Looking back at the Confederacy with modern eyes

Fort Worth Star-Telegram ^ | January 22, 2007 | JERRY PATTERSON (Texas Land Commisioner)

[Dog Gone]

Any attempt to judge our history by today's standards -- out of the context in which it occurred -- is at best problematic and at worst dishonest.

For example, consider the following quotations:

"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished."

"[T]here is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

By today's standards, the person who made the first statement, Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, would be considered enlightened. The person who made the second, President Abraham Lincoln, would be considered a white supremacist.

Many believe that the War Between the States was solely about slavery and that the Confederacy is synonymous with racism. That conclusion is faulty because the premise is inaccurate.

If slavery had been the sole or even the predominant issue in sparking the Civil War, this statement by Lincoln is puzzling: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it."

If preserving slavery was the South's sole motive for waging war, why did Lee free his slaves before the war began? In 1856, he said slavery was "a moral and political evil in any country."

Why was Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation effective in 1863 rather than when the war started in 1861? And why did it free only the slaves in the Confederacy and not in Northern or border states?

If slavery was the only reason for the Civil War, how do you explain Texas Gov. Sam Houston's support for the Union and for the institution of slavery? In light of the fact that 90 percent of Confederate soldiers owned no slaves, is it logical to assume they would have put their own lives at risk so that slave-owning aristocrats could continue their privileged status?

There are few simple and concise answers to these questions.

One answer, however, is that most Southerners' allegiance was to their sovereign states first and the Union second. They believed that states freely joined the Union without coercion and were free to leave.

You could say they really believed in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- the "powers not delegated" clause. They believed that the federal government should be responsible for the common defense, a postal service and little else. They viewed the Union Army as an invader, not an emancipator.

I am not attempting to trivialize slavery. It is a dark chapter in our history, North and South alike.

However, I am a proud Southerner and a proud descendent of Confederate soldiers. I honor their service because, to me, it represents the sacrifice of life and livelihood that Southerners made for a cause more important to them than their personal security and self-interest.

I'm aware of the genocidal war conducted by my country against the American Indian, but I'm still a proud American. And I'm also aware of the atrocities that occurred at My Lai, but I am proud of my service as a Marine in Vietnam.

If the Confederate flag represented slavery, the U.S. flag must represent slavery even more so.

Slavery existed for four years under the Stars and Bars and for almost 100 years under the Stars and Stripes.

If the few hundred members of racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan want to adopt the Confederate flag as their symbol, over the objections of millions of Southerners, should we believe it has been corrupted for all time?

Given that the KKK has adopted the cross for its burnings, should churches across the country remove this symbol of Christian faith from all places of worship?

Should we diminish the service of the Buffalo Soldiers (black U.S. cavalry troopers of the late 1800s) because they were an integral part of a war that subjugated and enslaved the Plains Indians?

No. We should not surrender the Confederate flag or the cross to the racists, and we should not tear down the monuments.

Retroactive cleansing of history is doomed to failure because it is, at heart, a lie. We should memorialize and commemorate all of our soldiers who served honorably -- those who wore blue or gray or served as Buffalo Soldiers -- whether or not we in today's enlightened world completely support their actions.

---

Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. As a state senator, he sponsored legislation establishing the Juneteenth Commission for the purpose of funding a Juneteenth monument on the Texas Capitol grounds.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Have you never heard of sharecroppers? Do you think they were all black?

Have you heard of any white sharecropers prior to 1865? The fact is that sharecropping is the labor system that replaced slavery in the south, functioning as debt slavery or peonage and thus able to trap poor whites as well as poor blacks.

[LexBaird]

I believe it would have developed into something much more oppressive than anything we've ever seen out of Washington DC.

I don't think it would have lasted long enough to. A nation founded in blood and fire upon the proposition that its constituent territories can leave at will would likely have balkanized into mini nation-states in a generation or two.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

I don't think it would have lasted long enough to. A nation founded in blood and fire upon the proposition that its constituent territories can leave at will would likely have balkanized into mini nation-states in a generation or two.

That's a good point that I overlooked. Contrary to the unhistorical myths associated with confederate nostalgia, there was no unified southern nation. The rebellion was a political power grab by the slaveowning elite temporarily fueled by a burst of strong, but false and shallow, regional fervor. The idea of "southern nationhood" had no staying power in war and there's no reason to believe that it would have endured long in peace either.

[Nephi]

Thanks for the link to DiLorenzo's lectures. His book was very interesting. It answered a lot of questions I had about the civil war. Needless to say, my admiration for Lincoln has turned to disgust.

