Just admit it: the Confederacy had it right.

Most of the political problems in this country won't be settled until more folks realize that the South was right.  I know that goes against the politically correct edicts, but the fact is that on the subject of the constitutional republic, the Confederate leaders were right and the Northern Republicans were wrong.

Many people today even argue for Confederate positions without realizing it.  For example, if you argue for strict construction of the Constitution, you are arguing the Confederate position; when you oppose pork-barrel spending, you are arguing the Confederate position; when you oppose protective tariffs, you are arguing the Confederate position; when you argue for the Bill of Rights, you are arguing the Confederate position; and when you argue that the Constitution limits the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, you are arguing the Confederate position.

One of things that gets lost when you adopt the politically correct oversimplification that the War Between the States was a Civil War all about slavery is a whole treasure trove of American political history.

It was not a civil war.  A civil war is when two or more factions contend for control of one government.  At no time did the South intend to or attempt to overthrow the government of the United States.  The Southern states simply withdrew from what they correctly viewed as a voluntary union.  They formed their own union and adopted their own constitution.

Abraham Lincoln's invasion of the South was entirely without any constitutional authority.  And it's as plain as an elephant at a tea party that Lincoln did not seek to preserve the union in order to end slavery.  All you have to do is read his first inaugural address.  What Lincoln didn't want to lose was the tax revenue generated by the South.

As Northern states gained a majority in both houses, they began to use the South as a cash cow.  Here's how it worked.  Most Southerners who exported cotton bartered the cotton in Europe for goods.  When the protective tariffs were imposed, that meant Southerners had to pay them.  To make matters worse, the North would then use the revenue for pork-barrel projects in their states.  The South was faced with either paying high tariffs and receiving no benefits from the revenue or buying artificially high-priced Northern goods.

The South opposed pork-barrel spending.  Its correct view was that because the federal government was merely the agent of all the states, whatever money it spent should be of equal benefit.  The South's position on public lands was that they belonged to all the people, and the federal government had no authority to give them away to private interests.

The South also believed that whether a new state would authorize slavery or forbid it was a matter for the people in that territory to decide for themselves.  The South never insisted that any new state had to be a slave state, but it opposed the Northern position that any new state must be a free state.

Northerners had announced that they would not be bound by the Constitution.  What you had was the rise of modern nationalism fighting the original republic founded by the American Revolution.  So regardless of where you were born, you might be a Southerner philosophically.

This article was written by Charley Reese.  Charley Reese's email address is osoreese@aol.com

Last Thought.......I was sent several comments about the "Confederacy Had It Right" article by Charlie Reese.  Some good, some bad.  I do not want our readers to become obsessed with this issue to the point that the News Magazine will suffer the consequences.  I, as editor/publisher, of the News Magazine have given this topic a lot of thought and have concluded that this "Who started the war and why" issue will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.  In order to keep this News Magazine in a neutral position, I will refrain from participating in this debate.  This publication is a means to link reenactors from around the state and to hopefully provide some interesting topics and general information about our hobby.  I think the Florida Reenactors Online News Magazine should be an informative, enjoyable, positive publication.  I will continue to print historically significant facts on not only slavery but all topics leading up to, through and after the Civil War but let's not get bogged down in the "reasons issues".  I hope you understand and agree with this decision.  In fairness to both sides, I will print this last word on the Reese article.  Overall, the best rebuttal came from Tom Fasulo.  He summed it up the best when he wrote...

Although I do mostly Union these days, I don't hate the South or its soldiers.  What I try to remember is that people on both sides fought for reasons they believed in, reasons they were willing to die for.  On both sides there were people with goodness in their hearts, and people who just  hatred.  Some fought for country, some fought for money or power, others for reasons good and bad.  We can't candy coat them, they were just ordinary men and women, caught up in an experience that overwhelmed many.  So please consider the following...

