Economically the South was the richest portion of the country and the hatred generated towards it by Northern politicians was fully the equivalent of the current verbal violence against “tax breaks for the wealthy,” never mind that each time they get same they end up paying a greater share of the total tax burden. If we are going to have laws against hate speech, those who use such terms should be the first prosecuted.

The reason that the South remained poor after the war was that everything of any value that could be stolen and carried away, was. It was left with land and little else and with the exception of Louisana, most of that passed out of the hands of its original pre-war owners.

England and Spain both had ‘Civil Wars.’ If words have real meaning, we did not. The term is a lie and was intended to deceive those to uneducated to not understand what the whole conflict was about which was money and taxes, which part of the country paid the greater share of them and which was enriched by same.

As a trained historian, a native Southerner (with eleven generations buried in Carolina and Virginia soil, and five ancestors who fought for the Confederacy), and a native traditional Catholic (who assists regular at a traditional Latin Mass), the points I would make are too numerous to cover in a brief message. Let me pick just one. It refers to a comment made much earlier by John Medaille (whose writings I greatly enjoy in other areas), regarding slavery and the Church.

Certainly, during the past century the Church has made more evident its discomfort with and disapproval of “slavery,” but I think to extrapolate this moral abhorrence backwards to 1861, is not only to do an injustice to the Confederacy and its citizens, but also to the Blessed Pius IX, who made it known on various occasions, that he supported the Confederate cause and admired its leadership, and to Catholic theology. Indeed, if the nasty old Confederates were SO evil, as Professor Medaille seems to imply at times, by their possession of slaves, if they were thus accursed of God, then just what can we say of the Blessed Pius IX?

Indeed, I would suggest that the understanding that we have hic et nunc regarding the institution of slavery is not quite the same as the understanding held in 1861 by Catholics and the Church.

Let me quote from The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 14, “The Ethical Aspect of Slavery,” by Father Fox (NY, 1912):

“From the beginning the Christian moralists did not condemn slavery as in se, or essentially, against the natural law or natural justice. The fact that slavery, tempered with many humane restrictions, was permitted under the Mosaic law would have sufficed to prevent the institution form being condemned by Christian teachers as absolutely immoral. They, following the example of St. Paul, implicitly accept slavery as not in itself incompatible with the Christian Law. The apostle counsels slaves to obey their masters, and to bear with their condition patiently. This estimate of slavery continued to prevail till it became fixed in the systematized ethical teaching of the schools; and so it remained without any conspicuous modification till towards the end of the eighteenth century. We may take as representative de Lugo’s statement of the chief argument offered in proof of the thesis that slavery, apart from all abuses, is not in itself contrary to the natural law.” [published with the Imprimatur of Cardinal Farley of New York]

Certainly in the past century, given the horrors of Communism and various forms of oppression, the realization of the actual incompatibility of slavery with the Biblical teachings of Our Lord has grown steadily. But to impugn the Confederacy, to suggest that the “moral evil” that hovered above it and many of its leaders struggled with, somehow had to be “expunged” through an incredibly brutal and bloody “civil war” that not only destroyed Southern civilization, but totally upturned and radicalized the intent of the American Founders, well, such a “neo-abolitionist” comment is, in my opinion, not a worthy one for a faithful traditional Catholic to make.

Father Abraham initiated “his” war, not over slavery, but to “save the Union.” As he told Horace Greeley at the end of 1862, if he had to keep ALL blacks as slaves as the price of preserving the Union, he would do so. Of course the issue of slavery entered into the debate as the war progressed and Lincoln and the Republicans searched for means of rallying support for a flagging war effort (although as that good Catholic historian Eugene Genovese has definitively shown, the Southern apologists won the argument over slavery hands-down), but, from a Catholic point of view—at least in 1861—it was not a clearly “moral” question.

I believe that a good Catholic in 1861 not only could readily and morally support the Confederate cause, but that there are numerous reasons why he most certainly should have. And although counter-factual history has its serious limitations, in my view we would have been much, much better off if the Confederacy had won that conflict, on all counts.

Indeed, I am ready to fire on Fort Sumter again…or better, Washington, D.C.!!

I didn’t read any of the 95 posts so far, but I did read the whole text by John Fea, which I found very interesting.

I just want to leave a quick comment about the last paragraph:

“But if Lincoln is going to get the credit for the emergence of American nationalism, he must also shoulder the blame for at least some of the economic consequences that this Whiggism has had on American life.”

Life cannot always be perfect to everyone – we’re always compromising on something in order to get going.
Besides, as far as I know Lincoln never said his visions were to be put in practice forever. Different times require different strategies.

By the way, I’m not American. I was born and live in Europe.
All the best to you all.

