Obviously, American Indians were very much a part of Southern history--though a little too early to make in into the Collective Conscious of modern America. The cameras and the news media just weren't developed in the 18th century. The Southern Indian affiars were pretty much over by 1840. (The Trail of Tears was in 1838). But the fact is Southern Indians had possibly more to do with the development of the Southern colonies than the northern Indians had to do with the development of New England.
The Londoners came to America--Southern America, in 1606. That was after Sir Walter Raleigh had come in 1584 for the failed Roanoke settlement in was was to be called "Virginia." (Raleigh tried again in 1587--on the same island.) Of course, all that was after English mariner Martin Frobisher had tried Canada in 1576. The point being these were economic ventures, and carried no deeper motivation or vision. Very much unlike the Puritan colonists, the people of the Southern settlements had no profound sense of purpose. They met, however, with the same profound obstacles of the northern colonists. Raleigh ended up condemned and hanged for blasphemy and treason--accused of being a agent of Catholic Spain, among other things. The Purtians, by contrast, were already disconnected from both the church of England and the church of Rome. They had no ties to be manipulated with or ostricized for.
It was Christopher Newport and self-styled "Captain" John Smith was made the 'royal' effort in Jamestown. The Chesapeake area Indians (Powhatan and the like) did not function as the 'saviors' to the English as Wampanoags had to the Pilgrims. The unspiritual economic adventurers died of depression and lethargy, as prisoners of war. They often "escaped" to the Indians, for survival. The Virginia Company was then taken over by Lord De La Warr, who began operating it like a military camp with severe discipline. (Indeed, his name is long remembered as "Delaware," the name given to a whole tribal network of Indians.) He inflicted the death penalty for rape "maid or Indian," by the way, for desertion to and trading with Indians as well. De La Warr declared war on the Indians by 1610. No such thing occurred among the early Pilgrim settlements. De La Warr's successor in 1611, Sir Thomas Dale, was another soldier, newly supplied, and he pursued the Powhatans fifty miles west of Jamestown.
Clearly, the initial Southern English approach to Indians was hostile. Interestingly, it would later be realized that the very largest and civilized tribes of the Americas were in fact in the Southern regions. There may have been less white people in the South than in the North, but there were apparently a lot more Indians. Perhaps it was because of De La Warr's desperate attempt to save the Virginia Company that he 'inflicted' a military approach to the whole situation; in any case, the precedent was of a bellecose nature that even the romance and marriage of Pocahontas and Ralph Hamor (her first 'husband') could not remedy in 1614--or thereafter.
There is little of the "noble savage" image in the minds (records) of the early Southern English. There were little serious attempts and converting Indians to Christianity. Remember, the southern settlements were economic-turned-military in their nature. No mission for humanity, no vision for betterment. It was all terribly pragmatic and profit-based.
Tobacco turned out to be the first cash crop, and it was a giant weed which depleted the soil very quickly. Thus, the whole impetus for expansion, for acquisition of more land, was simply profit. The southern settlements were not into building a new nation, but working for the companies of London--and making a handsome personal profit in the process. There were some crude attempts to make Powhatan leaders into subjects of the Crown, of course, but the Indians were averse to such artificial stratifications.
Eventually, United States government--a product of the Pilgrims, took to taking over the southern colonies. In the person of General Andrew Jackson, the original English notion of taking all the land for profit saw its early heyday. Jackson marched the major part of the southern tribes out to "Indian Territory" in 1838. That way all the land could be used for cash crops. The Indians simply had to be removed. They were in the way. And they put up such a nasty fight!
Cherokee Colonel Stand Watie, 1806-1871
retired as Confederate Brigadier General.
The Indians of "Oklahoma" were the southern Indians, the Cherokee, the Chickasaw, the Choctaw, the Creek, and the Seminole. When the Civil War came about, these tribes generally sided instinctively with the South. The South was their homeland. They still felt that way about it. The North of course was concerned that the Confederacy was making inroads in Indian Territory. There were actual battles in Oklahoma, involving Indians. The Northern forces fought Confederate Sources over Indians! I should say, over control of Indians. By the summer of 1862, the North had driven Southern forces out of Indian Territory north of the Arkansas River. These Indians were placed in three regiments by the North. Interestingly the "Southern" Indians were also organized into three regiments under General Albert Pike. Cherokee Chief John Ross had preferred neutrality, but, division among Indians was inevitable. Ross believed the South would be victorious, and went about seeking treaties with the Confederacy. Cherokee Colonel Stand Watie (Stanwaite) was involved in the Battle of Pea Ridge in 1862, and ended up accused of scalping the fallen soldiers of the North. For this, Pike confined Watie to Indian Territory. (It was Pea Ridge (northwest Arkansas) that reverse the thentofore undisputed supremacy of the South among the Indians of the Territory (Oklahoma).
Of course, the plains Indians were still free on the hunt. Plains Indians had no stake in the Civil War. This is another giant psychological difference between Plains Indians and the Civilized Tribes. The history is different. Plains Indians don't have the role in American history in the same way that the eastern woodland tribes do. The plains tribes were still at war with the United States government even until the late 1870's. The Civilized Tribes were fighting as Americans already!
Ely S. Parker, Iroquois (Seneca) 1828-1895,
Brigadier General of the Union.
Inasmuch as more American Indians today are not identified politically, however, it might be difficult to measure the "Southern" disposition among Indians--even the Five Civilized Tribes. The South is most definitely their homeland, but, are they "Southerners" in the cultural sense? Probably not. Do they have a deep aversion to the North? They probably might.
In any case, it is a time in American history when Indians need to take a stand--for America. North, South, or West, this is collectively our homeland, like no one else's. It is time that we had a national voice in the American arena. Yes, we can profess neutrality, we can occupy ourselves with our independent nations, we can absorb ourselves with introspection and liberal protest against all thing white and European--i.e., American. But this is unwise. This weakens our actual position. We are essentially not in charge of ourselves. That is an illusion. We are stewards of a larger nation. Indeed, the United States declared us citizens in 1924--without even asking us if we wanted to be.
We cannot live without the effects of our circumstances. We cannot live as though we are not American citizens. I don't see any advantage for us in such an approach. We cannot remain "neutral," as Chief Ross so desired. It is not possible.
Therefore, we need to make intelligent political decisions now. We need to become actively involved in American politics. I don't mean in liberal, kook-based protest activism; I don't mean Communist-led anti-American organizations. I mean Indians should be involved in American politics in a positve way, in a shaping way, in a way that insures our future. I don't think any Indians would disagree with that.
We all have a common plight, yes; but, political movements based on common plight are merely reactionary, not formative. They are slavish, not progressive in the true sense. They are also unbeautiful. They are mean and ugly. I do believe we can do better. We are a people of great beaufy and art, by nature. It is wholly averse our nature to take such a negative view of life and circumstance. It is time we grew out of that mind set. It's not us.
Ghosts sometimes take a hundred years to settle into a good old fashion haunting. Especially do ghosts that are associated with specific historical contexts take their sweet time. Well, that's what the old South was all about--sweet time. Slow, patient, unhurried time. (A psychological note--ghosts always reflect the specific flavor and ambience of the environment of their haunt. That only tells us that the imagination of the living is particularly influenced by its own memory.)
There are a number of interesting books on Southern hauntings. We can start with fiction, or ghost stories, and this would be most appropriate, since imagination is the true haunt of all memory.
