The Rewriting of History–The States’ Rights Fable.

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.

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.

Missed this.

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

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

[img]http://www.oliverwillis.com/img/edgerton.jpg[/img]

Which in turn reminds me of:

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

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.

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:

[img]http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us-csa7.gif[/img]

[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_P3O6EY4r074/TH-jw1BtUwI/AAAAAAAAAVM/YwjAFbbpU6g/s1600/sarah_palin_5.jpgamp_[/img]

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.