Unfortunately, DiLorenzo maintains an inexplicable devotion to free trade as promoted by globalists. He seems to miss the connection that he made between Lincoln and the "money interests" and the then favored "protectionism" and what we are witnessing today: "money interests" and "free trade." During Lincoln's day, protectionism benefited the "money interests," today, free trade benefits the money interests/corporations. Just as one can argue that the US benefited from the graft of Lincoln's "internal improvement" programs the globalists argue today that the US benefits from global trade. I don't doubt that some benefits do trickle down, I only question whether Lincoln's way was the best way and whether the globalist free trade way is the best way. I believe tariffs put the economic reins back in the hands of the people and that is why globalists hate tariffs.

When I googled for an author about Lincoln, DiLorenzo's book came up. Then I googled DiLorenzo's book to see what had been written about it. I came to the same conclusion about the arguments against his writing as did you. Observing this seemingly orchestrated attack on DiLorenzo convinced me that I'm seeing the real side of Lincoln and I hope he rots in hell for the 620,000 lives that were lost thanks to his war of aggression.

[Non-Sequitur]

Needless to say, my admiration for Lincoln has turned to disgust.

Try reading up on Jefferson Davis some time.

[Non-Sequitur]

Still looking forward to hearing your thoughts on some of the questions I raised earlier.

[lentulusgracchus]

There was also the matter of New York and Rhode Island refusing to ratify the constitution, until the anti-secession clause was removed.

Never heard that one before -- you learn something every day! Thanks.

[Ditter]

I am a Southerner with ancestors who fought for the south, they owned no slaves. The other side of my family (mothers side) did own slaves but as far as I know none were in Confederate Army.

Looking at the war with my eyes, I see it as the most embarrassing period of our history. Both sides should have been ashamed that they couldn't work things out.

[lentulusgracchus]

Work done by blacks in the south carried a stigma for decades afterwards.

Sure. It was slave work. Like rowing a galley, or guarding the sultan's seraglio. Honest people didn't do it.

Whites weren't interested in competing with blacks for jobs as maids or cooks or field hands and we all know it.

That "and we all know it" crack gives you away. You're letting your spleen show again.

Whites weren't interested in competing with indentured servants as henchboys and scullery-maids, either. So what?

You keep wanting to do it, so just go ahead and do it: "It was all about race because you Southerners are all racists and everybody who's better than you are knows it, nyah, nyah, nyah!" Go ahead, put it up there. You know you want to.

[Non-Sequitur]

You keep wanting to do it, so just go ahead and do it: "It was all about race because you Southerners are all racists and everybody who's better than you are knows it, nyah, nyah, nyah!" Go ahead, put it up there. You know you want to.

Well, if that's your position then who am I to argue with it?

[agincourt1415]

Sorry don't have the link for that now, but yeah, that was a freeper argument thread a few years back.

Deo Vindice!

[swmobuffalo]

"There were 4 "Loyal Union States" that had slaves,"

FYI Missouri voted to secede and her secession was accepted by the newly constituted Southern government. She was counted as the 12th star on the Battle flag.



http://members.tripod.com/2ndmocavcsa/id14.htm

[fortheDeclaration]

You could say they really believed in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- the "powers not delegated" clause. They believed that the federal government should be responsible for the common defense, a postal service and little else. They viewed the Union Army as an invader, not an emancipator.

Is that why the South demanded fugitive slave laws, making the Federal Government responsible for tracking down fugitive slaves and making Northern States responsible for returning them?

The only 'states rights' the South were concerned with were their own.

[Dawgreg]

Thanks to Jerry Patterson for putting this into REAL perspective!

[Dawgreg]

Sam R. Watkins from Tennessee. :)

[Dawgreg]

BonnieBlueFlag nailed it! The blood ran red on both sides as I have stated before........and to demonize one side over the other because it's "uncomfortable" for some is just STOOPID! You don't learn history by revising it!

[Bigun]

I am privileged to have been acquainted with Jerry Patterson for quite some years now (long before he became a public figure in Texas). He is a very well educated, well spoken, fellow who refuses to subscribe to the current of political correctness. He tells it exactly like it is and lets the chips fall where they may. In short, my kind of guy!

Thanks for posting this and be assured that I will tell Mr. Patterson how much I appreciate his having wrote it and that I sincerely hope that he will consider running for Governor of Texas in four years.

[expatguy]

What is the point you are trying to make?