There's Sherry Austin, Mariah of the Spirits and Other Southern Ghost Stories (Johnson City, TN: The Overmountain Press, 2002). Of course, these are tales of a modern author, but in the "spirit" of the old South. But now, historian and folklorist Talmadge (Tally) Johnson's Ghosts of the South Carolina Upcountry (2005) is a collection of authentic legends and ghost stories. That's different from a modern-authored fiction writer. Johnson has another book with the same authenticity as his first: Ghosts of the South Carolina Midlands (2007). So we're really getting specific here at least as to the locale of the hauntings. What could be more appropriate. After all, a "haunt" is a place were someone hangs out. (There's a web site for South Carolina Ghost stories , too. And a more general site for Southern Ghosts, Obiowan's UFO-Free Paranormal Page, complete with state listings. Of course, internent can get quite "fictional.") And to top it all off, we even have a Ghost Dogs of the South (2003), by Randy Russell and Janet Barnett. There's even a company of ghost-hunters called Memphis Mid-South Ghost Hunters (formerly called the Ghost Stalkers of West Tennessee). And there's Ghost Hunters of the South out of Mobile, Alabama (currently looking to fill a Case Manager position)--not to be outdone by SouthGhostOps, or Ghost Operations of the South, out of Huntsville. This is all practically cultic. Is this marketing, or are there a lot of unsettled spirits in the Old South? Note that prominant use of the name "South" in all these topics. Ghost Hunters of the South (October, 2008) by Alan Brown (University of West Alabama) puts together modern accounts of encounters with old Southern ghosts, all neatly published by the University of Mississippi. Can't go wrong there, eh?
Of course, native Californian liberal Steve Lopez has an opinion on Southern ghosts, an opinion promoted nationally by Time Magazine. In love with the great Northern wave of dominant liberalism--which demeans anything that smacks of American cultural preservation, Lopez wrote a piece for Time called "Ghosts of the South," in which he cites attitudes, dispositions, and opinions of modern, living Southerns. Instead of calling them demented, retarded, or otherwise defective, he presents an image of them in which their minds are haunted. They are full of old, antiquated attitudes that are completely foreign to the rest of the country. A nasty piece, really.
It was over a lunch of Confederate fried steak in Columbia, S.C., that I realized something crucial about North and South. A passport ought to be required to travel from one to the other. Despite decades of economic and cultural homogenization, the regions remain as different as basketball and NASCAR. That thought occurred when my lunch partner, a man named Chris Sullivan, told me this: "To say the War Between the States was about slavery is like saying the Revolutionary War was about tea." And he meant it, sure as the pear trees bloom in sun-washed Columbia, the South is rising once again.
But here's the tell-tale accusation:
Sullivan isn't exactly representative of mainstream Southern thought; he's the editor of Southern Partisan magazine, which celebrates the Confederate cause and employs writers allied with self-styled "white-rights" groups.
And more:
"Robert Penn Warren said when the Confederacy died, it became immortal in the South," says Charles Wilson, director of the Center for the Study of Southern Culture at the University of Mississippi. "Southern white ministers were the center of a kind of civil religion that sacralized the Confederacy after the war was over to help keep it alive, so they made Robert E. Lee into a saint and Stonewall Jackson into a martyr." Outposts of rebel theology can still be found. At the Confederate Presbyterian Church in Wiggins, Miss., parishioners enter the chapel by passing through a room lined with framed photographs of Generals Lee, Forrest and Jackson. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Pastor John Thomas Cripps, a member of a white supremacist organization called the League of the South, is one of 30 neo-Confederate ministers preaching a mix of white Christian dominance and succession.
"Outposts of rebel theology" eh? Is that what it is, Mr. Lopez, Mr. Grand American Liberal? Ah, the inflatus of thy self-conceits. This is called advocacy journalism (something Bernie Goldberg would hotly condemn, as he did on Bill O'Reilly recently). So now, if you think like anyone thought in the past, your mind has a "ghost." Your mind is 'haunted.' That's it. That's a new one for the libs. A politically correct way of saying you're insane. You're mentally ill. Now, a lilberal would painstakingly avoid the appearance of accusing anyone of being faulty by reason of insanity or mental illness--unless it was in defense of a raving murderer or Muslim, but then, that wouldn't be an accusation of fault. That would be a defense. So now the liberal obviously may freely accuse a conservative thinker or a conservative opinion--not of insanity, but of being haunted. How merciful. Why, a person can't help being haunted. A person has no control over ghosts. How noble of the liberal, how compassionate. (And where in the world would this leave American Indians? or any tribal people of the world? Hopeless infestations of spirits? Or, hopelessly socially retarded? For the liberal, the key word there is "hopeless," in any case. Liberals love having hordes of hopeless about them. They apparently ascend on such masses of dependency.)
This is what it's come to. The Southerner is either haunted or mentally ill. Whether the American public believes in ghosts or not weighs equally well in the liberal's accusation of the South. The Southern is defective either way. This is the great liberal understanding of the world about him. If you think differently from him, you are defective and immoral. This disposition I believe was well established before Michael Savage declared that liberalism was a mental disease.
Sounds like we're all a bit blind, doesn't it? Making the same accusations of one another, this has to be comical before the angels. Men say to each other, "We think differently. We can't both be right, therefore, you're wrong!"
Fine. But what about the supernatural? Is that an issue at all? Is a ghost nothing more than a strong memory which, in the right circumstances, can produce halucinations? I would say (as I said in my book Altered States, 2007) that man has believed in the supernatural ever since we have any record of man believing anything. But, this idea that the spirits of the dead are all accessible is problematic. The capacities of the human imagination have always entertained it, for there seems to be some comfort in it. However, the supernatural is a totally inconsistent array of activity and record. It seems to be a giant blob of vague projection of the human mind--adapting to whatever state that mind is in. The concepts of the supernatural have very closely followed the order of human knowledge, and the evolution of technology. But even that is illusory, for the ancients apparently had experience with UFO's as well as we sophisticated moderners, if we're to take Erik Von Daniken with any seriousness at all. Everything that can occur in the imagination of man has already occurred, and occurred anciently.
Perhaps then this is all a matter of marketing. Fads are market creations, else the market is a leech of trends. Add to that the matter of politicalization, and you have "Ghosts of the South," in the liberal sense. The Southerner is a the ultimate arugment belittling conservatism. Conservatism is a haunting. If Liberalism is the actual mental illness, as Savage says, then Conservatism is sleeping with ghosts. (Indeed, this imaginary thought was marketed on the Lovetripper.com: "Where to Sleep with a Ghost in the South," October 2005. Sounds like a willing encounter with the Medieval succubus or incubus. Better than that, sounds like just the ancient idea of sex with the gods. An immortal notion in the mind of human beings, as if all mental energy is sexual in nature. Who knows? Was Freud right after all?
There was a time, in Tennessee, when Seventh-day Adventists were put on chain gangs for observing Saturday, the original sabbath of Genesis 2:1. Of course, records of that were in the late 19th century, as in the case of Paris, Tennessee, in 1892. Four different Adventists were sentence--not for specifically observing Sabbath, but for failing to obey the law that enforced Sunday observance! They had worked on Sunday. They had chopped and hauled wood, and plowed a strawberry field, and other activities for which they were charged. It was simply a matter of them working when the law of the land said they could not work. After being fined $25 dollars each, three of the convicts were put on a chain gang, and made to do street labor. Well, of a truth, the United States Constitution states in the 13th Amendment that slavery and involuntary servitude can be used as punishment for those convicted of crime. It was a crime to work on Sunday in Paris, Tennessee in 1892. (Here are a series of detailed articles in the form of children's stories, about the chain gang espisode: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. Interestingly, here is a testimony of a modern, embittered former Adventist, whose grandfather was one of the men on the Tennessee chain gangs.)
It was also a crime in Brooks County, Georgia. Samuel Mitchell was charged a fine of $30, but served out the sentence instead--thirty days in jail!. (He was too poor to pay the fine.) That was in the 1870's. He contracted a lung infection (TB?) while in jail and died later.
South Carolina has some interesting records about more recent cases of Sabbath observance. The issue seems to be about freedom of religion, rather than which day is the sabbath (--a rather odd but persistent issue). It is a 1963 case, Sherbert v. Verner.
