Bias Against Southern History Still Remains Due To Ignorance
February 23, 2008
The bias of post-Civil War history against the former Confederate States of America continues as ever. People still find it hard to look at history objectively, especially their own.
One example is seen in the upcoming 200th birthday of two different American Presidents.
Lincoln on the one hand is getting lots of respect, never mind that he refused to recognize the right of others to be independent as the nation’s founders had. So he gets credited with saving the Union and bringing us to the wonderful point we are at today where our current President and political leaders are giving away our nation to unarmed invaders.
On the other hand, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, who fought for states rights—and especially for the right of secession—is seldom mentioned in history books. That is, of course, because because history is largely written by the victors and they rarely bother to write about their own shortcomings, nor are they likely to point out the accomplishments of the vanquished.
It is not surprising how many Americans believe the Civil War was nothing more than a war against slavery and that any emblem of the Confederacy is representative of racism. Ignorance has never been in short supply in America, that’s for sure.
As the article that inspired this post mentions, Davis was an unrepentant Confederate. But he also, in his own words, said the war wasn’t about slavery, but about the right of self-governance (the south was full of Scots-Irish/Ulster Scots after all, and politics are genetic) and a willingness to give everything up to have it…just as those fighting the Revolutionary War had:
“You may emancipate every Negro in the Confederacy, but we will be free. We will govern ourselves … if we have to see every Southern plantation sacked, and every Southern city in flames.”
— Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America
Most Northerners are probably just embarrassed that there was slavery in the North and that Northerners practiced it through the entire Civil War. But, they have done their best in the fine tradition of hypocrites to paint the Civil War as a war about slavery…just not their slavery.
I wonder, given that we have a government that is becoming increasingly invasive of privacy, chipping away at our liberties and personal freedoms, full of corrupt political leaders in bed with those nations that are a threat to us, and doing nothing to secure our borders…if Davis’ upcoming 200th celebration won’t have many Americans from the South looking back on their heritage and thinking it might be time to revisit the old dream of self-governance?
Honestly, how could it be any worse than the government we suffer today? And, since there’s no slavery, what argument would others use this time to suggest secessionist states were in the wrong? The US government just recognized Kosovo’s independence—and ironically, for the same reasons they denied independence to the states that made up the Confederacy…
Greed, resources, political gain and hypocrisy.
Lincoln himself said, after all, that if he could defeat the Confederacy without freeing the slaves he would pursue that route. As the war became desperate Lincoln discarded that option and reluctantly freed the slaves within the Confederacy by Presidential proclamation, hoping to sow discord in the South and create rebellion.
Most Americans like to forget that Lincoln only freed the slaves in the Confederacy during the war and that the North still practiced slavery through the entirety of the war, up until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed in 1865. Slavery existed and was practiced in all 13 of the original states, and throughout the North.
Many people who come from those states that formed the North or Union states believe a made-up revisionist history that says they never even owned slaves. Such self-delusion seems to reverberate in modern times with people similarly ignoring the damage illegal immigration is doing to our nation and decrying those states whose legislatures take action when the federal government has failed in its responsibilities.
Don’t take my word for it. Perhaps a northern historian might convince those who cling to the lie that the North had no slaves of the fallacy of their belief.
Entry Filed under: Beliefs, Culture, Education, Government, Heritage, History, Mid-South, Oklahoma, Opinion, Random, Random Thoughts, Reading, Social Issues, Thoughts, War. .
13 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
Seed Newsvine
1.
Steve Rosenbaum | February 23, 2008 at 4:02 pm
History has always been written by the winners with one exception..Irish History. As we know, if you put 50 people on a street corner to observe an accident, you’d get 50 different versions of what happened.
2.
john | February 23, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I know they did in indiana.When I was a kid we lived in Fairland IN,in a beautiful two story home.The story behind this house was that a former gov of IN had lived there.We had a barn,huge hen house,and the slave quarters on this property.A huge basement that had numerous tunnels to different parts of the property was great for my brothers and i to explore.I never understood why they tore the house down and not to try to preserve it.It was full of oak trim including the entire library.12 ft ceilings,4 fireplaces with huge oak mantels,and a beautiful staircase.Why wouldnt the historical society try to preserve that part of their history?Unless they want their history to be as they write and preserve it.
3.
