Apologists for the South are Twisting History

I am a huge history buff and have a particularly strong passion for American History, especially Civil War History. But I rant across an article that is either blatantly wrong or deliberately twisted. It was found on http://catholicknight.blogspot.ca/2009/02/pope-pius-ix-and-confederacy.html

I could not fully respond on the site as there is a text limit. Fortunately, I can and will respond here. Please bear in mind that I have not abandoned my strong Conservative and Christian roots. I am simply taking issue with certain of the author's facts, which seem twisted and false.

As for my position on the whole issue of slavery and the Confederacy, I sympathize with neither but cannot go so far as to state that Southerners are evil, redneck hicks who burn crosses and hate blacks. I am not ashamed of the Confederate Flag either and have one of my own. It is a historic banner and the people who fought under it did so with heroism and courage, even though I disagree for the cause in which they fought, namely the perpetuation of slavery through secession from the United States of America.

I know that many neo-Confederates deny that slavery was in any way responsible for the war. But that is the kind of knee-jerk nonsense I despise. Slavery WAS the root cause of the Civil War. It was not tariffs, or 'states rights' or some such spurious nonsense. The South seceded to preserve slavery. The North fought to save the Union, freeing slaves as a war measure and then legally in the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution.

The 13th Amendment didn't so much free slaves as acknowledge reality; that wherever the Union soldiers advanced, slavery was destroyed. It later codified what everyone know after the war; there was no slavery any more and that the victorious North would not allow it to grow again in the Union when the country was reunited.

I truly wish that many apologists, disguised as 'scholars,' would accept this reality and quit diminishing slavery when discussing the Civil War or the Confederacy. Doing so does not do them credit but shows their insecurity; the insecurity of being called 'racists' and what not.

Let me state flatly that Southerners, then or now, are no more or less 'racist' than anyone else in the United States. Their experience with slavery was unique, but it was an experience that ended in 1865, along with their goals of setting up a separate Southern Nation.

The legacy of that conflict, however, is still fascinating and no matter how much I mine this vein, I only find myself getting deeper and deeper into the bowels of a history that fascinates me still. Interestingly, though the war only lasted four years, I have spent almost 30 years researching it and studying it...and always find something new and exciting about it.

As I have oft-stated to friends, I find myself in a perpetual 'Confeder-rut' and gladly so. But it is one with my eyes open and a willingness to stand on facts and not conjecture.

I am, however, not an apologist for the South. I can state, clearly, that the South fought for her independence from the Union because they feared the destruction of slavery, an institution they wished to perpetuate. I further believe that Southerners should accept this simple truth and not hide from it any more.

That, again, does not make the Confederate Flag or the Confederate Cause any more 'racist' flag than it does the United States  or it's flag too. Flags are symbols and symbols only have power when you ascribe something to them, whether positive or negative.

The Confederate Flag might mean something to someone and something to someone else. But the issue is not about expression but 'offensiveness." Apparently being 'offended' by a flag deemed 'racist' by some is unacceptable. Being 'offended' by a stupid girl wiggling her behind (or 'twerking'), that 'offense' is ok and we should ignore it.  But you cannot somehow be expected to look away from a flag you deem offensive?

Here in lies the hypocrisy and the double standard of our age and why, in some sense, waving a Confederate Flag, the 'Rebel Flag,' IS a symbol of freedom. It is an expression of your desire to go against convention and political correctness run amok. It is a symbol of rebelling against a tyrannical system of government and policies that denies you the right to think and believe what you want because it might 'offend' someone else.

In such ways are symbols redeemed. To that end I am happy to see it happening to the Confederate flag, a blood-stained banner that, in my mind, had it's meaning stolen by the Ku Klux Klan and other racists groups.

That said, we cannot deny the facts of history as some wish too. The author of the article clearly did and I remain upset and insulted by it, as should everyone who reads this rebuttal too.

Please read on, then, and send your own comments either to me or to him or to both. If there is any love for truth left in us, then it behooves us all to embrace the truth (no matter how difficult), rather than to twist it to cover our insecurities or deny reality, as the author of the article in question clearly did and as many other historical revisionists and apologists for the South are still trying to do.

Read on:

I take grave issue with the comments you made here, without annotation and verification of the facts. I'm somewhat a student of the Civil War and have studied the political history of the Confederacy from the first to the end and I am rather beguiled by the comments the author makes, WITHOUT sources to back them up!

My first point is this:

The author of this article states that "The American Civil War cannot be cast in the simplistic terms of pro-slavery verses anti-slavery."  ON that point there is NO DISAGREEMENT. Lincoln himself said he began the war to repossess the property of the Federal government seized by the so-called 'seceding states' - this can be found in his First inaugural address.  He further claimed that "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." (LETTER TO HORACE GREELY, AUG. 22, 1862, A MONTH BEFORE THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION.)

For this, this question is settled. Abolishing slavery was SECONDARY to the Union effort to reunite the country. I still maintain that SLAVERY was the root cause of the Civil War, it's protection being the motivation behind secession and the firing on Fort Sumter, which was the IMMEDIATE cause and justification for the military action taken by the Union government.

But now I get to the big disagreement. The author claims that "General U.S. Grant said that if he thought the war was about freeing the slaves, he would turn in his sword and fight for the other side."  THIS IS IRRESPONSIBLE. According to the source I have, regarding this comment, it was not verifiable because it was deemed HERESAY (Reported in the Democratic Handbook in ??, as quoted from a newspaper account. The account is questionable as hearsay, given that one individual overheard another say that Grant said this.  See  http://www.freedomsgateway.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Fl3td8E_WBQ=   ). Reporting hearsay as fact is disgusting and cheap and a sign of desperation, and should be beneath the contempt of this author! IF not, then he has lost all credibility!