A Georgian chain gang in the field.
Perhaps this is a kind of attitude that might be expected in an "isolationist" atmosphere, as the South came to be regarded. Any section of the country that was of a mind to separate and become its own country was bound to have a very powerful "local" law and enforcement set up. The North came to see the South as a breeding ground for soplipsistic, isolationist, and separatists, up to no good, and bent on personal preferences. Why, it was that old evil slavery thing. That was the root, or should we say, the manifestationiof the root. Any people that could harbor such a horrible thing (--never mind that the North had much slavery as well) just had to be rotten to the core. One was bound to find exotic perversions, twisted ideology, and down right criminal practices displayed in broad daylight--in the sons of the South. Cock-fighting, dog-fighting, Creoles, clams and fox hunts, it was all part of the demented, crippled moral culture of the South. Forget the gentry. It was the common man of the South that was forever branded by the Civil War.
Never mind Ann Coulter's noble expose on the Southern patriot, and the military service the modern Southerner has provided the whole country. The Northerner (except the thinking Northerner, like Ann) continues to be very suspicious of the Southerner. Movies continue to be made that dramatize the completely evil mind set of the local, small-town Southerner. MIssissippi Burning (1988) is a rather classic example. In the Heat of the Night (1967)was another one, before that. Both of these movies are set in the mid-20th century. The image of the faulty Southerner persists. No doubt, this is due to the modern Northern liberal's continual need to have victims. The Negro is still the favorite. There must be a bad white man who abused the black man. It's sure not going to be the Northern white, or the Northern black.
And I must admit, a lot of Northerners today still the South with a visceral aversion. I once new an Italian girl (when I was living in New Haven, CT) who told me a story about one of her uncles. "He was driving through a small town somewhere in Alabama. They caught him for speeding, and put him immediately in jail! He had to call some relatives to come down and help, or he would never have gotten out." She didn't go into too many details, but I got the picture clear enough.
But can't this independence and "isolationism" of the Southerner be a blessing?
If set at the right angle, at the right place, can't it serve the grandest purpose of all--to uphold the United States Constitution? This is just about what it's come to. It takes a revolutionary-type mind set, a severe separatist--to stand for the most basic sociological phenomenon in the country: States rights. States rights--and the true responsibility of the American citizen. The North certainly hasn't brought any of this sentiment to pass. The North is feverishly trying to give the country away to the Third World, lowering every standard possible, subjecting Americans to all manner of foreign foul play, danger, and disease. A mega dose of isolationism might do the country well! (If Ron Paul's Libertarianism weren't in the way, the center of his ideology might be the one remedy America needs most of all.)
I'm thinking the ideology of the Confederacy--states rights--is the last hope of America. States rights would enable the population to regain a sense of self-responsibility. States rights would allow the people to assume more power over themselves. As it stands, American government has made the American public more and more immature, until we appear as the spoiled child of the world, with obesity to boot. Government is the worst possible influence on the human race. When out of sync with the people, it destroys all semblence of manhood. American is considering electing a woman. This is symtomatic of a profound disjuncture of ideology and reality. This is the brink. America is considering electing marginal, nearly alien Negro. This is equally symtomatic. That half the people of the country would consider these personae to reflect their values only shows that the Democrats have pushed themselves into an anti-American position from which they may never recover. The ideology of both these candidates could not be more inimical to the country, nor more averse and antagonistic to the Constitution of the United States. That yearnings for the Third World should dominate such a large portion of the American public, that romantic, immature and dangerous notions of globalism should sway the mindless souls of half the country, only shows that the South must rise again! States rights.
At this point in history, I think the South would allow Adventists to oberve the sabbath. (There's a large Southern Union of SDA's headquartered in Decatur, GA.) Whatever oddities of mind may or may not still exist in the Southerner, at this point in history, I don't think those dispositions would be harmful to the country. Let's remember, the South is not the Third World.
Bell Irvin Wiley (1906-1980) published a book in 1975 called Confederate Women. (Barnes and Noble picked it up again in 1994). He wrote, "Women fo the South played an important role in the bid for Southern independence." The book offers an interesting concept. The idea that women are at least half the man in any given social circumstances is certainly not new nor disputed. However, the application of such a concept to the American Civil War has not received serious academic, historical examination. It is still the fact that most studies that focus on women are considered marginal--a product of feminist political agenda. However, in the matter of the Civil War, there may be some useful insight offered by Southern women. Wiley's work is based on personal letters of common women, and diaries of the wealthier class. Confederate women is an excellent source book for anyone entering the field. (We must point out that there is another book called Confederate Women which is a compilation, edited by Mauriel Phillips Joslyn, advertised on Target, with absolutely no information about the book available on line, other than the list of authors/contributors. It was apparently published by Pelican, 2004.) Women of the Confederacy has indeed developed into a large industry within American women's studies.
Mary Boykin Chesnut, 1823-1886
Wiley begins with Mary Boykin Chesnut (1823-1886), a high-born lady who kept a fine diary between 1860 and 1865. It was first published in 1905. Now, women being more into personality and relationship than anything else, some of the "insights" into major Confederat political figures may be considered just what they are--personality comments, which reflect on the female author every whit as much as on her subject. The long and short of it is that the personal comments about the personalities are interesting, but that is all within a particular class. Mrs. Chesnut clearly disdained the poor white trash of the South, repeatedly referring to them as "sandhill tackeys." Once she wrote they were "stupid, low, heavy-headed louts." Yet, by 1863, as the ravages of war had brought all Southerners into closer contact, she wrote, "if these men and women were not gentry of the beast sort I do not know ladies and gentlemen when I see them." This comment was referencing a time when Mrs. Chesnut, who knew President Jefferson Davis, was stranded at a railway station in Weldon, North Carolina. (The train had broken down.) The point here would be that there was a giant rift between the Southern elite and the yeoman of the South. This is to say nothing of the Negro. Indeed it would be interesting to research the attitudes of the house servants with the cotton field workers.
In Wiley's fourth and final chaper, "Women of a Lost Cause," he notes how that Southern women naturally broke through many established barriers due to the simple fact that there weren't enough personnel to hold things together as the war devastated the South. Women did many jobs that normally only men did. And as the war progressed, Southern women practically kicked their men out of the house or out of the field, into the military. One of the town belles of Selma, Alabama said she would not keep company with a civilian man. It is reported that one young woman broke her engagement to a suitor who was slow to enlist, then sent him a petticoat along with the message, "Wear these or volunteer." Women of the rural south had to take over an enormous work load. Since only a fraction of Southern whites owned slaves in 1860, ran the plantations and farms. This is really unspeakable, but very much a part of the Civil War story. In a way, the South had its own "feminist" movement going on quite independently from the Northern ideological notions of equality for women, and all the queer reforms of New England and New York State. Necessity often surges ahead of political ideology, and necessity produces a purer product, and much more useful.
Varina Howell Davis (1826-1905), wife of Jefferson Davis
It was an age of "feminism" nontheless. This was the era of Louise Colet, and the French women's movement. (For a great biography of Colet, see, Francine Du Plessix Gray, Rage and Fire, Simon and Schuster, 1994). And it wasn't all about personal egotism. We have to consider women like Forence Nightingale (1820-1910), the famous British pioneer nurse of the Crimean War (1854). Indeed, I would recommend Lori D. Ginzberg, Women and the Work of Benevolence ((Yale, 1990), subtitled "Morality, Politics, and Class in the 19th Century United States." Not just natural liberals, but naturally creatures of compassion, women are. Perhaps it is the maternal instincts. But, when it becomes politicized, and institutionalized, the compassion of women is a telling influence. Of course, Ginsberg's work is about the Northern reforms movements, of all kinds, and the women behind them. The Southern women are totally neglected. This is what we call a scholarly error of conception.