Sean Wilson | February 23, 2008 at 7:22 pm
@ Steve — that’s quite true indeed, about the multiple versions. And Irish history does indeed stand out as one good exception to the rule. Every time I crack open The Story of the Irish Race by Seamus MacManus I am reminded of it. (I ought to read it through in a single sitting, as it seems every time I read a few chapters, even those I have already, I come upon some tidbit it seems I missed.)
@ John — What a great story to share. It illustrates the very thing which many others have pointed at for generations and which mainstream society seemed to ignore. As with any war, memories are painful. I think America felt a particularly strong need to find some sort of moral high ground to make part of its history after such a bloody conflict. Unfortunately, i t was done at the expense of an entire culture and nearly half the nation.
The worst part of it all is that it has created a lingering tension in the south, but perhaps that is what they hoped for all along. From a Machiavellian sort of view, you would do well, after all, to paint any secessionist region as vile and inhumane while making yourself out to be noble and good.
Slavery is a tragedy and something I find intolerable, and everyone I know feels pretty much the same. However, it was an institution around the world during the time that was the backdrop for the Civil War. People tend to forget that, and to observe the situation in relation to that, and too often try to understand it in a modern frame of reference where anyone in a civilized country is shocked at the idea of slavery.
Thanks for dropping by, both of you, to share your thoughts. Take care and have a wonderful weekend.
4.
Joe Wilson | February 24, 2008 at 2:20 am
Mexico was also known for its slavery, and much too often
they try and point the finger at us here in the united
states for having slaves in our past. It’s going to ve interesting to see if any of the presidental runners don’t try using the civil war somewhere in their speeches in the days ahead.
5.
Sean Wilson | February 24, 2008 at 3:46 am
@ Joe — Another good point. Yes, Mexico was also a nation that practiced slavery. As to whether or not any Presidential candidates drawing upon such imagery, I doubt that will happen.
They’re more likely to miss making their intended point and get people thinking about whether or not the government is screwed up enough to consider such drastic actions as led to that bloody time in our history. Then again, I wouldn’t put it past them. They’ll do and say anything to win.
6.
Jonathan | March 31, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Heres my view slavery was a part of the south at the time so it was likely to be something legislated the south want to decide how it ran its business. Slavery has ended the confederates still want self governance and are not advocate for its return. So why should slavery be an issue when the system no longer exists. slavery is wrong why is abortion right?? I find it to be hypocritical to say abortion is right when it makes the same arguments slave owners made. Its my property,its not human,I can do with my body (property) as i wish. counter arguments slaves are humans,babies are humans they should be given equal rights and protections so this is my point
7.
Sean Wilson | April 4, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Johnathan — thanks for dropping by to read and share your thoughts. What an interesting moral argument on abortion, equating it to the views that were held on slaves. I think that might perhaps be the first time I have heard that and your argument makes perfect sense to me.
Interestingly enough, when you mention the Confederates still want self-governance, it had me thinking of the various Southern Independence Parties. I even thought about signing on to one, but unfortunately, they’re plagued by the same thing most parties are: too many issues make up the party platform and so no widely unifying consensus will ever be built.
I’m all for booting the occupying North out of the Confederate States…however, I wouldn’t care to see the religious right nut-jobs getting their way and doing the same thing radical Islam does in forcing Sharia law on people by forcing some Christian religious mandate on any restored Confederacy. Why shouldn’t I be able to buy beer before noon on Sunday?
It’s the little things that turn out to be the biggest issues. There’s always someone trying to co-opt history and heritage and twist it to suit their own views and so nostalgia is rarely the place to turn for political change. While I would love to see the South rise again, I would want it to be more enlightened and progressive–and not a throwback to the pre-American Revolution era thinking. I don’t want to see a Christian version of the Taliban…we already know what the Inquisition turned out like.
Thanks again for dropping by. Have a great day!
8.
Drawn2Know | May 9, 2008 at 12:48 am
In no way do I intend the following comments to be derogatory.
1. This article comes off as inherently… well… biased
2. I feel that it is misleading to limit the context of Northern - Southern tension to merely slavery. Political subjugation and sabotage, as well as economic institutional policy between whigs and dems, and territorial expansion (English Oregon, eg.), all played an enormous role. Slavery was merely the agenda by which the South functioned.
3. There exists much debate as to whether the South seceded… or rebelled and committed treason. And you are only partially correct in asserting that our founding fathers intended for states to exercise the right to secede. This provision for self-determination of secession was included in the Articles of the Confederation… and was regarded as one of its greatest flaws…. a flaw indeed addressed by its successor.