Why is it that people accuse you of "oversimplification" when you don't believe in the version of history they wish happened?  While everyone has the right to their own beliefs, it would be folly to declare that black is white or crops freeze in the summer. For example, I have a friend who dislikes Lincoln because, "He lied when he promised South Carolina he wouldn't reinforce Fort Sumter."  The fact is Lincoln never promised this - Secretary of War Stanton did, without Lincoln's permission or knowledge.  But my friend has made up (or closed) his mind, or just needs a rationalization for disliking Lincoln.  And as for the South not wanting new states to be slave states, every major political compromise in the early 19th century was over admitting one slave state and one free state at the same time to keep votes equal in the Senate..  More than once the South threatened to leave the Union if it didn't get its way.  While the South had lost control of the House due to the North's larger population, it still dominated the Senate.  Remember, there were more slave states than the 11 that eventually formed the Confederacy.  Nothing could pass Congress, whether pork-barrel projects or increased duties, unless the southern slave senators agreed.  In fact, every attempt by northern states to increase duties was beaten by the solid southern bloc in league with northern Democrats. Southern states weren't the only agricultural states, so were many northwestern states.  Was it just coincidence that only 11 southern slave states tried to secede?  I'm betting the Wisconsin and Nebraska farmers weren't in favor of higher import duties either, but neither state seceded.  It was only in the election of 1860, when the South saw its control of Congress threatened that it decided to leave the Union.  Or as they say on the playground, "If you won't play by my rules, then I'm taking my ball and going home."

If reenactors are interested in the political causes of the war and their development, then I urge them to read James McPherson's Pulitzer Prize winning "Battle Cry of Freedom" - a part of The Oxford History of the United States.  McPherson is the "dean" of Civil War historians and I'm willing to bet he knows a bit more about the causes of the war than most of us combined. The New York Times Book Review calls the "Battle Cry of Freedom," "...the best one-volume treatment of its subject... "I've been reading Civil War history for over 40 years and I still learned from this book.  If you want to know why the soldiers fought, then read McPherson's "For Cause and Comrades - Why Men fought in the Civil War."  This book is based on tens of thousands of letters and thousands of diaries written by the men who actually went off and died, not by latter day apologists who sit around campfires today and revise history to suit themselves.

But don't read just McPherson, there are many authors out there who have their own stories to tell - and a great many of them are the men and women we try to honor on the field.  Read their books and listen to what they have to say, even the parts that don't fit into your view of history.   And avoid those books written by authors who try to rewrite history and think they can do it if they just publish a book.  For example, whenever someone quotes to me from the "The South Was Right," I always ask them why it was that the Civil War press gave that "novel" a universal panning.

If all you are going to do at a reenactment is shoot your rifle and take hits,  then you don't need to know anything about the Civil War.  Feel free to spend your time around the campfire trading  stories with your pards.  But if you are going to start talking to spectators, writing articles in newsletters, or teaching new reenactors who look to you for the truth, then I suggest that you first read real history and then read some more and never stop reading.  Don't repeat stories to people just because you hear someone else tell it and it sounded good. [And while we're on this subject, would someone please kill that story of a Federal father finding the score for Taps on his dead Confederate son's body.]  Just because you wear wool on a hot day and sweat doesn't give you the right to make up or pass on false information on the war.  There are so many true stories to tell that it's a shame to dishonor the men and women of the 1860s by rewriting their history.
Thomas R. Fasulo
Extension Entomologist University of Florida

Point - Counterpoint......If you remember, I reprinted an article written by Charlie Reese in the second issue of July's news magazine.  I had several responses to that particular article and some discussion was printed in the August issue.  The article is also posted on the History page of this web site.  It seems that particular article is still ruffling a feather or two.  Below you will find a "point - counterpoint" exchange between David Mullins (13th Indiana) and Tom Fasulo (Local historian).  These letters are extremely well written and both men put a lot of thought into them.  I have reprinted each letter below in their entirety with no changes at all.  What you see is exactly what was sent to me.  I will not take sides in this debate but I do invite you to read and think about what is printed here.  Make your own decision.  I hope you enjoy these incredible letters as much as I did.

I’m writing in response to Tom Fasulo’s rebuttal of Charlie Reese’s article The Confederacy had it Right. Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I’m not trying to start a row. I know passions can run high around this topic and one thing I want to avoid is a heated argument which produces no benefit. As reenactors or "living historians" we shouldn’t avoid discussions about the hows and whys of the Civil War - the exchange of information and references among ourselves is a great way to learn and to see things from a different perspective. I know a lot of people don’t want to get bogged down in the politics of the war and it can seem like an endless debate, but like it or not the politics of that era is one of the reasons why our hobby is being confronted by the increasingly hostile political climate we currently live in. Now more than ever, we need to have a firm understanding of what this war was all about and what the people who fought it were about. Believe me, it was too huge a conflict to be narrowed down to a single cause. It is not my purpose here to change anyone’s mind and I’m not offering any answers. I’m merely interested in finding out what people think about this topic and why. Again, I consider this to be an opportunity to exchange information. Let’s keep it civil.