Also of interest is Elissa D. Gelfand's Imagination in Confinement: Women's Writings from French Prisons (Cornell, 1983). At least two of the women Gelfand features are 19th century figures. The texts she discusses are those of Marie-Jeanne Roland de la Platiere, or, Madame Roland (1754-1798), Marie Fortunee Cappelle Pouch LaFarge (1816-1852), Marguerite Jeanne "Meg" Steinheil (1869-1954), Anne Hure (writings from the 1960's), and Albertine Sarrazin (1937-1967). And we'd have to include Robert Castel's famous work, The Regulation of Madness: The Origins of Incerceration in France (Berkeley, 1988). One of the very first treatises on mental health medicine was Francois Emmanuel Fodere's Essai medico-legal fur les diverses especes de folie (1832.) (Note: the homepage of BadEagle.com does not accommodate foreign letters or accents, as would otherwise be present in any use of the French language.) The point of this exotic diversion is the fact that women, by nature, are often regarded as prisoners--if in nothing else but their own bodies. But this is subjective, and a bit romantic. There is an alternative view, however, even in the 19th century itself.
Women's Diaries of the Westward Journey, by Lillian Schlissel (Schocken, 1982) is all about women who are in anything but prison, mind or body. Pioneer women were perhaps America's most exotic cultural breed. Of course, the westward movement had begun long before the North-South conflict, and in fact it contributed politically a great deal to that same conflict, in that the decision had to be made as to whether or not the new territories would be free states or slave states. The fact is, Southerners generally did not go West. Andrew Jackson had made a large number of Indians move west in 1838 (to Indian Territory, or Oklahoma), but that was to solve a Southern problem. The South certainly had no reputation for its participation in "Manifest Destiny."
Now, Annette Kolodny's The Land Before Her: Fantasy and Experience of the American Frontiers, 1630-1860 (University of North Carolina, 1984) does include some women of the early South, when much of it was still considered frontier. Most of Kolodny's material from the South pertains to South Carolina lands in the 18th century. She cites on Eliza Lucas (1722-1793), daughter of a British officer, who found herself running huge three plantations before the age of 25. Yet, Kolodny's work reveals again how little interest there was in Southern women for westeward "frontier" life, and in Northern writers to create such an image in literature. The South was not the "explorer." The Southern woman stayed home--just as soon as there was a home to stay in. The Southerner clug to his land in a most visceral way, whereas the Northerner saw land as only a means to an economic end. They were two different kinds of home, the North and the South. The Northerner seemed quite willing to migrate elsewhere, and find new opportunity to make a kingdom for himself.
Interestingly, there are northern women, and men, who made curious comments from time to time about Indian women they encountered. In a great study by Sherry Smith called, The View From Officer's Row: Army Perceptions of Western Indians (University of Arizona, 1990), we find the words of Colonel Albert G. Brackett (written between 1868 and 1879):
The squaws do the work...but their life is unquestionably far happier than the do-nothing, thankless, dyspeptic life led by a majority of American women.
Col. Brackett certainly didn't have Southern women of the post-Civil War era in mind. After all, he was from New York State, though he did serve in the Atlanta Campaign. Actually, he also was famed for his pursuit of hostile Indians across the Rio Grande--namely, the Comanche. (The above quote, however, was in reference to Shoshone Indian women.) In the late 1850's, he was the first US Army officer to cross the Rio Grande into Mexico in pursuit of Indians. We might add, according to Dr. Smith, in the 1850's most of the 2nd Lieutenants in the US Army were Irish and German immigrants. By 1974, half the commissioned officers were foreign-born. Once again, however, there is a dearth of Southern perspective.
Southern officers did not become Union officers after the war. History after the Civil War is almost exclusively created by Northern writers. Southerners were not know for continuing military careers--even as "Indian fighters." Southern officers apparently had no interest in new Yankee land acquisitions or the problems inherent. Southern men, as well as Southern women, apparently left little or no commentary about "American" development after the Civil War.
Nevertheless, Southern women have never been behind in the matter of women's rights. The naturally exigent circumstances of the war that threw them in command of the plantation made them far more realistic practical about women's rights and strengths. They were not generally known for participating in the fanciful ideologies of rights indulged by the "do-nothing" dyspeptics of the North. The only rights Southern women cared about were those they needed to survive. This was certainly true during and after the war, regardless of the 'progressive' sorts of behavior manifested, and even articulated, by the cinema coquettes in Jezebel and Gone With the Wind. Generally speaking, the Southern woman is first to prefer the privileges of being a lady. It's a personal advantage, to say the least.
This year's Passover celebration falls on April 20, which means Passover begins Saturday night, the 19th, at sundown. The psychological archetype of this profound holiday is worth considering in any human social context. As April is Confederate History Month, we shall consider the Civil War in light of the Passover.
Passover is about the call to come out of our comfort zones--however miserable and crippled those may be. The Promised Land awaits all who have enough initiative, hope, and courage to get up and move out. Their may be a terrible wilderness to pass through on the way, but the Promised Land--a land which you've never seen, but only have heard about--is there for the taking. Just remember two things: you have to leave one place, forever; and you have to be willing to take the new land. It is not coming to you. You have to go to the land. It all depends on your action. The stage is set, your role is assigned. It's your move.
"Passover Moon," from Anita Gould's collection. Fabulous work, Anita!
Those are the archetypes. Now, what was happening in the mid-19th century that is pertinent? A nation of states was about to break in two. That is the overwhelming crisis. Setting the slaves free was a foolish romantic notion, and quite inapplicable to the Passover--contrary to nearly all traditional interpretations, and a lot of Negro spirituals. There was no place for the Negro to go. He was already in the Promised Land. The only wilderness he ever faced was rejection, being unwanted--by the very forces that "freed" him, and a perpetual sense of not belonging. Perhaps he is still in that wilderness, having yet to find his way out.
The Negroes were given pink slips! They all lost their jobs--except those who were smart enough to keep the ones they had. The dark workers had no education, no opportunity, and no support. The North did them no favors in forcinig them out of their jobs. There was no Promised Land awaiting them at all, only the empty, self-righteous fantasies of the North. What a terrible disappointement it turned out to be for the Negro. There was no plan, no help, and little point in it all. It just made the Northerners feel better. It was for them, not really for the Negro.
But what of the Southern states? They considered themselves robbed of their way of life. They considered their rights wholly and permanently violated. Indeed, after the war, the nature of the American government was never the same. It was a lusus naturae from that point on, ever growing, ever morphing, and ever approaching something other than it was intended to be.
So, if the Passover does not apply to the Negro, then to whom does it apply in American history, specifially, in American Civil War history? Was the American Passover simply the gradual possession of the mid continent? Was Manifest Destiny the ultimate fulfillment of the Passover archetype? The land was there to be taken. The Indians were an obstacle, and a dangerous one; but, in the last analysis, nothing that the American forces could not overcome. Was the Civil War simply the preservation of the Destiny? (An American-Irish journalist had coined the Manifest Destiny idea as early as 1845.)
There is a strong parallel to American history in the history of Israel. Or so it might seem.
There are liberal scholars today who decry the existence of Israel, both for the original habitation of Cana'an, and for the moder habitation of "Palestine." The reasons they decry Israels possession of land that originally belonged to someone else are the same reasons they can and do decry the existence of America. However, they are not so willing to act on their convictions, and leave America. They are perfectly content to stay here and reap all the benefits of the struggles and wars which they hotly condemn. Therefore, their protests are vain and vapid, and truly offensive.