4. While I agree that the North was guilty of many of the same ethical violations the which we historians collectively lump on the South… I disagree with painting the Confederacy as anything other than a dangerous and disaster-bound rogue state for this reason alone.
5. For a unique and highly in depth study of many of these issues, i would encourage you, if possible, to attend “The Contested Legacy of Jefferson Davis,” a day-long symposium set for June 27 at the Kentucky Historical Society in Frankfort.
PS- while I am sure you abhor slavery as much as anyone, certain parts of the “historical relativity” argument come off as pro-slavery.
Sincerely,
Someone right in the middle
9.
Sean Wilson | May 9, 2008 at 2:02 am
Drawn2Know—thank you for dropping by to share your thoughts and comments. I don’t take your comments to be derogatory at all, never fear.
I would like to offer my thoughts on the points you bring up–all good ones to point out by the way.
1. It is most definitely written with a pro-Southern culture slant. I am a Southerner after all.
As to bias, I’m not sure I would go that far, but simply sharing one side of a story can certainly seem biased, though bias as I understand it would mean being prejudicial…or alternately an intentional distortion of facts. If anything, I would suggest to you that American history has rather distorted the facts about the Confederacy and its history. Pointing that out being a prejudiced argument? I’m not sure on that, but again–I did write it with a Southern slant as it was about the birthday of Davis after all.
2. As you can see in the post, I plainly state as much:
It is my experience, that it most often is those from what would have been “the North” or Union that seem unaware of this point. However, I do think you yourself may have been misled into thinking that slavery was the mechanism by which the South operated.
The entirety of the American colonies and later United States were founded on slavery. It was not simply the South where slavery existed. As I point out, it was every bit the same institution in the North and existed just as long as it did in the South. There is also a popular misperception that every Southerner was a slave owner.
Let’s make sure, too, that we point out that the North did not necessarily want to fight a war over slavery, but that they were certainly willing to fight one over the prospective loss of the resources (such as agriculture which at the time did depend largely on slavery) within the Southern states. Part of that willingness to fight over resources was that there were plenty of Northern politicians who did not want to lose the resources of the South because they felt they would need them in the event it came to war with other powers/nations, and so–in their view–it was unacceptable to lose the South.
It is also one of many simple truths is that the North needed Southern resources for long term viability, while the South did not necessarily need the North’s production capabilities–as they would have been able in time to create their own such capabilities.
3. It is a moot point. The United States of America was founded out of rebellion, and the Declaration of Independence which was used by the Founding Fathers as their justification gave every bit the same credibility and rights of self-determination to those who founded the Confederate States of America. The Articles of Confederation need not even come into the picture on that one…
4. This time, perhaps it is I that should be pointing to bias in your statement? The North was indeed guilty of everything of which it accused the South. There is indeed one notable difference–the Confederacy stayed true to the spirit of the founding of America, where the North stayed closer to those English roots of America, seeking to deny to fellow Americans that which they had a right to and chose: the right to self-determination.
5. It might be an interesting symposium to attend, it sounds like it anyway. I would say that I don’t necessarily agree with much of the “lost cause mentality/idea” that a lot of scholars seem to advocate. One particular reason I don’t is because the Confederacy was in large part formed and led by men of Scots-Irish (Ulster Scots) ancestry, who were not at all given–nor prone to lost causes, but rather were given to fighting for the noble cause of independence and freedom as attested to by history both in Europe and the Americas.
Our first President would never have thought the founders of the Confederacy to be believers in lost causes:
I think, rather, that a truly unbiased look at the situation can show many different aspects to the story of the Civil war, but there is one point that is clearly ignored on a consistent basis even though it is the most obvious one. The Confederate States of America determined their destiny and exercised their right to self-determination. The Union then sought to deny the Confederacy all the things that it sought for itself, in direct contravention to the principles upon which it had itself been founded and in contravention of the common heritage that the founders of the Confederacy shared with the founders of the United States.
That is to say that those putting forth the whole “lost cause” idea are in my humble opinion simply engaging in more of the very self-same attempts at demeaning Southern history as I suggest in my post. There is a far cry between lost cause and an unwillingness to give in to tyranny. There are two great weaknesses in democracy of any form–be it a republic or any other: tyranny of the masses, and the in-built hypocrisy that resists the will of a majority to no longer participate.
The Union has the distinction of having demonstrated both in the post Greco-Roman world that birthed democracy to a degree that has remained unrivaled.