Oddly enough, I’ve been accused of oversimplification myself on occasion, and I’m sure my views are 180 degrees south of Mr. Fasulo’s on this subject. But my views are what I believe, not what I wish happened. The Civil War has been a source of fascination to me since I was about six years old. Growing up in the sixties it seemed natural, what with all the centennial activities going on - the movies, the books, the reenactments, the TV documentaries. I’ve done my share of independent study over the years, first by reading the mainstream, universally accepted histories on the subject, and then by reading some not-so-well-known studies. There are, of course, two major trains of thought on why the war occurred and how the nation came to that fateful crucible. I don’t buy into either argument 100%, but by studying the two and considering both sides, I feel that I have a fairly well rounded viewpoint on the matter, though it may differ from what is commonly taught. And I do  try very hard not to make up or pass on false information when I write or talk about the war.

Unlike Tom’s friend, I have a high regard for Abraham Lincoln, mostly because of his desire to deal fairly with the South once the war ended. But the Fort Sumter affair was nothing short of blatant treachery. If Tom’s friend dislikes Lincoln because of the broken promise not to reinforce Fort Sumter, he has good reason. The assertion that Secretary of War Stanton made this promise without Lincoln’s permission or knowledge is like saying Nixon knew nothing of Watergate, Reagan knew nothing of Iran-contra, and Clinton - well, we won’t go there. Did this idea come out of James McPherson’s book? I beg to differ! Stanton wasn’t Secretary of War at the time, Simon Cameron was, and this promise was actually made by Secretary of State William Seward. The promise was made repeatedly over a period of nearly a month in communications passing from Seward through a Justice of the Supreme Court to Confederate Peace Commissioners. It is impossible to believe that Lincoln was ignorant of this and it’s irrelevant either way. The promises were made, they were made on behalf of the Lincoln Administration, and the ultimate responsibility rests with the chief executive. Despite this, Lincoln went forward with a provisioning plan to relieve a "starving" garrison that reported as late as the first of April "at least thirty-five days of comfortable subsistence for the command." In addition, the command at Fort Sumter had been given free access to the Charleston markets to purchase provisions as their discretion dictated. Lincoln’s plan to "provision" the fort involved a naval task force consisting of 11 warships and 2,500 men, plus 285 cannon. This was nothing short of a direct and deliberate provocation for war, something Lincoln later admitted in a letter to a friend. But I’m sure the "dean" of Civil War historians gives this topic a thorough analysis, right? The problem with historians like McPherson is not what they don’t know, it’s what they knowingly leave out.

If someone were to ask me why the Civil War Press gave The South was Right  a universal panning, I’d have to say that it’s because the Kennedy brothers put a different spin on a tired old story and backed it up with facts that haven’t seen the light of day in nearly a century - facts which tend to make establishment historians uncomfortable. This isn’t rewriting history; it’s called filling in the blanks - telling "the rest of the story". If you can look past the combative rhetoric and the fatuous advocacy for a new Southern uprising, this book should cause an open minded person to question some common maxims about this period in our history and stir them to explore some different angles.

Think about these simple questions. Was slavery a legal institution? Did the United States have the delegated authority under the Constitution to interfere with slavery in the several states? According to the Supreme Court, did the United States have the delegated authority to interfere with slavery in the territories? Was secession forbidden by the Constitution and, therefore, a treasonable offense? The correct answers to these questions should tell anyone that the South was right politically, constitutionally, and legally provided the fight was merely over slavery and the right of secession. What part of this is fiction? However, considering the correct answers to these questions, one should ask what reason would there be to secede and fight a war over slavery? Where was the threat to its existence?

The predominant gospel which has been fostered upon the American public is that the Southern cause was inextricably grounded in the abhorrent institution of slavery; that their struggle was about its preservation and their fight was against a political power vehemently and righteously opposed to the practice. I just don’t buy this. There were much deeper issues here.