The Bible teaches that God gave that land of Cana'an to Israel as an inheritance. The marauding tribes of the land, their sex cults, and the general heanthenism of the peoples had exceeded the limits of divine forbearance. Time to move them out, and establish a new and moral nation. That was the story. I'm sure it did not seem "fair" and "equitable" to the people of the land who were displaced. Nevertheless, in the eyes of the Eternal, it was just. The Bible says God is the Lord of all nations. He created them, and He rules them with justice and mercy. They each have a choice. They can acknowledge Him, or simply use up their time of national probation. ( See, Genesis 15:13-16.)
So what about the American Indian tribes? Do we count in this forumla? Are we a part of the American Passover? Were we the people, inquitous and abject, who were to be dispossessed of our land?
Something breaks down in the analogy here. The Indians were not driven out of the land. We're still here, and we're still on it. Historically, we have not presented tempations to the white man to cause moral corruption in him. We have not lured him away from his God. We are not at all the same character of the Cana'anites. The white man certainly did not want to become like us.
I'm wondering if it is not the Indian who is yet awaiting a Passover. What of the Indian Passover? Obviously, it has to be completely psychological. Completely spiritual. We're on our own land. We're not going anywhere. Where is our "Promised Land" therefore? I should say, What is our Promised Land? The better place for us, Whence cometh it? And what are our comfort zones which we must be willing to walk away from?
Are these questions to heavy? Too painful? I trust Passover. I know there's something in it for every people. As I said, I don't believe the analogy is workable when it comes to the American Indian's relation to the new America. Our own non-materialistic nature proved no temptation to the "grabbers" from Europe. Surely, we weren't punished for our "iniquities." It was something else that happened.
That somethine else was still happening even up to the Civil War--and beyond. A nation nearly divided. It wasn't about slaves. It was about ideology, about a concept of nationhood. Maybe it was just about economics, and power. The United States would surely have never become the great neation it is had the states divided. Those in command were not about to lose their command. Althought the Constitution says not one word about secession, or preservation of any Union by war, that's how it panned out. States are not allowed to secede. Who says? Those in power. Those with greater force.
Makes you wonder. Has America every come out of Egypt? Is their something in raw power that keeps a nation going? Is there no real strength in morality? The Bible teaches that you can't build real strength on anything but morality.
Afraid of Hawk, Oglala Sioux
So, for now, we must leave Passover in the poetic mode it has been in since it's first celebration. Once you come out, literally, then you come out again, symbolically, or spiritually. And you come out again, and again, for we are prone to fear, and we prefer darness. We have to be commanded to come out. That is the wondrous, powerful meaning in Passover. (May the good Lord command us all.) This is the season of coming out of darkness, leaving comfort zones of inactivity, failure, and remorse, resentment, and discontent. It takes a mighty man to embrace the new--the radically better. It takes a man who trusts God, really. In the end, there are few of these men. There were only two in all Israel who were willing to bear the burden--Joshua and Caleb. Everyone else got bogged down in the mire of doubt, confusion, and mistrust. A whole generation of people dropped dead in the wilderness before the nation ever entered the Promised Land. Something to think about.
The Promised Land, whatever it is, and for whomever it is, it is not for the weak. It is only for the brave, for those brave enough to take it.
In a way, the Civil War was a colossal extension of a simple Southern custom--the duel. It was the way gentlemen settled their differences, once and for all. The South had differences with the North, and there was only one dignified way to settled them, one giant duel.
Of course, the duel, as a sociological phenomenon, was much older than the South. It was English. Furthermore, it was European. It used to be two men with swords, but, pistols became the custom by the 17th century. We might even say the duel was ancient. Whereas in more modern times a duel was over a point of honor or some other such psychological difference, anciently, a chieftan or captain was chosen by overcoming challengers. In this sense, the whole thing takes on a rather bovine aspect. There is one bull over the herd. When the time comes that a challenger can overpower him, that victor becomes the new bull of the herd. The sport of one man against another is something that seems second nature to human society. The Medieval centuries were full of such contests. However, when the duel was to the death, then it was certainly a more serious matter. And that was precisely the irony in later styles of dueling. Death could be the result of the simplest offense, if any notion of honor was at stake.
President Andrew Jackson 1767-1845
Certainly, by the 19th century, the Southen states understood dueling as a concise and effective way to settle a matter. We could look at Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson (1767-1845) for an example, not a gentleman necessarily, but of a man very jealous of honor. (The backwoods of the Carolinas, where Scots-Irish Jackson was born, were certainly not empty of pride.) Jackson challenged the governor of Tennessee, John Sevier, in 1803, when Jackson was 36. That ended in bizarre confusion and no injury or death. Ten years later, he was involved in another "duel" in which he was shot twice, one of the bullets remaining in him for the next twenty years. There was a death of one of the opponents, Thomas Benton. Both of these fights were more brawls than duels, and maybe that's the way the Civil War turned out as well. There was more confusion than cause.
There was certainly a sociological mind set that characterized the South, and a contrasting one that characterized the North. The south was a place of great wealth and great poverty. There were very few wealthy, and masses of poor. However, demographically, there were no hordes of poor huddled in cities of the South. There were not mass factories or industry in the South. The population was much smaller, and spread out over enormous pieces of land. The North was all packed together like a can of sardines, or beans, or like a box of cigars. The housing of northern towns reflected the economic state. It was all about industry. The cities were designed to hold as many factory workers as possible. Houses were piled up next to each other, three and four stories, with several families in each. Very crowded conditions. People became as mechanical as the factories they worked in. Nathaniel Hawthorne (in The House of the Seven Gables) said the housing of modernity (1851) reflected the "plodding uniformity of common life." Also, what few people realize is that there was no sewer system. People dumped their refuse in the allies, and once a week a poor miserable garbage man brought a horse cart around and shovelled all up and took it out. Few people today have any idea of such conditions of filth, stench, and horrid atmosphere.
Yet the North had the distinct 'air' of superiority about them. Folks amassing will generate such a spirit. Something about a Collective Conscious. Something about a natural arrogance that comes with numbers. The population of the North certainly far outnumbered the South. Now, the governing class of the North were descendents of the Puritans, so they thought of themselves. And they advanced in power and prosperity far beyond the South. The Southern artistocracy considered themselves descendents of the English gentry, with a strong French element in places. The North considered itself the true America. The South was some old European wart that needed to be removed.
But this is somewhat illusory. Though the North prided itself on its anti-English, anti-Eurpean, anti-Catholic ways, and its superiority in all things spiritual and practical, the Northerners were the true Englishmen. That is to say, they were English--more English than the South. The masses of Southerners, the poor white trash--as it were, came from the British Isles, but they weren't English. They were Scottish, and Irish. I'd venture to say more Scottish than Irish. Now, we all know from Brave Heart just what the Scots thought of the English. Could it be that this is a long-neglected, but major missing element in our understanding of the causes of the Civil War. The social mannerisms of a few "English" gentry did not form the ethnic impressions the North had of the South. The South appeared to be a wild place, with low-down folk, and only a few tea drinkers in tall houses. The South was full of uneducated, backwoods wild men--Scots every one. Reprehensible.
This is to say, there was probably a hidden, subconscious aversion to the South, by the North, simply because of the fact the South was so different, so laid back, underdeveloped, and generally uncouth. Why, those clannish Scotsmen were so very "tribal" that they mingled with the savage Indians naturally! What brutes they had to be. Never mind that the grand Southern generals, very much like Andrew Jackson, had made their names by fighting Indians! Why, those Scots were all just white Indians, with bright buttons and shining swords. The North, in its typical style of profound denial of its own conditions, was able to overlook the masses of starving, illiterate, and drunk Irish packed solid in the cities, along with the Poles, the Italians, and the Germans, and somehow focus on the hated Scottish presence. The English have had a perpetual impetus to control the Scots. I do believe that was actually an element in the American Civil War--the North being the English, the South being the Scots.
