2,129 words
You should do your duty in all things.
You can never do more, you should never wish to do less.
— Robert E. Lee
Several Southern states observe state holidays at this time of year to remember the men who died fighting for the Confederacy during the War Between the States. For Alabama and Mississippi, that date fell on April 29 of this year. Florida and Georgia celebrated it on April 22, and North and South Carolina will observe Confederate Memorial Day on June 10.
Though I do not hail from Dixie, I can boast of having an ancestor who served in the Confederate army. A native of New Orleans, he served in the 7th Louisiana Infantry Regiment under Brigadier General Harry T. Hays. This regiment was present at First Manassas, Sharpsburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, and Appomattox, among many other battles. While I love all of the branches of my heritage, I am especially proud of the fact that I can claim a genetic connection to the Confederate cause. This year, as I reflect on these great men and the cause that they fought for, I feel compelled to write down a few thoughts about their legacy. It is a legacy that can and should be a source of inspiration for all who care about the future of white people in America today. It certainly is for me.
Southerners in 1861 believed that membership in the Federal Union was not serving their interests. Because of the high tariffs that subsidized Northern industry at the expense of Southern planters, the cotton states felt exploited. They knew that it would be very profitable for them to secede in order to avoid paying these taxes. I argue that whites in America today are likewise not benefiting from the Federal Union. We find ourselves under the heel of a government that is actively working to demographically replace us, constantly invades our privacy, and expects us to fight in — as well as finance — overseas conflicts in which we have no vital interest. Ours is a government that will go to court in order to stop states from defending their borders. It is a government that honors the perpetrators of a racially-motivated massacre of whites. The tyranny that plagues us is far more despotic than anything ever experienced by the white people of the antebellum South.
On the other hand, the tyranny that plagued the South after the war — and parts of the South during the war — was far more horrific than anything we have endured in our lifetimes. The depth of the despair that once permeated Dixie is illustrated by way of a poem by Father Abram Joseph Ryan that was written in June 1865 and is titled “The Conquered Banner.” As it is a somewhat lengthy poem, I will include only the first and last stanzas here, though I recommend reading the full poem:
Furl that Banner, for ’tis weary;
Round its staff ’tis drooping dreary;
Furl it, fold it, it is best;
For there’s not a man to wave it,
And there’s not a sword to save it,
And there’s no one left to lave it
In the blood that heroes gave it;
And its foes now scorn and brave it;
Furl it, hide it — let it rest!
Furl that banner, softly, slowly!
Treat it gently — it is holy —
For it droops above the dead.
Touch it not — unfold it never,
Let it droop there, furled forever,
For its people’s hopes are dead!
This sense of hopelessness was not unjustified. At the time, the South found itself ruled by a class of vengeful occupiers. Southerners were demonized by the press, thanks in no small part to Lincoln’s ruthless campaign of censorship. Atrocities against Southern civilians were excused, for they were tarred as “traitors” who deserved whatever they got.[1] Eventually the usurpers were driven out of power, but not before the people of the South went through years of humiliation.
Another tragedy brought about by the Union victory was the abandonment of the Constitution. President Lincoln showed little regard for the liberties of Northerners who questioned the war’s merits. Tens of thousands of dissidents were imprisoned, including 31 Maryland legislators, the Mayor of Baltimore, and the Democratic candidate for the Ohio governorship. In Missouri, residents of four entire counties were expelled from their homes. For the duration of the conflict, the federal government operated as a quasi-dictatorship. After the war came the three “Reconstruction Amendments.” One of these, the Fourteenth Amendment, would later be used by the Supreme Court nearly a century later to justify such disastrous rulings as Brown v. Board of Education and Shelley v. Kramer. Former Arkansas congressional candidate Neil Kumar aptly characterized the amendment as one of the “Foundations of the Egalitarian Regime.” We can also draw a direct line from the defeat of the Confederacy to the later loss of freedom of association.
Furthermore, if one takes the view — as I do — that the United States Constitution was designed as a compact between sovereign states, that the powers of the federal government were meant to be derived from the states, and that states have the right to secede from the Union, then Lincoln’s government was not justified in waging war against the South.[2] Judge John Henry Rogers, in a 1903 speech that was recently republished at Identity Dixie, made the following point:
As the States entered the Union, each under acts of ratification of its own, so secession meant the resumption by each State of its delegated powers, by repealing the acts under which each seceding State entered the compact; but the repeal of such acts did not and could not affect the acts by which the remaining States entered into the Confederacy. The States of North Carolina and Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until long after Washington’s administration began, and of course were not members of the Union. But the Union existed nevertheless, and existed under the Constitution, as much as it did after these States became members. So when the Confederate States seceded from the Union, the States remaining under the compact were as much a Union under the Constitution as before.
