery, there was at least one group that occupied an even lower rung on the social ladder than they did — no matter how dirt poor they were.

I suspect that there’s an element of the Tea Party today that is driven by a variation of the same thing — jealousy and resentment about the fact that a black man as “leap-frogged” over them into the Whitehouse.

As long as all the built-in unfairness of slavery and/or racial discrimination were in place, they could be more sure about their ability to get jobs even when jobs were scarce. They knew that they would fare better in a courtroom than a black person would. No matter how low-down they were, they could make someone they regarded as even “lower” move off the sidewalk when they strode down Main Street, or get up off of the bench at the bus stop and yield them a seat.

Stephanie McCurry’s book sounds fascinating. Imagine how galling it must have been to Confederate white males to realize — as she said — that they absolutely had to depend on the black men and and oppressed women they had left behind to support their misguided war effort! No wonder their darkest, most fear-and-anger-filled fantasies always involved the idea of white women getting together with black males.

The one thing oppressors must fear most is the moment the various factions of the oppressed figure it all out and start uniting forces.

Now if we could just manage to pull off a 21st century version of that!

Khirad
Member

I think you know exactly why poor whites bought into it.

Same theme as Mississippi Burning.

There’s actually some other Southern literature which punctuates this quite nicely, as well.

And besides the treachery, the racism and the supporting elites against their own best interest, it was also sometimes about something just as powerful yet intangible. Something which is strong, because I feel it too — though I could have never supported secession or the Confederate cause. I almost liken it to the 92% of Afghans who didn’t know about 9/11. While none of them could have not known about slavery, they couldn’t understand why the North would ‘invade’ their homeland. This cultural solidarity is the closest it comes to actually being about state’s rights.

Waylon Jennings has the courage to say what only a Southerner could say effectively, in this self-aware lament over stubborn Southern pride – especially after Gettysburg, when it was clear the South couldn’t win.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-1_-6adQs4

The Southland’s bleeding
The Union’s pierced the heart of Dixie
Still our Generals are leading
With the courage to set us free

Maybe it’s time to count up all of the cost
We’re just hoping there’ll be some changes
Wishful thinking, we’re headed downhill
They only way now is surrender
But we’re fighting still

You know there ain’t no real chance
For us to win this
There won’t be no victory dance
At the finish

It’s just – Southern pride
It’s just – stubborn blindness

No young man’s adventure
Holding on to a fading lifestyle
Maybe at first
Now it’s terror running wild

There’s no one willing to lend a helping hand
They say we’re foolish and we can’t blame them
Let’s stop this fighting while we can
It takes a brave man, but to end this killing
It takes a braver man

You know there ain’t no real chance
For us to win this
There won’t be no victory dance
At the finish

It’s just – Southern pride
It’s just – stubborn blindness
It’s just – Southern pride
It’s just – stubborn blindness
It’s just – Southern pride
It’s just – stubborn blindness
It’s just – Southern pride
It’s just – stubborn blindness
It’s just – Southern pride

The funniest part? Perhaps only one person posting this song, or others from the album White Mansions, got that it was a critique of the South.