It was a duel of ethnicities, as always. It was a matter of whites against whites. People of color today are amazed at this never-ending battle between the Brits: English against the Scots and Irish. In fact, we see something similar even today, with the white liberals against the white conservatives. I don't know that we can find the British intertribal theme there, but, I would not be surprised. When I was living in Andover, Massachusetts in 1990, I researched in the public library the major industry CEOs of the nation. (Even then I had envisioned some kind of social theory in which American Indian psychological values could form a spear head for a social revolution of patriotism. I was looking for a sponsor. I ended up interviewing with Philip Morris in New York, but nothing came of that. And that's a different story.) I learned that three out of five of the CEO's of our largeset industries all had Scottish or Irish names! Mac-this, Mc-that. About one out of five was German.
So who are the liberals today? Who are the big leaders? Who are against the conservatives? Are the English that guilt ridden about their own accomplishments that they now unite with all the darkies of the world against the conservatives Scots and Irish? Could it be? Could it possibly be?
Well, this is all theory, but based on some portion of history. I believe that the causes of the Civil War, understanding them, that is, can provide for us much needed guidance in this day of political confusion and profound social stress. There are reasons people do what they do. It isn't just sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll. It's race and religion. Maybe it's just race. Certainly, ethnicity.
I don't think America has overcome anything. There's been no advancement of morality or social values. There are some aggressive law makers who have really tried to change things, but, they can't change human nature. They can make laws that punish human nature, but that's not changing it, or even helping it. That's just making it possible for people to live together without killing each other--any too quickly.
BadEagle.com has said before, the throne is white. The Great White Throne is all there is here. The rest of us can only watch the whites duke it out. We are only spectators of the great white duel.
May the best man win.
Continuing our pursuit of relief from the perpetual immaturity of the present day American political circus, determined to find healthier thoughts and better examples of human discourse and reasoning, we again turn our attention to the conditions developing before the Civil War--that great Duel of values, that great contest of spirituality in American society. Americans fought one another then, face to face, family to family. Surely, there is something to be gained from understanding that circumstance. Today, it seems we've all been emascualted. We can't resolve anything, we dare not resolve it. It has become big business for attorneys and courts to drag out differences ad infinitum. Court is more quiet than war, surely, but court has fostered an obviously diseased state of society.
Be that as it may, let's consider a special factor that is rarely viewed as having anything to do with the Civil War: immigration. Immigration, especially illegal immigration, is a major factor today, and is disaffecting much of the American population, and certainly poisoning our political process. Many people will be surpised to know that nearly the same conditions were rife before the Civil War, and were most definitely a part of the cause for Southern secession.
In 1982, I entered Harvard graduate school (American Studies Department), in hopes of beginning a Ph.D. I wanted ultimately to do a thesis on Death in 19th Century American culture. This would be directly related to my previous studies in 19th Century American literature, especially the first half, including authors like Hawthorne, Poe, Melville, and Emerson. Poe was my specialty. The one course that opened doors of my understanding was "The Age of Jackson," taught by Prof. David H. Donald. For that one course I read more books than I think I'd read in my life. It also enabled me to put in place all the previous readings I'd done in literature and in American history. (Unfortunately, I did not pursue the Ph.D at Harvard. There were impossible circumstances which I was not able to overcome. However, I did write a book, which I am presently reviving, and preparing for publication: The End of the World in Poe: The Sociological Context of Adventism in Selected Writings of Egar Allan Poe.)
In these Harvard studies, I learned that massive Irish Catholic immigration was considered by some scholars as an important factor in the prelude to the Southern secession. One book in particular was based on this notion entirely: Michael F. Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850's (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978). Holt observes that the national two-party system had broken down into sectional, regional parties, i.e., north and south. Political solution was then impossible. Due to population, that is, demographics, the South had lost its political influence in Washington. There are many books about the problems of 19th century immigration. In Lorman Ratner's The Transformation of American Politics 1840-1860 (Printice Hall, 1967), we read the words of Joel H. Silbey:
Between 1848 and 1860 almost three and a half million migrants entered the United States. In 1853 alone, over 368,000 came, more than 300,000 Irish and German among them.
The Immigrant's numbers, presence, and potential power were enough to arouse latent ethnic and religious antagonisms and provoke a most serious reaction.
In 1891, Francis A. Walker reported that between 1840 and 1850 "not less than 1, 713,000" had already arrived from Europe. He noted that the "native" American population did not increase coevally. See, Oscar Handlin, Immigration as a Factor in American History (Prentice-Hall, 1969), p.72.
The Mason-Dixon Line
What Holt points out is that the Irish Catholic masses mostly settled north of the Mason-Dixon line. They came as a kind of slave labor for the great industrial factories of the northern cities. And Holt also notes that the Know Nothing Party developed in response to the foreign immigrations, and its sectional, regional concerns helped weaken the national two-party system. Thus, the demographics of immigration clearly contributed to the division of the nation. The European immigrants of this era were poor, starving Catholics and the increase of their numbers meant an increase in representation in Washington. Holt also obvserves the fact that the cities of the Upper South, nearest the North were also affected by the immigrants. Many Irish Catholics settled in Baltimore, for instance. This would make the Upper South less anxious or inclined to secede than the Deep South. The Deep South grew more isolated and separated due to the massive European immigrations in the north.
The North could have its white slaves (as well as it's black), but the South couldn't have its Negroes. That's what it came down to, as far as the South could see.
Not that the Irish Catholics had any consciousness of their role, and not that any Northern politicians planned to used the Irish in this way, but, this is simply how it worked out. Mass immigrations of foreigners affect American politics--as we all know!
Interestingly, Edward Pessen argues that the people of American at that pre-Civil War time did not vote according to socio-economic classes. The Whigs and the Democrats both comprised leadership of similar backgrounds, and the fact that the Democrats developed a reputation for appealing to the 'common man' only evinced the sheer demogoguery of the Democratic leadership. (Things haven't changed much, eh?) According to Pessin, the issues of Jackson's day were deeper than dollars. People voted appart from their peronsl socio-economic circumstances. Edward Pessen, Jacksonian America: Society, Personality, and Poplitics (Dorsey Press, 1969); New Perspectives in Jacksonian Parties and Politics (Boston, 1969). The fact is, even today, most poor people don't even bother to vote at all. Of course, the definition of "poor" is mighty flexible these days. The fact is, most people, period, don't vote.
In any case, we can see that mass immigration was a direct factor in the circumstances that led up to the Civil War. America has an obvious immigration problem today. Is there going to be anything similar to the political circumstances before the war of Northern Aggression? We're global-conscious these days. The massive immgiration issues, and the foreign religion that accompanies today's issue, are seen as part of a larger, inevitable process of de-nationalization. In the name of global economics, the sovereignty of nations must be eased up a great deal. Nationhood must not be allowed to interfere with business--with the profits of the world corporations. That's the trend.
What's 35 million Mexican immigrants? They're spread out over the country, right? What's a few million Arab and Pakistani Muslims with violent anti-Americans among them? They're spread out, too, right? Why, it's all one big happy family. America needn't worry. Our politicians are quite willing to go with the flow. Why? Imimigrants can vote--if not now, then soon. The immigrants are presumed Democrat, and the Democrat Party is first to fight for their rights to enter illegally, work illegally, and drive and vote illegally. Just make it all legal, by the stroke of a Congressional pen.
If there weren't a Civil War, there would have been two countries here: The United States, and the Confederate State. In all likelihood, that was a good thing, finally. But what about now? The Union is becoming autolytic. The Union is rotting within. Ann Coulter said if McCain becomes president, it will take the Republican Party twenty years to recover. If Hillary gets in, the Republican Party will refocus and revive in four years. I wonder if this cannot be applied to a larger scale social view. We need at least the prospect, yea, the threat, of another Civil War. That would clear many thoughts, dissolve many fabricated illusions and delusions, and set the matter straight. The Union is diseased. It needs a blow between the eyes.
Let the South rise again, as never before. This time, the South could save the Union!