Lastly, you are quite right that I abhor slavery. I do not attempt to absolve the Confederacy for slavery through moral relativism, however. I think that is something far beyond simply pointing out common misconceptions among Americans about their nation’s history. Moral relativism would be obvious if I were suggesting that the South’s slavery was OK because it was practiced in the North, or that we are taking it out of context and need to understand it in the context of that time.
I do neither. Slavery has always been and always will be an evil which I personally would never tolerate. What I do make sure to do, though, is point out the hypocrisy of those who conveniently suggest the war was indeed about slavery while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.
There were indeed many issues that led down the path to civil war—some simple, some quite complex.
And please, none of my commentary is meant to be directed personally at you in any form. It is merely general commentary on the points you raise. I do thank you for dropping by to add thought-provoking ideas into the mix.
In the end, that is good for the story of America, whatever views one holds on the subject of that terrible war.
Have a wonderful day!
10.
Drawn2Know | May 9, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Sean,
Good to hear back from you… I appreciate your generous and gracious response. I can tell that you, too, enjoy a good historical discussion!
I would like to first say that i agree with all of your points.
I would also like to admit academic irresponsibility on my part:
after reading your original post and my response more closely, I can clearly see that i misconstrued your point. I apologize, I simply didnt read as thoroughly as your points deserved.
Now that I have a clearer head I agree with you completely.
I just wanted to clarify one thing: in my second point I didn’t mean to imply that slavery was the south’s only preoccupation. I meant that much of what the south(ern democrats) were doing politically at the time was intended to preserve and expand the institution of slavery which they saw as fundamental to southern agriculture. This created a mentality in the North that every move made by the south was calculated to undermine the many ‘compromises’ litigated at the time. You bring up a very good point, however, mentioning that the North acted with “wartime resources” in mind.
Indeed, much as history is misunderstood today, so did the North and South adulterate the other’s intentions.
Thanks again, for clarifying things for me. I am impressed by your perspective on this subject. I will stop by in the future to check things out!
PS. Is that a Ron Paul banner I see you flying? Ron Paul rocks!
11.
Sean Wilson | May 9, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Thanks for dropping by again. You are quite right, and I agree that the South did many things designed to undermine compromises and preserve the institution of slavery. No question of that.
I think the main thing I would like people to realize is that they did not necessarily do so just because they wanted slaves. Sure, here you could get into the dangerous waters of moral relativism and make the whole case for “well, that’s just the way the world was at that time” but I won’t.
The South would probably have needed it as an institution to survive economically for a few decades after secession if it had gone peacefully. I highly doubt, however, that it would have remained as an institution in light of the advance of history and the accelerating rate of discovery, enlightenment, scientific discovery. Of course, we have no way of knowing that. It just seems to me that the South’s eventual industrialization and the tide of capitalism and enlightenment would have ended it at some point naturally.
As a Southerner, I see the Civil War quite differently than what they taught me in college–which came across as decidedly biased in my opinion. I see it as a war that sought to prevent the loss of needed resources and to maintain territorial integrity, in order to thwart a dimming of political status among the world’s nations on the part of the North that would have resulted if the secession had gone uncontested.
Slavery was simply the rallying cry and topic of convenience that was used to cause division, whip emotions, and fan the flames of the cause of both sides.
I hope you will find much to read and enjoy on the blog.
Oh, and yes, I’m a Ron Paul supporter. In fact, if the South rose again, I would nominate him for President.
12.
Angela | May 10, 2008 at 12:16 pm
You sure about that? If this was true, slavery wouldn’t exist in its many forms around the globe today.
The way I see it, the support for the Confederacy supports the “peculiar institution” it retained long after the North abolished slavery. Yes, slavery existed in the colonies and the abolishment of slavery didn’t eradicate widespread racism, BUT to say “history is written by the victors,” it comes across as petulant. I wish that all the minorities in America who were oppressed because they weren’t “white” could use that argument when pointing out our exclusion from the history books. Find a few blacks, Jews, Chinese, and Mexicans with long roots in the South who want history to stop belittling the Confederacy and we can talk. Until then, it just hears like the privilege of a white American who feels that they’re not included in the game, when the game was written for them.
Give me a break.
13.
Sean Wilson | May 10, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Angela, thanks for dropping by to read and comment.
Yes, I’m quite sure about that. Slavery has been abolished as an institution in every single democracy around the globe. It was a matter of time.
