If you’ve
been reading this blog for any length of time, you know that I love to start
out by defining what we’re talking about. So today I want to—as best I
can—define what the Neo-Confederate* movement is and what it’s not.
I know that
Wikipedia has a bad rap at times, but after reading their article on the
movement, I have to confess that they seem to do a fairly decent job of
defining its major tenets:
·
Honor of the Confederacy and its veterans — Much
of the Neo-Confederate movement is concerned with giving honor to the
Confederacy itself, to the veterans of the Confederacy and Confederate
veterans' cemeteries, to the various flags of the Confederacy, and to Southern
cultural identity.
·
Economics — neo-Confederates usually advocate a
free market economy which engages in significantly less taxation than currently
found in the United States, and which does not revolve around fiat currencies
such as the United States Dollar.
·
History — many neo-Confederates are openly
critical of the presidency of Abraham Lincoln to varied degrees, and of the
history of Reconstruction. Various authors have written critiques of Lincoln
and the Union. Slavery is almost never defended, but it is usually denied as a
primary cause of the American Civil War. Critics often accuse Neo-Confederates
of "revisionism" and of acting as "apologists".
·
The Civil Rights Movement — Historian Nancy
MacLean states that Neo-Confederates used the history of the Confederacy to
justify their opposition to the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s.
Historian David Blight writes that current neo-Confederates are "driven
largely by the desire of current white supremacists to re-legitimize the
Confederacy, while they tacitly reject the victories of the modern civil rights
movement".
·
Black Confederates — The book The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader
notes that toward the end of the Twentieth Century, in order to support the
idea that the Civil War was not about slavery, Neo-Confederates began to claim
that “thousands of African Americans had served in the Confederate army.” A
Neo-Confederate publication, Confederate Veteran, said in 1992 that “the
overwhelming majority of blacks during the War Between the States supported and
defended, with armed resistance, the Cause of Southern Independence.” Historian
Bruce Levine says that "their ["neo-Confederates"] insistent
celebration these days of 'Black Confederates' ... seeks to legitimate that
claim" that the war "had never [italics in original] been fought on
behalf of slavery; loyalty to the South, southern self-government, southern
culture, or states rights -- rather than to slavery and white supremacy --
fueled the southern war effort."
·
Culture — many neo-Confederates promote an
unabashed Christian culture. They support, for example, public displays of
Christianity, such as "Ten Commandments" monuments and displays of
the Christian cross. Almost all Neo-Confederates strongly support the right to
keep and bear arms, present in both the United States Constitution and the
Confederate States Constitution. Generally they oppose unmitigated illegal
immigration of foreign nationals into Southern states. Some Neo-Confederates
view the Civil War as a conflict between a secular North and a Christian South.
Certain Neo-Confederates believe in an Anglo-Celtic identity theory for
residents of the South.
·
Secession — many neo-Confederates openly
advocate the resecession of the Southern states and territories which comprised
the old Confederate States of America. The League of the South, for example,
promotes the "independence of the Southern people" from the
"American empire".
·
Most neo-Confederate groups do not seek violent
revolution, but rather an orderly separation, such as was done in the division
of Czechoslovakia. With Constitution Act 542, passed on 25 November, they
agreed to the dissolution of Czechoslovakia as of 31 December 1992. Many
Neo-Confederate groups have prepared for what they view as a possible collapse
of the federal United States into its 50 separate states, much like the Soviet
Union collapsed, and believe the Confederacy can be resurrected at that time.
Here are my personal notes on each point:
o
There were a whole lot of very brave people on
the Confederate side, people who fought on the front lines for what they
thought was right. It’s conventional wisdom that the South had the best
generals, especially General Lee, and I have no reason to disagree with that
notion. Lee had a lot of wonderful personal qualities, and I have no reason to
doubt the contention that he personally hated slavery. General Grant, the
commanding general of the Union forces, at the end of the war said “I felt like
anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long
and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I
believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which
there was the least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the
great mass of those who were opposed to us.” So I’m in favor of honoring their
bravery and the sacrifices they made for their beliefs. As for honoring
“Southern cultural identity,” that depends on what you mean, and I’ll have to
explore that at a later time. For now let me just say that I love the present
South, and as long as I live in the U.S. I have no desire to move anywhere
else. I’m a huge supporter and defender of the South as it is today, and I
think it’s the closest modern representation of what this
country was designed to be by the Founders.
o
Regarding the point about its economic beliefs?