There two movies that present stunning stereotypes of the Southern lady--as a spoiled coquette whose flirtatious veneer lies the venom of a serpent, the strength of a lion, and the still the 'earth' of home. Obviously, the most famous of these movies is Gone With the Wind (1939) with Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara--the one and only. The movie was in full 'Technicolor.' However, there was a movie just the year before, in black & white, that, to those familiar with it, is obviously the precursor of Gone With the Wind. That less familiar movie was Jezebel, with Betty Davis playing the part of Julie Marsden ("Miss Julie"). This 1938 film takes place, not in Atlanta, Georgia, but New Orleans, Louisiana. While both films are priceless recreations of the Old South, Jezebel is actually a deeper cutting story. Though not as grand in scale or scope, it reaches deeper into the heart of coquetry, and the agonies it creates not only for the young woman, but for all others involved with her. Jezebel has much the same stuff of Gone With the Wind, the same mis-fired affairs, the same critical roles of the servants weaved into the story (though nothing quite like Scarlott's "Mammy" Hattie McDaniel); the same wealth, and the same pre-Civil War issues--which in both movies, has nothing to do with slaves, but with economics, industry, and competition.
Betty Davis, as Miss Julie, in Jezebel (1938), charming the daylights out of
Buck Cantrell (George Brent).
In terms of historical catastrophy, Gone With the Wind involves the burning of Atanta by General Sherman. The Civil War came directly to Atanta, as was included in the movie. In Jezebel, a different kind of enemy causes the crisis: yellow jack fever--the plague of the swamps, the curse of the Louisiana bayous, the bane of the Mississippi Delta land. The movie references the great outbreak of 1830, so that there is a drone of expectation created from the very beginning. It wasn't storms or floods that hung over the populace like a dark, ominous cloud, but a fever, a chilling, killing fever. This is an interesting difference in the two movies.
Now, in Jezebel, there is heated discussion about the North and the South, even a duel. Henry Fonda plays Preston Dillard, a banker who is fully aware of the Northern advantages in economics and industry. He is concerned about the way in which the Northern railways were turning the traffic away from the Mississippi, while the older Southern gentlemen will not hear of any Northern superiority. "They're not smart enough to turn the current of the Mississippi," one of them says. "They're smart enough to turn the traffic," Preston remarks. These are the nature of the converstations before the war. The movie is set in 1852, so that the war idea is not so present as it was in Gone With the Wind, which was set nearly a decade later, 1861.
Miss Scarlett (Vivien Leigh) charming the ever-so-ungullible Rhett Buttler
(Clark Gable).
But the Southern Belle, the coquette, the supreme female egotism--what of this caricature? Was it real? (I know that just about every woman in Atlanta has a Scarlett O'Hara complex, at least the one's I knew.) Were Southern Anti-Bellum women so fearless, dautless, and, well, ruthless? Were they just plain selfish? How did such a stereotype come about, and why has it remained so permanently popular today? What is it about such a woman that makes her so aggrandized? "More charm than the law allows," as Rhett Butler said to Scarlett? There are attractive women all over the world. What was so memorable about the Southern Belle?
Well, it was as close to aristocracy that any part of America ever saw. The whole bit of black servanthood only accentuated what was perhaps somewhat of an artificially created sense of high social class. It gave the Southern aristocrisy a chance to be charitable and caring in a most dramatic, practical way (--something they would never do for their own kind, of course). But, how could such a circumstance evolve forth the Southern Belle, the coquette, the stereotype dramatized in two major, ever-popular American movies?
It is interesting to note that the South, to this day, prides itself on its English roots, and its French roots. The Northerners originally came from England also, but with great anxiety and resentment of the old country. The South, on the other hand, inherited the spirit of artistocracy, refinement, and social mannerisms. This is some what of an irony as well, however, since the masses of Southerners were Scots and Irish illiterates. The populace was renowned as "white trash." Tough dudes, but, not elegant. The likes of Davie Crockett, Jim Bowie, and Daniel Boone had come from the sea of white refuse washed up into the woods of the south. Great men, but not Ben Franklins, not Nathan Hales. The writers of common American history (mostly Northerers?) would not have us believe that there was another gentleman in the South save he that surrendered the forces--General Robert E. Lee. Heroes and great men, yes, but not gentlemen. (No one would consider the great Old Hickory, Andrew Jackson, a gentleman, profoundly great a rough Scots-Irish though he was.)
Jim Bowie, of Kentucky, 1796-1836, killed at the Alamo
So, does the coquette come only with the aristocracy? The female aggressions developed in association with the restraints of the traditions? Both Jezebel and Gone With the Wind certainly present such a picture. The coquette is a reaction to repression. While Southern gentlemen could settle their differences quickly, by duel, the competing woman could only out manoeuver another woman. In a sense, there is absolutely nothing unusual about this, nothing particularly Southern. However, in the context of a special phase of American society, the Belle seems to have been forever locked within the historical scene of the South. Something as really universal as coquetry is, in American social memory, inexorably affined to the deep South. Pity. It was only such a small part of a very normal circumstance.
I suppose the popularity of these two movies (Jezebel deserving much more than it ever got) has to do with a sublimated honor of feminine manipulation. Deceit, lying, and all that is associated with the coquette are certainly condemned in the eyes of a moral society. The North certainly had no taste for that aspect of the Southern Belles--though obviously she is a winner in all imaginary eyes anyway. The Northern sublimation, so very characteristic of an overtly moral society, celebrates the Southern Belle rather through fiction, or cinema. It's okay there, but not in real life. Surely no modern woman would think of being such a devilish creature as Miss Julie, or Miss Scarlett--or would they? They pay homage to the Southern Belle, but dare not imitate her.
Or am I greatly mistaken?
Funny how sexual themes seem to outway so much else. America officially remembers the South for the "evil" of slavery, and the poor, miserable Negroes. But the enduring movies are those of the Southern Belle. The South, in her day, is remembered as a fairy land. Especially since it "passed." Yet, only the nature of the work force passed. The people of the South remained, and rebuilt. Yes, it's taken more than a century, but, the people of the South didn't go anywhere. The unforgettable Southern female stereotype, that impetuous personality, that seemingly somewhat exotic beauty, that's the part that means most to the American public to day, at least the non-political aspect of the public. The Romance, not the slavery, is the chief entertainment from memories of the South. I can't see that the two aspects are at all related.
Speaking of politics, the women of Atlanta were given the right to vote in 1919, a year before national sufferage.
Many people are unaware of the extent that Jewish people were involved in the Confederacy. Most people are either uninformed or misinformed about most Jewish history anyway, but, in the matter of the Confederacy, the ignorance is particularly impressive. While there has been recent publications on the subject, the basic image of the American Jew is still the northerner, the Russian immigrant of the 20th century. The Jew is known in modern popular culture as the liberal who is devoted to the improvement of the American Negro.
Here are some recent publications on the Jews of the old South:
Eli N. Evans, Jewish Roots in Southern Soil: A New History (Brandeis, 2006)
Dixie Diaspora: An Anthology of Southern Jewish History, ed. Mark Bauman (University of Alabama, 2006)
Hollace Ava Weiner, Lone Stars of David: The Jews of Texas (Brandies, 2007)
A Portion of the People: Three Hundred Years of Southern Jewish Life, ed. Theodore Rosengarten (University of South Carolina, 2002)
Especially pertinent are:
Robert N. Rosen, The Jewish Confederates (University of South Carlina, 2000)
Eli N. Evans, Judah P. Benjamin: The Jewish Confederate (Free Press, 1989)
Judah P. Benjamin, Confederate
Secretary of State
It seems the Jews living in the South were quite the patriots, quite loyal to the South and the Confederacy. Their young men apparently flocked to the armed forces when the war approached. According to Rosen, this was because the South was much more "tolerant" of Jewish people than was the North. The Confederate Secretary of State, for example, was Judah Benjamin--accused of being the brains of the South, and also accused of being the cause of it's defeat! Interesting man. Of course, there was Quartermaster Gen. Abraham C. Myers, along with Maj. Adolph Proskauer of the 125th Alabama; Maj. Alexander Hart of the Louisiana 5th; and Phoebe Levy Pember, the matron of Richmond's Chimborazo Hospital. The lifes and experiences of Jewish officers and the many "Jewish Johnny Rebs" who fought in infantry, cavalry, and artillery units in every major campaign, are the subjects of more and more research.