Thus, the seceding states did not betray the Constitution. Instead, it was the Lincoln administration, with its revolutionary claim that the Union was not based on a voluntary compact of sovereign states, that brought about the end of the initial constitutional paradigm. Historian Lyon Gardiner Tyler, the son of President John Tyler, once observed that “[t]he old Union was a union of consent, the present Union is one of force.”[3] How right he was.
The Confederacy, both its memory and its symbols, are being relentlessly assaulted in our time. It is inevitably associated with slavery, even though there were several Union states in which slavery remained perfectly legal throughout the war, and despite the fact that the Confederate states did not secede from the Union to preserve slavery. This last point is most clearly shown by Lincoln’s tacit endorsement of the Corwin Amendment, which would have provided slavery with permanent constitutional protection from any attempts to abolish the institution at the federal level.
There is plenty to lament about the war’s outcome, but I wonder if it might be the case that the most unfortunate legacy of the War Between the States is the subsequent association of secession with treachery and immorality in the minds of so many Americans today. Notice that I intentionally do not call it “the Civil War.” This is because it was not a civil war. The Confederacy was not looking to topple the government in Washington. It only desired to go its own way – peacefully, if possible. In this, it was well within the tradition of the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson. As historian Thomas J. DiLorenzo noted:
In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph Priestley, who had asked Jefferson his opinion of the New England secession movement that was gaining momentum, he wrote: “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern . . . and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family . . .” Jefferson offered the same opinion to John C. Breckinridge on August 12, 1803 when New Englanders were threatening secession after the Louisiana purchase. If there were a “separation,” he wrote, “God bless them both & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”[4]
A national poll released last October, which involved more than 2,500 participants, found that 38% of respondents thought that America needs “a leader who is willing to break some rules,” while 23% believe that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country.”[5] A 2022 poll found that 43% of respondents believe that a civil war within the next decade is “at least somewhat likely.”[6] This is a precarious situation that cries out for a peaceful resolution.
A March 2023 poll found that 20% of Americans support the idea of a “national divorce.”[7] I think that this number is surprisingly low, however, considering the relative openness respondents have shown toward a “rule-breaking” leader and political violence, as well as the widespread fear of a looming civil war. Surely a non-violent separation ought to be preferable to the prospect of resorting to warfare in order to keep the Union together. Anecdotally, whenever I have brought up the idea of a national divorce to individuals I know, their knee-jerk reactions to the idea have been almost invariably hostile. I wonder if widespread popular acceptance of the Lincolnian perspective on the legitimacy of secession, as opposed to the Jeffersonian one, may be preventing millions from seriously entertaining what I see as a rather obvious solution.
Finally, it would hardly be appropriate to write an essay about the Confederacy without mentioning Dixie’s greatest son, General Robert E. Lee. This is a man who I think about often. On more than one occasion I have found myself in some difficult situation and asked myself, “What would Lee do?” It is worth reflecting on the magnitude of the choice he faced when he was asked by Postmaster General Montgomery Blair to command the Union army. Lee was the son of a veteran of the American Revolution, and the husband of Mary Anna Custis, a great-granddaughter of Martha Washington. He had spent his entire adult life in the United States army. When his home state of Virginia was debating secession, Lee thought it was a bad idea. He was undoubtedly a man who felt a deep affection for the Union. Furthermore, rejecting Blair’s offer and joining the Confederates would jeopardize his economic prospects. Indeed, the Lees ended up losing their family home as a result of the war. Nevertheless, he turned Blair down. His first loyalty was to Virginia, for he saw Virginians as his people. Leading a campaign against them was out of the question.
Robert E. Lee realized that unquestioned loyalty to the Union would be a betrayal of his people. Can we not now say the same? If the current system remains intact, whites are bound to become a hated and persecuted minority. As I see it, getting racially conscious white people into positions of power and influence in state and local governments, and then advocating for a non-violent national divorce that would establish one or more “red state” confederations with white supermajorities, is the most promising path toward securing a future for our people. If this is so, then it is our duty to continue the legacy of the Southern “fire-eaters” of yesteryear, and make the case for secession in a calm, reasoned, and non-violent manner.
This is how I honor the memory of the Confederacy, and this is what I believe Lee would do if he were with us today. We should not wish to do less.
Notes
[1] Two books on Union war crimes that I recommend are Jeffrey Addicott’s Union Terror and Walter Brian Cisco’s War Crimes Against Southern Civilians.