I absolutely agree. As I hope I’ve made clear in other
postings, I’m an economic conservative bordering on libertarianism (in the
economic sphere).
o
On the Neo-Confederate view on Lincoln, this is
one of the major differences I have with them. I believe that Lincoln was one
of our best Presidents we’ve ever had, second only to Washington, and depending
on which day of the week it is, Lincoln comes in first by a nose. And I
heartily disagree with them in their assertion that the main cause of secession
was anything but slavery. My reasons for these points will be the topic of other
postings.
o
When it comes to equality before the law, of course I’m in favor of civil rights
for minorities. And of the few people in my circle of friends who defend the
Confederacy, none of them would disagree with that notion. We tend to be
against such notions as Affirmative
Action, since that’s opposed to the color-blind society we want to see, and
which the Bible supports.
o
I’m not really qualified to comment on how many
blacks volunteered to serve in the Confederate Army. I do know that there was a
last-ditch proposal—never acted upon-- by some quarters to offer slaves freedom
if they took up arms in defense of the CSA. It was vehemently opposed and never
gained much traction. And the view that there were a whole lot of blacks who loved the Confederacy, took up arms for it, and then verbally defended it after the War seems to be based on little to no evidence.
o
On the note on Christian culture, I suppose that’s
true. The Neo-Confederates I’ve known were all strong Christians and were
pretty supportive of displays of their faith such as “public displays of
Christianity, such as ‘Ten Commandments’ monuments and displays of the
Christian cross.” I definitely am strongly opposed to illegal immigration, and
wholeheartedly support enforcing laws against it.
o
Since I strongly believe that secession was a
very very bad idea for the South in the 1860’s, I certainly don’t support it
now. It’s never going to happen, and the only effect of even talking
about it (or defending the Confederacy) is to undermine support for the
conservative cause. More on this in a later posting.
Here’s my
summary of my understanding of the movement, based on what I’ve read:
1) I don’t for a moment believe that all—or even most—Neo-Confederates
are racist. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I’ve known people who
believed that the South was right, and I count some of them as close friends. I
know they’re not racist at all. Dr. Walter Williams
is one of my favorite conservative pundits of all time. He’s one of the main
reasons I believe what I do about economics and a host of other issues. He’s
black, and he’s strongly defended the Neo-Confederate viewpoint multiple times
in his writings. Obviously he’s not racist or a self-hating black; he just
happens to think the South had a right to secede and that defending its
secession and hating slavery are compatible with each other. So the movement is
not—or at least the followers I’ve met aren’t—racist. It’s entirely possible
for someone to not have a racist bone in their bodies and be a Neo-Confederate.
2) However, if someone really was a racist, if they really did believe that slavery wasn’t all that
bad, or they really do long for the days of Jim Crow and
segregation, then there’s only one place they’re going to find political
expression: in this movement. So if you read white supremacist blogs and
websites, then of course they’re
going to be favorable to this way of thinking. So not every Neo-Confederate is
a racist (or even most of them), but virtually every racist is going to be a
Neo-Confederate.
I think in
the next posting I’m going to address the first note, that there were plenty of
brave souls who took up arms for the South, and their self-sacrifice for their
cause deserves respect. Also I’ll briefly address the question of black
defenders of the Confederacy. Hope you’ll join me.
*I realize that there are some people out there who wouldn't identify themselves as "Neo-Confederates." However, I don't really have a really handy shorthand term for the philosophical interpretation of history and those who follow it. I promise I don't mean it in a pejorative way, but it's the best one I could find which is fairly neutral and descriptive. If you have a better term, let me know in the comments section and I'll consider it.
*I realize that there are some people out there who wouldn't identify themselves as "Neo-Confederates." However, I don't really have a really handy shorthand term for the philosophical interpretation of history and those who follow it. I promise I don't mean it in a pejorative way, but it's the best one I could find which is fairly neutral and descriptive. If you have a better term, let me know in the comments section and I'll consider it.
No comments:
Post a Comment