It is very true that the South was not the only agricultural region of the country, but I’m betting that the farmers of Wisconsin and Nebraska weren’t terribly concerned about higher import tariffs. I don’t believe they were heavily engaged in the import/export business at that time. Why would higher tariffs be a much greater concern for Southern planters? Mr. Fasulo also mentioned that every major political compromise in the early 19th century was over admitting one slave state and one free state at the same time to keep votes equal in the Senate...but why was it so important for the planters of the South to maintain an equilibrium in Congress? Why did the Northern commercial interests, the bankers, the manufacturers, the traders, the businessmen of all sorts want total control? Why would a man like Robert E. Lee, the most favored officer in the United States Army, walk away from a lifetime of service to follow his native state out of the Union? Why would a poor dirt farmer from Middle Tennessee who obviously had no interest in slavery answer the question, "What are you fighting for?" with, "I’m fighting for my rights!"?

The answers to these questions could very well be the key to the conflict. In fact, I’m certain of it. As professed "historians" our task should be to seek out these answers. We should never be content with what we think we know from "real history". What is "real history" anyway? I have yet to read a book on the Civil War that didn’t have a bias toward one side or the other. I agree with Tom on this point, however; read, and then read some more and never stop reading. You can never know it all.

David Mullins
13th Indiana
Jacksonville, FL

David Mullins and I both agree that anyone who proposes to lecture or otherwise teach others about the American Civil War should read as much about that conflict as possible. However, we apparently have some differences on what mix of materials we should read.  And we also seem to differ on how we rate some other books as good sources of information. This is not a serious problem as everyone’s tastes are influenced by different events in their lives. Agreeing to disagree is what helps make America the great county it is.

I have three college degrees. Now I didn’t say that to exalt myself or to belittle others, as I know many fools who have Ph.Ds. I say it simply to prepare you to understand my background and why I value some sources and not others. One of my degrees is in Political Science. To earn that degree I took numerous courses on the American political system and its history, including courses in constitutional law [which reviewed the major cases in our history which serve as the foundation of that law - some of which dealt with disagreements between “north” and “south”] and a two semester course in American history. The college I studied at believed that students needed to read ten to twelve books in each course, by authors with different view points, and then to discuss them. Often our discussions were heated and continued outside the classroom. Like David. I believe that “...the exchange of information and references among ourselves is a great way to learn and to see things from a different perspective.”  As a result of these studies I believe that many of the great compromises in early 19th century America tried to avoid the coming clash between North and South. In addition, I have been an entomologist with the University of Florida for almost 23 years. As a result, when someone tells me something is a fact, I have the tendency to ask what they based that fact on.  In other words, I want to see the data.

The book, The Confederacy had it Right, was reviewed in the Civil War press years ago. I can’t remember what all the different reviewers said, but I do remember that they were bothered by the statements made in the book that were not based on fact. The authors often cited other works written years after the War that made statements which they did not back up with original documents. These were the reviewer’s comments, not mine. On the other hand, James McPherson’s books are loaded with citations to original sources: letters, diaries, newspapers, Official Records, etc. His Battle Cry of Freedom won the Pulitzer Prize in History for 1989.  You don’t give such an award to someone who makes up facts, as the work is reviewed by other competent historians.

Regarding the cause of the Civil War, I would like to cite a speech by Alexander Stephens, after he became the vice president of the Confederacy: “Our new government is founded upon the opposite idea [Here he is stating that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were wrong if they meant to include Negroes among “all man.”]; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery... is his natural and normal condition. This, our government, is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” [If you have a hardback edition of Battle Cry of Freedom, you will find this on page 244.]

Mr. Stephens wasn’t alone. In For Cause & Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, McPherson drew on more than 25,000 letters and nearly 2500 private diaries from men on both sides. If you really want to know what these men - both sides - were fighting for, read this book, as the soldiers in this great conflict speak for themselves.  Confederate soldiers were quite frank in admitting they were fighting to preserve slavery.  And almost all Union soldiers initially fought to preserve the Union. I remember one soldier in particular. Soon after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, a Union infantryman wrote home to say that he joined to save the Union, not to free the slaves, and if that was the purpose of the war then he was going to desert.  Yet six months later the same man wrote his family saying, “If there is a reason to die in this war, then that reason is to set men free.”  Three months later he died in battle.  I wonder what he experienced that changed his mind.

