Myths About the Confederacy

.
In a recent post: Why do people believe myths about the Confederacy? --possibly an article in the Washington Post-- James Loewen presents a persuasive case for the view that the Confederate States have won a propaganda war after they had lost the Civil War.  This article is worth reading by every American.  Some of the pseudo-facts mentioned by Mr. Loewen are so deeply imbedded in the minds of Southerners that they have now become accepted as facts, and are even taught to middle schoolers in many states.  I'm going to summarize some of the points in that article for the busy executive (and the slow reader).

A.  Many southern states voted to secede to retain slavery, rather than to protect States' Rights.
In fact, Mr Loewen argues--and presents evidence-- that it was the Northern States that were fighting for States' Rights, to not enforce a law that required runaway slaves to be returned to their owners.  This was a Federal Law, which the Northern States opposed.  The Southern States wanted no part of individual states voting to not enforce this law.  The specific documents Mr Loewen quotes make very interesting reading, especially a paragraph in the Texas declaration of secession, which very clearly states that African Americans did not participate in the struggle for independence from the British (I'm paraphrasing), and therefore did not deserve to be given any rights other than those of slaves.

It is not our intention to aggravate the hostile feelings of the African American community at this difficult time, but such feelings can only be made even worse by the attempts of certain Southern politicians (and Southern Society, generally) to whitewash the events of the Civil War.

B.  Support for the Confederates in certain states, e.g. Maryland and Kentucky, was not as great as one may infer from the number of war monuments in those states.
Mr. Loewen points out that visitors, and even residents --and certainly children-- in those states are led to believe that those states supported the Confederate cause.  Perhaps it was that Confederate politicians and families in those states were just richer, and could afford more monuments.  That would make sense, especially if they were the ones who had the benefit of slave labor.

C.  To this date, history texts are written in such a way as to obfuscate the true reasons for the Civil War.
Children are taught by texts that subtly suggest that the Civil War was a war of independence to reject Northern Tyranny (which it might have been, in the view of some), and that the South was struggling to preserve State rights, and not fighting for the preservation of slavery as such.  To my mind, this point of view goes way beyond placing a gentler, more generous take on the motives of Southern Politicians, after their having suffered a defeat.  This goes way beyond the mental adjustments that might be necessary for healing a fractured union.  It presents the Northern Unionist forces as aggressors, and the Northern cause as unjustifiable.  It also falsely reports the extent to which there was popular support for the war even among states that formed part of the Confederacy.   Maryland, for instance, was divided on the issue, and from what I understand from the facts Mr Loewen reports, a Confederate general extorted what amounts to tribute from the residents of a certain Maryland county (or municipality), in order not to raze the town to the ground.  Well, it is war, after all.  But it shows to what extent the citizens of Maryland must have supported the Confederacy: not very much.

Arch's Summary:
The way certain politicians --notably those who support flying the Confederate Flag in State Capitols, and so forth-- understand their history might flow from a deliberate intention to deceive, and from cynical political motives.  Or it could be from having been lied to by generations of Southern elders and teachers, the victims of a massive and deliberate campaign of disinformation.  Are they the liars, or were they simply lied to?  At any rate, kids in Texas are learning lies, and since Texas determines which texts are used in schools all over the US, kids across the US are learning lies in school.

[Added later]

However, we have to face the fact that the stated reasons for the Southern leadership to go to war were numerous.  What the Confederate Flag (sometimes called the St. Andrews Flag) stands for, and stood for, is very vague, and hardly a simple thing.  Over time the meaning of any emblem can change, and in different ways for different people, and the Confederate Flag is no exception.  This article about the Confederate flag, also in the Washington Post, seems to have a good overview of the subject.

In addition, talking about fairness, specifically, certain critics point out that it was far easier for the North to abandon the historically pro-slavery stance which was common in the 18th century in American colonies than it was for the South, simply because the North had mineral and energy resources which the South did not have, and could use coal and steam to generate wealth without the use of human labor.  Nevertheless, as the article on the Flag (linked above) points out, some Southern leaders were scornful more than a century ago at the rhetoric of their fellows about the reasons for going to war.  Call a spade a spade, and an ax an ax, they said; most of us were pretty clear that we went to war in defense of preserving the institution of slavery.  But to keep harping on that fact is, in the view of the South, somewhat self-serving on the part of Yankees and their descendants.

The fact remains that history books must be written in clearer language, to include all the causes for the Civil War, distinguishing between the main causes, and more technical reasons, so that young people can draw their conclusions about which reasons were the material ones, and which ones were mere excuses (and bear in mind that often in war, some stated reasons are only excuses).  Clear documentation, in this case, is essential, and direct quotes extremely helpful, and better than explanations.

Arch