[2] For a thorough legal defense of Southern secession, I highly recommend Is Davis a Traitor by Albert Taylor Bledsoe.
[3] Lyon Gardiner Tyler, A Confederate Catechism (Toccoa, Ga.: Confederate Reprint Company, 2014), p. 13.
[4] Thomas J. DiLorenzo, “The Jeffersonian Secessionist Tradition,” Mises Institute, July 9, 2014.
[5] “Threats to American Democracy Ahead of an Unprecedented Presidential Election,” PRRI, October 25, 2023.
[6] Taylor Orth, “Two in Five Americans Say a Civil War is at Least Somewhat Likely in the Next Decade,” YouGov, Aug 26, 2022.
[7] Margaret Talev, “Two Americas Index: 20% Favor a ‘National Divorce,’” Axios, October 16, 2023.
Reflections%20on%20the%20Confederacy%20andamp%3B%20Its%20Relevance%20Today%0A
Share
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
Related
-
How America’s Anglo-Saxon Fabric Was Damaged
-
What Went Wrong with the United States? Part 2
-
What Went Wrong with the United States? Part 1
-
Texas Doesn’t Need Federal Money: Deconstructing the Myth of Essential Federal Funding
-
Introduction to Mihai Eminescu’s Old Icons, New Icons
-
Sperging the Second World War: A Response to Travis LeBlanc
-
Civil War
-
James M. McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom, Part 2
10 comments
White people are so high-minded they almost never appreciate when they are being played.
I agree.
Every strength is simultaneously a weakness, while every weakness is simultaneously a strength.
Idealism and openness to experience are wonderful traits to have, for sure. They will lead you to new horizons, new discoveries, even to the moon and beyond…
But they might also lead you to think that it’s a good idea to “experience” taking a walk through the ‘hood by yourself after dark.
Author, what do you make of the common argument online against celebrating Confederate heritage, that the country lasted only four years (it being compared to modern cultural artifacts that have lasted longer)?
That is a fair question. Everyone prefers to celebrate winners, no doubt. But I see certain advantages in openly celebrating the Confederates, as opposed to other past states that many White Nationalists admire. In the Confederacy we have a polity that is associated with white racial consciousness, self-determination and resistance to American imperialism. In the war that it fought, it was both legally and morally in the right. Unlike other past states that many in our movement like to celebrate, the Confederacy isn’t infamous for committing any major war crimes. It also has many interesting and likable heroes (Lee, Jackson, Stuart, A.P. Hill, Forrest). There are millions of Americans that at least somewhat sympathize with the Confederacy and admire one or more of its heroes. We can see Rebel flags flying in rural areas well above the Mason-Dixon line, and most are opposed to removing Confederate monuments.
As a proud, white southerner, I was fascinated by this article. It reinforced my conviction never to even remotely consider being ashamed of my forefathers. To reject them as unworthy would be every bit as foolish as rejecting myself, for their blood is also mine.
Thank you kindly, Mr. Chambers.
“While I love all of the branches of my heritage, I am especially proud of the fact that I can claim a genetic connection to the Confederate cause.”
“Jefferson offered the same opinion to John C. Breckinridge on August 12, 1803 when New Englanders were threatening secession after the Louisiana purchase.”
“Lee was the son of a veteran of the American Revolution, and the husband of Mary Anna Custis, a great-granddaughter of Martha Washington.”
The great thing about the south, is that everyone is related to everyone since many of us have been there since earliest settlement. One of my paternal grandfather’s sons – not my own direct ancestor – was one of the men who used rifled weapons taken from the US forces to hold back a charge on a key hill at the Battle of Saltville.. He was famous for the rest of his life locally for the bodies that these few militia men had stacked up around them, and managed to survive.
Breckenridge, mentioned above, was the Southern Dem candidate for President in the 1860 election, losing to Lincoln, since the majority of the voting population was now in the North, and he was the overall commander of the forces at the Battle of Saltville…
Breckenridge was also the nephew of William Preston, and the local Virginia reserves at the Battle of Saltville were commanded by another member of the Preston family – my family was only there because of a connection to the Preston family that goes back through the Battle of Guilford Courthouse during the Revolutionary war, generations earlier.
During the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, Henry Lee (mentioned randomly above) – Robert E Lee’s ancestor – was the commander of the Cavalry covering force that pushed back Banastre Tarleton’s attacking force that attacked the Virginia wing that my own ancestor was fighting in..