1. Southern secession in 1861 was better founded in law than the secession of the American colonies in 1776.
2. Alexis de Tocqueville found racism was far more prevalent in free states than slave states.
3. Jefferson Davis the only President of the Confederacy relished the fact that he could be tried in federal courts of treason, so confident was he that he could prove the constitutionality of secession
4. The war was not about slavery but was defined by slavery.
5. On the 15th of April 1861, Lincoln issued an order for 75,000 volunteers to subdue the south.(what would you do if President Obama ordered that???)
6. 75% of white Southern families owned slaves.
7. Half of all slave owners owned 1 – 5 slaves
8. fewer that 1% owned more than fifty slaves
9. 12% of all slaves in the South were free
10. 2% blacks in the south tended to be rich and own slaves themselves
12. In the famous words of Mary Chestnut, wife of U.S. senator James Chestnut of South Carolina, “We separated from the North…because we have hated each other so.”
13. Leading northern abolitionists considered the constitution a covenant of death and an agreement with Hell.
14. Before Nat Turner’s Rebellion, there were at least 3 times more anti-slavery societies in the South than the North

I could throw much more facts at you all, but I am one person who is damned tired of this talk and thinks we need to secede right now!!!!

I would hope so, otherwise we might as well close up shop and go home.

I think the question to ask is the one Ron Paul asked: “If the British Empire could end slavery upon its territories peacefully, and other empires as well, why was it not the same for America? Why was war necessary to do so?”

That’s where the debate has to focus itself. Could the South had ended slavery peacfully? Could it, through reason and persuasion instead of force and terror and destruction, have done what was right and figured out how to handle the problems emancipation would have caused? I would hope so too, because if we believe in localism and freedom for our little platoons from the heavy hand of central government, then a Mississippi or an Alabama could have ended slavery just as much as New York or Massachucetts ended it, by law, through its law-making authorities.

If a community does what violates human dignity, then people can leave that community by voting with their feet. But no community likes to be attacked by outsiders, it’s a natural human reaction to draw together in common defense. Perhaps its better to find those wihtin the community who also feel repulsed by its actions and have them be agents of change from within rather from without. There were many in the South opposed to slavery and many opposed to segregation. Quiet encouragement and support of their efforts might have been a better way to go about to find solutions.

If we cannot govern ourselves, and feel the need for distant tyrants to do so, then this exercise becomes pointless. But if we do believe that humanity is best governed by their neighbors and friends down street or a block a way, across town or in the county courthouse, the village elder or the local magistrate, then we already know the answers to these questions.

I agree with you here. I’d say all the Western nations have betrayed their Christian heritage.

Putting aside all this slavery stuff–I’m tired of it–I’d like to ask you again, quite seriously, if we are going to have a subsidiarity government, to what higher authority do we appeal in important matters that cannot be resolved on a local or national level? I simply don’t trust any government and certainly not a world government or court. But most people wouldn’t trust my suggestion–the Pope.

One interesting tidbit regarding Lincoln is the terms of surrender granted Lee at Appomattox, in particular, the mens right to keep their horses to get home and the officers, their sidearms. As I understand it, the Southern Officers were surprised at their treatment and I think this is an indication of Lincoln’s desire to mend the wounds as quickly as possible and promote policies that encouraged the South’s ability to maintain their dignity and return to some semblance of normalcy as quickly as possible. As I understand it, Lee was alarmed when Lincoln was murdered and we all know the sordid story of Reconstruction. Sherman’s liberal terms of surrender further south preceded the Lincoln-Grant Terms to Lee and the northern politicians were mad as hell at him for it but they set the precedent for Lincoln and Grant’s wise terms at Appomattox. Did this make what happened in Atlanta any more palatable? Is it recompense for the utter depredation of the South during the war and Reconstruction? No, but it is an indication that Lincoln’s judgement had both it’s faults and attributes. I go back again to my comments about paradox.

Again, rather than parsing slavery…a base endeavor at best and rehashing who was right and who was wrong in the Civil War, we should be looking for the more applicable strains of Federalism that started to erode the Republic after the Civil War, gained steam during Teddy Roosevelt’s and Wilson’s era, consolidated during FDR and became a Pox in the Cold War and, absent the Soviets… a Pox fer Ijits during the previous Administration. Now, we print money and truck with the Nuclear Punjabi. If this aint in need of a little detached perspective, I don’t know what might be.

It galls me to no end to hear Red State Partisans rail about Northern perfidy during the Civil War only to be top on the list for milking the Federal Sow now while giving the former President unabashed support for a program of brazenly wrong-headed governance the likes of which have not been matched since the Greeks attacked Sicily and were roundly trounced. This is what emotional thinking does….emotes the emoter into less than productive behavior. Pardon me while I punch my own lights out.