What I can say, FOR CERTAIN, is that Grant DID NOT LIKE SLAVERY nor was he a sympathizer of it. In a conversation Grant had with German Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck in July, 1878, Grant said that the Civil War was waged, "Not only save the Union,  but destroy slavery."  "I suppose, however, the Union was the real sentiment, the dominant sentiment," said the prince (Bismarck). "In the beginning, yes," said the General, "but as soon as slavery fired upon the flag it was felt, we all felt, even those who did not object to slaves, that slavery must be destroyed. We felt that it was a stain to the Union that men should be bought and sold like cattle." (see   http://www.granthomepage.com/grantslavery.htm )

CLEARLY THIS CONTRADICTS what the author claims about Grant's pro-slavery sentiment! AS for "Grant was also a slave owner before, during and after the war." THAT IS RIDICULOUS! Grant was in Illinois and the North before and just at the start of the Civil War WHERE SLAVERY WAS OUTLAWED! He might have inherited slaves when he married his wife, Julia, but was not long in the South or Slave-holding areas to use them. Further, records show that Grant FREED the one slave he 'owned' through her, William Jones, but he was FREED (not sold, even though Grant could have used the money) in 1859 ( http://www.querycat.com/question/c4db9c006dd0c0dbd770bcdca34a4a4b ).

The truth is that the slaves were owned NOT DIRECTLY BY GRANT but by his Father-In-Law and they were all freed when the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865. Grant did not have a plantation and while he might have had some supervisory control, it is ERROENOUS and TWISTED to say he was as full-blown 'slave owner' for the simple fact that he could not bring them to the North without them either running away or being declared free within those states because of state personal-liberty laws.

As "General Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist." THAT IS CRAZY TALK! Lee OWNED SLAVES ON HIS PLANTATION. He only freed them because of his father-in-law's will, that they be freed five years after his death. This was done in 1862! (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2007/06/24/the-private-thoughts-of-robert-e-lee) IF LEE WAS AN ABOLITIONIST he would have freed them IMMEDIATELY! But Lee was no abolitionist! He did say, and I believe this is true, that slavery was a burden for the country and a greater moral wrong for the white than the black race. But he believed in a gradual abolition and that blacks were eminently far better treated in the United States AS SLAVES than they ever could be in Africa (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Lee%20on%20Slavery.htm  ).

Until abolition happened, however, Lee, for all his progressive thinking, was quite a thorough slave owner. Indeed, he thoroughly whipped a black slave that escaped in 1859 and was recaptured ( http://fair-use.org/wesley-norris/testimony-of-wesley-norris ) - tell me if Grant ever did that???!

Either way, clearly the author is trying to fudge history AGAIN and reveals only his determination to find some moral equivalency between the North and South over the issue of slavery. THERE IS NONE, though, and it's time foolish apologists like him dropped the pretence!

As for "Many Southerners shared his views" that's mere conjecture or blind hope. People accepted slavery for what it was; a common element of Southern life. In fact the argument can be made that the vast majority approved of slavery by simply inferring that 'many' was not the most since, if it was the majority, there would not have been slaves in the South at all.

Finally, the notion that "The 13th Amendment that legally freed the slaves, (not the Emancipation Proclamation), was actually ratified by many Southern states before many Northern states" IS spurious! Why? Because the Reconstruction governments in those states were FORCED TOO by the occupying Federal forces. These states could not get readmission to the government without slavery being abolished as a condition.

Northern states might have adopted the 13th amendment slower but it was also largely academic in those states BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT SLAVERY TO BEGIN WITH!

Legally abolishing slavery, in a state that had none, makes as much sense as voting to ban nuclear weapons when you don't have them to begin with. Clearly, the Northern states did adopt this amendment but it was not necessary since when the amendment was approved by 2/3rd of the states ratifying, it came into force nation-wide anyways.

Here's a list of the states ratifying the 13th Amendment and the dates. Notice that many Confederate states adopted them early BUT they were either occupied or under military administration. They adopted the resolutions under Lincoln's 10 per cent of prewar voters rules for Reconstruction - these governments were then declared INVALID by the Radicals when they took over Congress in 1867, making the Southern states adoptions effectively null and void, and requiring them to adopt NEW state constitutions that specifically recognized that slavery was over.

 The dates of ratification were:

Illinois, February 1, 1865;

Rhode Island, February 2, 1865;

Michigan, February 2, 1865;

Maryland, February 3, 1865;

New York, February 3, 1865;

Pennsylvania, February 3, 1865;

West Virginia, February 3, 1865;

Missouri, February 6, 1865;

Maine, February 7, 1865;

Kansas, February 7, 1865;

Massachusetts, February 7, 1865;

Virginia, February 9, 1865; * reconstruction government, under military occupation

Ohio, February 10, 1865;

Indiana, February 13, 1865;

Nevada, February 16, 1865;

Louisiana, February 17, 1865;* under military occupation

Minnesota, February 23, 1865;

Wisconsin, February 24, 1865;

Vermont, March 9, 1865;

Tennessee, April 7, 1865; * reconstruction government, 

Arkansas, April 14, 1865; * under military occupation

Connecticut, May 4, 1865;

New Hampshire, July 1, 1865;

South Carolina, November 13, 1865; * under military occupation

Alabama, December 2, 1865; * under military occupation

North Carolina, December 4, 1865; * under military occupation

Georgia, December 6, 1865. * under military occupation

In closing, clearly the author of this article is a REVISIONIST and a either a liar or self-deluded! He has deliberately twisted the facts through the most blatant pandering to the stupefied apologists for slavery and secession that I have yet seen. And his shoddy fact checking is sad and insulting to anyone with an ounce of common sense or who knows a modicum of history.

Sincerely,

I.M. Ulysses