That is not even a complete list of connections in this fairly short article, but I will stop there. I think that people who settle a place themselves and actually created it value it and their neighbors in a way that people who simply move to an existing city / country do not, because they see it only for what it can offer to them, instead of what others have sacrificed for them.
Couldn’t agree more
Not to take away from your fine post and the excellent article, but John C. Breckinridge (1821-1875) ─ who ran for President in 1860, and under Buchanan was the youngest-ever Vice President of the United States, later serving as the Confederate Secretary of War in 1865 ─ was actually the grandson of John Breckinridge (1760-1806) who was President Jefferson’s Attorney General ─ and was married to Mary Hopkins Cabell (which is where the C comes from in later generations).
🙂
We find ourselves [today]under the heel of a government that is actively working to demographically replace us…
—
Well said, Mr. Chambers, stating the obvious. As a lifelong son of the South, I agree with much of your well-researched essay.
—
A March 2023 poll found that 20% of Americans support the idea of a “national divorce.” …Surely a non-violent separation ought to be preferable to the prospect of resorting to warfare in order to keep the Union together.
—
Of that 20%, the minority of determined eligible White preservationists, peaceably separating from Jews and other non-Whites, and from Whites in the 80% who are content to be in a bad marriage, is preferable to armed, violent struggle to be sure. We racial preservationists must gather to withdraw our consent to be governed in a detrimental marriage — call grounds for our divorce “irreconcilable differences.”
—
As I see it, getting racially conscious white people into positions of power and influence in state and local governments, and then advocating for a non-violent national divorce that would establish one or more “red state” confederations with white supermajorities, is the most promising path toward securing a future for our people.
State secession isn’t plausible. Which state is best suited for that, Texas? Texas is already minority White and many of those White Texans go along with their bad marriage to get along. Mestizo Texans cannot make White babies. What percentage of Whites constitutes a supermajority? Anything less than 100% strikes me as a half-measure. Will the non-Whites in your supermajority be sterilized?
Whites are not going to vote our way out of the bad marriage. Fact! Not with state or national politicians. Local elections still matter, but only in mostly White precincts and counties. Disciplined local community-building can work.
As for southern nationalism, modeled on the “lost cause” of the CSA, the sentimentality is nice but offers no solution in 2024. William Pierce’s “Reality Check” from 24 years ago tells us why:
You know, the various organizations which are busy defending the Confederate flag today always assert that the flag is not a racist symbol. But of course, it is and always has been. My great-great-grandfather, [Alabama] Governor Watts, never heard the word “racist.” The Jews hadn’t invented it as a term of opprobrium yet. But by every common standard in use today he was a racist. Certainly not all, but many of his fellow Southerners did not approve of the institution of slavery. They would have been happy to be able to outlaw the institution and to ship every Negro and every mulatto and every quadroon to Africa and set
them free. But to a man they were racists, by today’s media standards. They were racists because they recognized the simple fact of racial differences…
Here’s an example which ties in again to the Civil War. A lot of men — overaged kids, really — like to play soldier. They like to reenact various historic battles, and Civil War battles are among their favorites. They like to get out on the battlefield and pretend that they are members of real military units of the past — such as my great-great-grandfather’s 17th Alabama Infantry Regiment — and then they fire blanks at each other and maneuver around as they imagine it actually happened. They pride themselves greatly on the authenticity of their uniforms and equipment. They will spend thousands of dollars for various bits and pieces of uniforms, and they will pore over old dispatches and memoirs to make sure that they’ve got all of the details right — all of the details except one, that is: the mindset of the soldiers who actually fought the real battles. Talk to one of these Confederate make-believe soldiers sometime. The first thing he will assure you is that the fact he likes to play soldier in a Confederate uniform doesn’t mean he is a racist. No, no, no! Far from it! In fact, he will try to persuade you that the real Confederate soldiers weren’t racists either, but instead were models of Political Correctness. Fake ammunition and fake beliefs. No more integrity or honesty than most of the supporters of the Confederate flag. They cling to the trivial and deny the important….
I hate to butcher Dr. Pierce’s “Reality Check” like that to make his point, The rest of the transcript is found here: Reality Check | National Vanguard.
—
Robert E. Lee realized that unquestioned loyalty to the Union would be a betrayal of his people…
—
Yet he surrendered his rebel army and his people. The bad marriage was reconciled by his surrender. He regretted later agreeing with General Grant that his men would not “take up arms against the Govt. of United States.”
“Three hundred thousand Yankees
Is stiff in southern dust
We got three hundred thousand
Before they conquered us
They died of southern fever
And southern steel and shot
I wish they was three million
Instead of what we got”
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.