As a westerner, I was given a Public Education that elevated the North to Sainthood and the South to an object of derision and the 50′s-60′s seemed to confirm the general perception. Life amongst the Eastern Pencilneck is no less revealing for it’s stubborn provincialism and piety as heirs to America’s Athens. There is nothing quite so parochial as many denizens of Gotham and her rich suburbs lining the New England coastline. More to the point, travels to the South, particularly to the Delta country and La…..along with a thorough reading on the subject won me over to many Southern sympathies and Southern people but it is all for naught when we have a continuing entrenched body of individuals who seem to wallow in victimhood, revenge and an unremitting desire to justify human chattel. That issue starts bad with Arab on black and black on black slave trade and never got any better further up the line. Kudo’s to the Editors for nipping the smash and grabbers in the bud.

then there’s Texas, well….as we are at comment 90, I’ll restrict my commentary….except for the interesting story I once heard about the German’s in the Hill Country who apparently had good relations with the Commanche, reading Goethe to them in fact , making the Hill country a safe haven for Rangers and others attempting to preserve distance between themselves and those Shoshone-root warriors who made peace with the Germans but were at constant war with all others. These kinds of crazy storys…go figure…Germans getting along with the Commanche…well, these stories and the stark wonder of the Bend country even make me like Texas. We have a fine piece of country we do and there is more commonality amongst us than differences …Neo-Cons excepted….may they all be mauled by a gang of 7′ ayrabs.

Speaking only for myself: The candid concession from Americans — or from American Catholics, at least — that a culture with which Blessed Pius IX empathized was not comprised entirely of evil, monstrous, inhuman demons whose sole driving motivation was the pleasure of torturing field-hands and raping housemaids.

Inerrancy in your sense would seem to require an adherence to the old law. That may be the case, but it is not the Catholic case, not our understanding. For us, you can believe in Christ or in slavery, but not both. The South betrayed its own Christian heritage, and has paid the price ever since.

It is all very well to point to the sins of the North, which were (and are) manifold. It would be more convincing if the South had any real intention of helping. It is all very well to point to the factory girl dying in a ditch. But if all you have to offer her is slavery, she might regard you as a less than sincere benefactor.

Josh, that’s the point: in what way was secession a “last ditch” alternative? To What? As far as I can see, Lincoln only promised to stop the extension of slavery. What other causus belli was involved in his election?

In any case, I cannot entirely agree with John’s article; I think he makes Lincoln bear too much weight, and the effects we see didn’t really occur until the 20th century, long after Lincoln was dead. Lincoln opposed the banks and the corporations; their triumph would come long after his assassination. He opposed the harsh peace, yet Southerners complain of the hard peace, while excoriating the man who might have stopped it. But if you like neither Johnson’s hard peace nor Lincoln’s soft one, what exactly do you want? Should Grant have surrendered at Appomattox?

Anyway, the South was right within Just War theory.

You are speaking as if anyone who claims that secession might be necessary welcomes and celebrates it, rather than grants a right of secession as a last-ditch effort. Moreover, I don’t think anyone claimed secession is an absolute, universal right in all times and circumstances.

To be clear, the tipping point was when Virginia seceded from the Union after Lincoln organized 75,000 troops to be used against American citizens in response to Ft. Sumter.

All the while young girls were crawling into northern ditches to starve to death after 3-4 years of brutal labor in mills and factories. Why couldn’t the South have invaded the North on grounds that the industrial economy was a moral evil, which as a good Chestertonian distributist, you know it was. By the way, how did those good northern capitalists gain so much wealth and power in the first place? Hmmm.

As for Reconstruction: I think your view of Lincoln’s post-war intentions is a bit lofty. And your criticisms of the South after the war disregard human nature. If only the South hadn’t been angry and bitter and just did what they were told. I guess so–but that’s not what people do when they’ve been invaded, had their men killed, women raped, property stolen or burned, culture transformed, political power usurped, etc.

“There is no doubt that wars may have moral purposes. Union and emancipation were moral purposes. So were secession and independence, however muddied by the immoral purpose of slavery.

… any price for victory is acceptable to the generals and politicans of the victorious side, who are under great pressure to say that it is acceptable. But the accounting is conventionally not attempted. Victors do not wish to evaluate their victory as a net gain for fear that it will prove a net loss.

I doubt that such a calculation is possible, even if somebody were willing to try it. But that should not stop us from asking, if only to keep the question open, what we gained, as a people, by the North’s expensive victory. My own impression is that the net gain was more modest and more questionable than is customarily said.