As to the many forms of slavery that exist today–such as they exist–are in non-democratic societies and mostly in Africa and Asia and the Middle East. Most are also rooted in religious and decidedly non-Western institutions of civilization. The sex slave trade isn’t even an institution, meaning I know of no country that has it as an institutional policy or openly condones it.
I would give you a break, except really, I don’t think you deserve any special break. The least you could do is check your history and do a bit of research. If you had read even my original post all the way through you would have been aware that contrary to what you just stated, the North did not abolish slavery before the South. In fact, slavery was legal in the North until after the end of the war.
You may find it convenient to ignore that, and that is exactly what my post was about. Too many people don’t even know their basic American history and go around accusing the South and those who live in it as having been somehow more horrible than those living in the North.
As to the race issue, please, give me a break. There have been slaves of every race, even white. However, you are also ignoring the fact that most slaves of any race are sold into slavery by their own people, which was something quite different from those taken as slaves in war. That applies to all those you mentioned. And really, have the revisionists rewritten history to suggest that we had Jewish slaves in the South now? If you want to split hairs, there were in fact even white indentured servants in both the North and South.
If anything sounds like it is unsettled here, it seems to me that you have a chip on your shoulder about race, I must say. first of all, I’m 1/4 Native American…and as I have written elsewhere in my blog, I have been told by more than a few whites that I wasn’t white enough, but I also get told as often or more by Native Americans that I’m not native enough either.
Seems you and those people are guilty of the very thing you like to go around accusing others of–being racist. And really, what do you know of slavery above and beyond what anyone else knows of it? I feel pretty confident in saying that no one living in America today has ever experienced it. So, perhaps you need to get the chip of YOUR shoulder and think about the history of the nation objectively.
Because really, I can bitch and moan more than any black who just has slavery to complain about that their ancestors may have endured. My ancestors had to deal with genocidal policies, slavery, war, the loss of their homeland and being put on a reservation. My grandmother went to the Chilocco Indian school which played a significant role in helping destroy Native American culture.
Why is it that people like you go around thinking you have some special background that give you all the right to complain or be offended or a bigger cross to bear?
As to Mexicans with a long history in the south, you might actually have meant Hispanics. You see, the South, after all was an American nation. There were Hispanics who had lived in Texas and were residents of Texas, however. There are those in Texas (I grew up in south Texas myself along the border) whose ancestors served proudly in the Confederacy. Again, you might want to check your history before you go making accusations.
In the meantime, please feel free to share with us the many places and forms of slavery that exist? If you’re talking wage slavery, that’s something altogether different. Show me where real forced slavery is institutionalized? I bet mostly it happens to be in Africa and Asia, and not in democratic societies. You can cast doubts all you want at whether or not slavery would have ceased to exist on its own, but the simple truth is that it did–in democracies in Europe as well as in North America, and far more quickly than it disappeared in other places.
Let’s not forget–whites did not bring slavery to the Americas. It was already here and already practiced by Native Americans from one end of the hemisphere to the other. We do want to be historically accurate after all, don’t we?
But, really, all I want is for people to at least get their history straight. What they think of it after doing so, well, no one can really do anything about that. However, when people go around propagating inaccuracies and outright lies, or making racist comments, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them.
What about my brother (who technically my half brother) who is also 1/4 Native American and has a father of Castilian Spanish heritage…and also is Scots-Irish? He is proud of his heritage as am I. My niece, his daughter, has a mother who is of Mexican descent. Who the hell are you to go around telling me what I think, know, or have experienced, or that I am somehow privileged because of my skin color? I fought for this country–how about you? I also lost everything and ended up homeless, living in a cardboard box at one point–how about you? I bet you have had every bit as much a privileged life as I have, possible even more.
I worked for everything I have, put my ass on the line in a war just so I could get money to go to school. Even then, the Army screwed me out of tens of thousands of dollars on my College Fund because some jackass E-6 checked a wrong box. Then, the government takes my parental rights away from me so that I can never see my son again because if you don’t see your child for 3 months in some states it is considered abandonment. I’m sorry I was living in a box in the snow and worrying about staying alive. This is how my country rewarded me. And I suppose I could go don’t go around with a sanctimonious attitude, lugging a cross to stick in everyone’s face, but I don’t.
But, please, if you’re so inclined, go ahead. Feel free to share with us the incredibly difficult and oppressed life you led so we can all contrast it with mine. I haven’t even scratched the surface…
All I have asked is for people to get their history straight.
Do have a wonderful day, though.