Just like the “founding fathers” did with the Declaration of Independence, several of the southern states wrote “declarations of secession” to tell the world why they decided to leave the Union. In these they declared slavery a cause with no apologies. For more details, I suggest reading the declarations at http://extlab7.entnem.ufl.edu/olustee/related/secession.htm.

And nowhere in the Constitution of the United States of America does it state that an individual state has the right to leave the Union.  However, the Constitution clearly states in Article I, section 10:

     “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of

    Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and

    silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto

    Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
 
 

    “No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on

    Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's

    inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on

    Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all

    such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.
 
 

    “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep

    Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with

    another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or

    in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
 
 

See http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/constitution/constitution_transcription.html for a complete copy.
 
 

When Abraham Lincoln took his oath of office as President of the United States, he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. And except for a few who can’t see past their biased views [and I’m sure that David Mullins is not one of them] hundreds of millions of Americans who have lived since then are glad that he stayed the course and fulfilled his duty.

Why did people like Robert E. Lee turn aside from the United States? At that time, many people still felt their state was more important. When Virginia declared that it had left the Union, Lee felt he had to also. And while a great soldier, his preference for his state limited him from seeing the big picture during the war. He felt it was his duty to defend Virginia, and ignored the fact that the South was losing the War in the West. If you have time for an interesting book, I suggest How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War. But one thing the Civil War did settle, it is no longer these United States, but the United States. We are no longer citizens of Florida, but simply residents. We, like Bobby Lee, are citizens of the United States.

After the end of the war, former soldiers slowly returned home. One young Southern woman despaired of seeing her husband again, but he turned up in Richmond ragged, but recognizable. Remembering the difficult years during and after the war she summed up her experience:

“We had nothing on which to begin life over again, but we were young and strong, and began it cheerily enough. We are prosperous now, . . . little grandchildren cluster about us and listen with interest to grandpapa's and grandmamma's tales of the days when they ‘fought and bled and died together.’ They can't understand how such nice people as the Yankees and ourselves ever could have fought each other. ‘It doesn't seem reasonable,’ says Nellie . . . who is engaged to a gentleman from Boston, where we sent her to cultivate her musical talents, but where she applied herself to other matters, ‘. . .it doesn't seem reasonable, grandmamma, when you could just as easily have settled it all comfortably without any fighting. How glad I am I wasn't living then! How thankful I am that 'Old Glory' floats alike over North and South, now!’

 “And so am I, my darling, so am I!”

                     Myrta Lockett Avary, ed.

                     A Virginia Girl in the Civil War, 1861?1865

                     (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1903)

Comment On Point-Counterpoint.....Jeff Grzelak comments......"The Causes and politics of the war will be  debated for eternity.  But like all wars it comes down to freedom & money.  Slavery, as terrible as it  was, was granted in the constitution.  But to simplify matters, taxation without proper representation was also a major issue.  When the balance of power shifted as more non-slavery states were admitted, the South feared being out voted on tariffs and  tax  issues.   Slaves, which were considered property, were of course taxed......The same thing caused the American Revolution.  The South, according to the Constitution, was legally right in the course it chose, however morally  wrong in trying to perpetuate Slavery.  Lincoln stated he would not interfere with slavery.  However on the other hand he knew what was coming and would make sure he was in the position to win.  Buchannan, just stuck his head in the sand."

David Mullins wrote....In response to the recent point/counterpoint presentation, I’d like to offer some clarification.

I never meant to imply that I take The South Was Right for the gospel truth from cover to cover. It’s a decidedly biased book written by a couple of guys who sound like they’re mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore. But if we disregard the personal observations and reminiscences of the alleged victims because they cannot be substantiated in the "official record", we must also disregard our system of justice since it is mainly established on circumstantial evidence. As I see it, the alleged perpetrators composed most of the "official record" detailing the Civil War. Certainly not an unbiased source. I found much of the Kennedy’s book to be thought provoking; it definitely made me look at things a bit differently. As for the critics - if we all listened to critics, none of us would have bothered to see the motion picture Gettysburg!