… It does not seem unreasonable to say that emancipation was achieved and, almost by the same stroke, botched. The slaves were set free only to remain an exploited people for another hundred years. My own guess is that, after the decision was taken to make slavery an issue of war, emancipation was inevitably botched. The North in effect abandoned the ex-slaves to the mercy of its embittered and still dissident former enemy, to whom they would be ever-present reminders, symbols virtually, of defeat.

Furthermore we have remained a people in need of a racially designated underclass of menial laborers to do the work that the privileged (of whatever race) are too good, too well educated, and too ignorant to do for themselves. Our Stepanfetchits at present are Mexican immigrants, whom we fear for the familiar reasons that we exploit them and that we depend on them.

… When my thoughts circle about, trying to give my disturbance a location that is specific and familiar enough, they light sooner or later on ‘The Battle Hymn of the Republic.’ This song has a splendid tune, but the words are perfectly insane.

… I have made clear, I hope, my failure to perceive the glory of the coming of the Lord in the Civil War and its effects… theirs was not a conflict of pure good and pure evil. The Civil War was our first great industrial war, which was good for business, like every war since. The Civil War established violence against noncombatants as acceptable military policy. The Army of the United States, no longer the Northern army, proceeded from the liberation of the slaves to racist warfare against the native tribespeople of the West.”

I believe I see one of our fundamental points of disagreement. I’m extremely dubious as to the feasibility of forging any single humane & civilized political sovereignty to cover a region as great as the territory which currently comprises the continental United States.

I’d just as soon Europe remain in danger of being a collection of warring states than to see all of said states brought together under one banner of European union. I do not regard the problem as merely one of bad secularist guys at the helm, but in a methodology of excessive consolidation itself. Barring some sort of equivalent of the Hapsburgs arising on this continent (sorry, Mr. Sabin) I cannot endorse the existence of the state-entity referred to as “America” at all.

Or rather, my attitude toward America as an entity is exactly how (IMO) a healthy-spirited Frenchman or Italian or German would view “Europe”. A large culturally and geographically diverse region, not something they yearn to see merged into a politically-consolidated state.

As to victimology, I don’t see how it is victimology to point to the bad consequences of the war anymore than it would be victimology to question the wisdom of dropping atomic bombs on Japan. After all, from a certain point of view the Japanese (women, children, and aged) “deserved it” based on what went on in Nanking and at Bataan.

In any event, the point of revisiting the legacy of the Lincoln administration is to ask whether seeds of our current situation might not have been extant in the WBTS.

One might even be of the pro-Union position and still find the question fruitful. I know plenty of people (myself included) who would support US involvement in WWII, yet who are simultaneously very very concerned about the unfortunate societal changes induced by that conflict (“Rosie the Riveter”, degradation of morals, industrial expansion, government expansion, increasing propagandizing of society, getting chummy with Stalin & hence fostering Marxism at home, embrace of Total War philosophy, etc., etc….)

In short, I find it difficult to accept the suggestion that the events of the 1860s did not contribute to centralization and the death of subsidiarity. I also find it difficult to accept the notion that Northern victory was an unmixed blessing and that the Southern cause was an unmixed evil. I make a big deal of the matter because I do not believe them to be academic questions; these two positions cloud our understanding of the past, which in turn hampers our ability to comprehend the present.

Perhaps these are not the positions you are arguing or even implying, in which case I’ve misunderstood.

I also find it quite difficult to accept the comparison, commonly made on the Christian Right, of the Confederate to the modern-day abortionist. Granting that the comparison is inapt, this is not the sort of thing anybody accepts having said and repeated about one’s ancestors.

There is a constant victimology here, that serves no purpose. “If the North would leave us alone!” Well, it did, and we used the freedom to oppress blacks. “If the blacks had been kinder to us, etc.” Or rather, it serves all the wrong purposes. As I said, you cannot have this kind of conversation without the racists crawling out of the ground and gumming up the works. The editors were right to purge the outright defenses of slavery and overtly racist sentiments. Failure to do so ruined TakiMag, so that they had to turn off all comments. (Although, to be fair, some of the official contributors weren’t much better.)

And in truth, the Northern position is not an unreasonable one. Had a right of secession been recognized, it is likely that this continent would be a collection of waring states with neither peace nor prosperity. Indeed, the New England states might have left before the South, setting up a battle for control of the West. If every argument can lead to a new nation, there will be a multiplication of the nations and of arguments.

So long as secession is tied to a defense of slavery, it retards talk of secession. And anyway secession isn’t an option right now, (although it may become one in the near future, as the hold of Washington weakens.) The current task is to restore subsidiarity (which term I prefer to “states’ rights,” since that term has become problematic.) This cannot happen without repeal of the 16th Amendment and restoration of the 10th.