I did not say that the Constitution granted the right of secession. My point was that it doesn’t address the issue at all. Many have used Article I, section 10 as a basis for declaring the Southern action an insurrection. I disagree. I think it may be reasonably argued that the Constitution of the United States applies only to states within the Union. Since the Constitution does not specifically forbid secession, and since South Carolina seceded from that Union and declared herself to be an independent nation on December 20, 1860, I’d have to say that this article no longer applied and she could enter into any "Treaty, Alliance or Confederation" of her choosing. When six other states quickly followed her lead, she did just that by entering into a confederation with them on February 18, 1861. I wonder how the Southern states would have reacted if the New England states had followed through with the secession ordinance they adopted at Hartford in 1814? Would the South have declared this a rebellion and invaded New England to force her back into the Union? ‘Tis a point to ponder.

I do not believe that Robert E. Lee lost the Civil War. Lee did not become commanding general over all of the Confederate armies until February, 1865. Until then, he was not responsible for the war in the West and by then the war was already lost. It is true that he argued against dividing his army and sending half to raise the siege of Vicksburg, favoring an invasion of Pennsylvania instead, but the final decision was Davis’s. I suppose it was hard to argue with success. Besides, in hindsight Vicksburg wasn’t that important strategically. For a country with no navy, the railheads of Chattanooga and Atlanta were much more critical. When Lee sent Longstreet’s corps to reinforce Bragg in North Georgia it resulted in the only major victory the South had in the West - Chickamauga. But that victory was squandered and the war in the West was lost when Bragg failed to follow up and drive Rosecrans out of Chattanooga when he had the clear opportunity. This failure doomed Atlanta and, arguably, the Southern war effort. You can’t blame that on General Lee.

I am glad we are one nation under God and, hopefully, indivisible once and for all. But the Civil War was a tragedy that never should have happened. I feel that the South was unjustly driven to seek independence. And I certainly do not believe that anything in the way of social progress was achieved by that war which could not have been better achieved had things been left alone. I don’t believe there are many credible historians who believe that Southern slavery would have lasted into the 20th century. How much more beneficial would it have been for everyone had emancipation been gradual, deliberate and orderly? We will never know the answer to that question, but we do know the tragic results of sudden, unplanned emancipation and radical reconstruction. The bitterness and strife remain with us to this day.

Lastly, I have never argued that slavery had nothing to do with the war. That would be foolhardy. Slavery, the tariff, nullification - these were all major issues of the 19th century. But I believe that these were mere catalysts which ignited the eventual conflict. The bedrock foundation of the Southern cause was something much more fundamental in my view and, as with all wars, morality had little to do with it.

What follows is an essay I’ve written to continue the theme I began in my original point. I hope it gives readers pause for further thought.

Former Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase once said that state’s rights died at Appomattox. He was quite correct. Americans today have no concept of state’s rights or state sovereignty, so we cannot possibly appreciate the full significance many 19th Century Americans placed in these doctrines.

Why would a man like Robert E. Lee, the most favored officer in the United States Army, a man who had everything to lose - wealth, position, prestige, power - walk away from a lifetime of distinguished service to follow his native state out of the Union? Why, in fact, did Virginia leave the Union in the first place? Why would a poor dirt farmer from Middle Tennessee respond to the question, "What are you fighting for?" with, "I’m fighting for my rights!"?

What rights? What were the motivations of the "Lost Cause"? The politically correct mantra of today lulls many people into believing that the Southern struggle was all about the perpetuation and proliferation of slavery. Indeed, an objective study of modern textbooks and narratives on the subject reveals a whitewash as insidious as the Warren Report; volumes of compiled facts and documentation which, in the end, only lead you to a predetermined, unobjective and desired conclusion.

General Lee was defending his native soil against federal intrusion. Virginia, though it had one of the largest slave populations of any state, did not secede over the question of slavery; in fact many, if not most, of the wealthy planters opposed secession. They knew that the institution of slavery was more secure within the Union rather than within a militarily weak confederation of sister states struggling for independence. Virginia, nevertheless, seceded on April 17, 1861, four days after the fall of Fort Sumter, because President Lincoln, two days before, had ordered the state militias, including that of Virginia, to prepare for an invasion of South Carolina. Virginia, whose leaders had been resisting secession, refused and left the Union on the grounds that Lincoln had provoked the Southern action at Fort Sumter and then violated the Constitution by calling out the militias without the consent of Congress. Secession invited a federal invasion of Virginia and Robert E. Lee would have none of it! He said that a union which must be kept together by force held no charm for him.

It is also clear that our poor dirt farmer was not fighting for the right to own slaves, and it should be equally clear that he would have no particular interest in the rights of slaveowners. Slavery played little or no role in this farmer’s daily struggle to survive. If anything, it was more harmful than beneficial. What this fellow and the vast majority of Southern men like him were actually fighting for was the right to be left alone. As Jefferson Davis declared, "We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for independence. . .and that, or extermination, we shall have!" Strong, emotional sentiments such as these advocating state sovereignty and Southern independence were common among the rank and file of the Confederacy. This fact is bourne out in the letters and journals of the soldiers themselves, as well as in the published observations of European emissaries attached to the Southern army.

What of the popularly accepted assertion that the South seceded only to protect the institution of slavery and for no other reason or principle? A superficial study of the facts would certainly lead one to that seemingly obvious conclusion. It is a fact that four states, South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas put it in writing; it is a fact that some among the Southern political leadership said as much in fiery oratory. But these declarations were made boldly for all the world to see and hear for a purpose. The South did not want war; she was seeking peaceful separation on legal, constitutional grounds. For, regardless of one’s personal views on slavery as either righteous and beneficial or abhorrent and wicked, it was unquestionably recognized by the Constitution of the United States and protected by Federal law. Considering the bitter agitation the Abolitionists had fomented against the "peculiar institution" over the previous 30 years, a wholly unjustifiable abandonment of the rule of calm and reasoned debate in favor of mad fanaticism and, in many instances, flagrant violations of the law, the South definitely had a grievance, but not a "cause", in the issue of slavery.

The slavery motive is exposed as an obvious pretense when some crucial, yet oft-neglected details are considered - details which reveal that, in the immediate period before the war, the institution of slavery had never been more secure. In 1850 the Fugitive Slave Law was passed by Congress to bolster language already found in the Constitution (Article IV, Section 2); in 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act effectively nullified the Missouri Compromise, conferring the question of slavery to the people of a given territory regardless of its geographic location; although a major plank in the Republican Party platform had been to halt the expansion of slavery, the Supreme Court, in 1857, ruled that Congress had no authority to interfere with slavery in the territories; President Lincoln stated that he had no right to interfere with slavery and no personal inclination to do so; President Lincoln had pledged to enforce the fugitive slave laws; President Lincoln supported a new constitutional amendment (ironically to be the 13th) protecting slavery forever. This proposed amendment was passed by Congress and signed by President Lincoln in March, 1861 as an incentive for the seceded states to rejoin the Union. These states were unmoved, however, and without their presence in Congress the amendment was never ratified. Be that as it may, it would seem that the federal government was bending over backwards to appease the South on the slavery issue.

Even without a constitutional amendment expressly protecting slavery, there was still no cause for apprehension on the part of the South. The power to abolish slavery within the states was not delegated to the United States, but was reserved to the sovereign states themselves. It would, therefore, require a constitutional amendment ratified by a majority of the states to effectively abolish slavery throughout the United States, and the Abolitionists simply did not have the numbers necessary to ratify such an amendment. Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution requires ratification by three fourths of all the States in the Union. There were a total of 15 slave states in 1860. Assuming these 15 states would have formed a solid bloc against such an amendment, there were not, and still aren’t enough states in the Union to have a three fourths majority over that bloc. That would take 45 states voting in the affirmative for a total of 60 voting states!

One must ask, where was the threat to slavery and, if there was no real threat, why risk everything by seceding and fighting a war to preserve it? It would seem an unlikely scenario, if not totally ludicrous. Yet American History, as it is written and as it is taught, presents this illogical rationale as the only legitimate motive for Southern separation. Napoleon Bonaparte once said, "History is lies agreed upon." How true.

The problems that tore the nation apart were far more complex than what can be summed up in one single issue. I find one of the better statements on the subject to be the following by Bruce Catton:

"The deeper meaning of the American Civil War, for the people who lived through it and for us today, goes beyond the historian’s grasp. Here was an event so complex, so deeply based in human emotions, so far-reaching in its final effects, that understanding it is likely to be a matter primarily for the emotions rather than for the cold analysis of facts. It was an experience that was probably felt more deeply than anything else that ever happened to us. We cannot hope to understand it unless we share in that feeling, simply because the depth and intensity of the feeling are among the war’s principal legacies."

Was it all about slavery? Those of us who disagree and remain unashamed of our Southern heritage are said to be suffering from "Lost Cause Syndrome". I remain unconvinced.

David Mullins