Inicidently, Ft. Myers of Lee County Florida was finally named after the Southern Jewish general. The fort was built in 1850, originally to stave off the Seminole Indians who were ferocioiusly fighting for their own homelands. Abe Myers was the son-in-law of the original commander of the fort.
The Southern Jewish population at the time of the Civil War was estimated at 25,000. At least 2,000 young men wore the Confederate uniform. It is true, however, that prejudice grew toward the Southern Jew as the Civil War progressed. There are reasons for that. The South was made paranoid by the onslaught of violent Northern hypocrisy. Many of the Jews in the South were in fact regarded as immigrants. (Truth is, even as late as 1820, more Jews lived in Charleston than in New York City.)
The point here is that even in the Jewish American experience, there is significant place for the Confederacy. The rhetoric of political ardor is certainly missing from the modern public mind, but, sources are fast becoming available. The Jewish experience in America is as long as any other, and probably much more varied and diverse. People often want to accuse the Jew of being objective, culturally uncommitted--or should we say, merely using culture as an element of business. The the Confederate Jews surely destroys such a accusation. It just isn't true. It certainly wasn't true. Jews sense home, and are as willing to fight for it as anyone else, if not more so. The South was home to a good number of Jewish Americans. The Institute of Southern Jewish Life is an excellent introduction of this new and fast growing aspect of American Jewish history.
I would venture that nothing would refresh the American identy more completely than to let the story be told by the Southerner. For better or for worse (and I believe for the better), the very identity of the United States of America might be reestablished, in good faith, were the modern American public to be retold the tales of the South. Yes, it is a natural phenomenon that history, as finally told, takes on the shape of the victor's mind. But in this case, that shape has come to lack some essential ingredients in the matter of nationhood. The Negro was certainly a casualty of war, being branded forever as a mistreated entity. But the Southern Jews, until recently, was entirely forgotten. Even now, for the most part, this is still true.
Now, there is the likely story that Northern Jew fought Southern Jew. David Einhorn (1809-1879), a rabbi of Baltimore, Maryland, fiercely denounced slavery, and got himself mobbed. Postal and Koppman call him a "Reform" rabbi, who began preaching in Baltimore in 1850. (Guess Who's Jewish in American History, 1978). Isadore Bush (1822-1898) was an equally staunch and passionate abolitionst in St. Louis. He was the secretary to Union General John. C. Freemont during the Civil War. Of course, Rabbi Morris Jacob Raphall spoke against abolition. He was also othe first rabbi to open a session of the House of Representatives with prayer. In 1861 he delivered a powerful and influencial sermon advocating that the Bible did not condemn the concept of slavery. He preached from New York City! Interestingly, during the Civil War, he sought a commission for his son in the Union army. Also, David Einhorn was apparently Raphall's chief opponent.
If Jews must be stereotyped, I think we'd have to say that loyalty is in fact a characteristic, one way or another. The idea that the Jew cares not for any nationality save his own simply isn't true. The Civil War demostrates that like nothing else in American History.
Freeing the slaves was just about the worse thing that ever happened to them. The North acted in blind passion, and the Negro labor force suffered as a result. It was a peculiar chapter in American history. It's effects have been everlasting.
The Northerners, the sons of the Puritans never acted without first forging a moral imperative before they forged their weapons. There had to be a reason for their actions, and a right reason, a religious reason. This ethos of America certainly manifested itself at the time of the Civil War. The North could not articulate any but the most dramatic, moral justification for such a horrendous war--one that pitted Americans against Americans, families against families, brothers against brothers. That justification was freedom--for the slaves.
John Locke, 1632-1704
The idea that ownership of human beings and coerced labor was an unspeakable damnation on the earth was not a new idea. From the heart of English thought it was long articulated. In 1698, the famous political philosopher John Locke wrote (in Book 1, Chapter 1 of Two Treatises of Government):
Slavery is so vile and miserable an Estate of Man, and so directly opposite to the generous Temper and Courage of our Nation; that t'is hardly to be conceived, than an Englishman, much less a Gentleman, should plead for't.
This is, of course, an impossible statement, for slavery is wholly undefined. If it is coerced labor, enforced by violence; if it is necessary labor--designed to procure the sustenance of living; if it is voluntary labor, for the health of having something to do; then we are all slaves. If one did not pay one's taxes, one would be coerced. Taxes are essentially the coercion, the fee for the opportunity to work. If one refused to pay, he would meet with force, or, violence, if you please, from the federal government.
Professor Harvey Klehr once taught that, according to the definition of slavery articulated by Plato and particularly Aristotle, if you arose in the morning and had to perform certain tasks not directly related to preparing food--in order to procure the food to prepare, you were a slave. If you had to work for a living, you were a slave. If you did not inherit land and wealth, you were a slave. (I had a graduate course with Prof. Klehr many years ago when I was at Emory. He may have changed his views since then. I wouldn't want to misrepresent the good professor.)
Professor Harvey Klehr,
Emory University
The Bad Eagle Journal has already observed that the institution of slavery was but an early form of labor organization, so fundamental to early civilizations that it was included in the Decalogue itself--the Law of God (see, Exodus 20: 10, the 4th Commandment and the matter of giving servants the day off on the Sabbath, and Exodus 20:17, the 10th Commandment and the matter of not greedily desiring another man's good laborer.) Slavery was not hideous. It was part of the way life happened. There was no dreadful curse pronounced upon the idea of one man owning another. It was an economic arrangement. It was a job with room and board. It was survival. Abuse of a servant, however, is severely condemned throughout the Torah.
The North, however, abandoned itself to blind and impassioned good deed doing, and gave itself over to hysterical condemnation of slavery as if it were more of an heart-broken apology for the blackness of the Negro than for the fact that he worked for a living. The Northern outcry was like a subconscious, sublimated protest to the existence of the Negro, rather than to the fact that he was owned. Truthfully, it seems an embarrassingly naive notion, embarrassing because it evolved into such a giant, national political position. Of course, the North had its own hordes of Negro slaves, but that didn't seem to upset anyone effectively. Most Northerners somehow were able to overlook that. One has to wonder at the mad rage against the South. It certainly had to do with something more than the fact that the South had slaves. Was it a vicarious self-whipping the North was engaged in? That is, was the North expressing self-hatred and guilt when it punished, pounded and plundered the South?
The North appears to have had a crippled element in the mind. The perfectly idiotic notion that suddenly freeing all the slaves of the South was a good thing--for the slaves, shows not only hypocrisy, but ignorance beyond belief. The idea that they would all suddenly find new jobs of their choice, that then would immediately fit into different sectors of the society, was simply insane. Most of the slaves could not read, and could scarcely speak well, and had few skills to offer. There was no program of education awaiting them. There was no training plan, nor purpose for them. It was all about "freedom," that rather damnable misconception that has cost so many so much--so foolishly.
I cannot believe that the North would have the world believe that the Civil War was to free the slaves. That is just entirely too stupid. Could that large a sector of the nation, that strong a sector, be so utterly nescient, so completely childish, so profoundly disjunct with reality?
The brand left on the slaves--by the North, is the brand of permanent victimhood. Slavery is forever cursed, and Negroes are forever wronged--because they are forever black. The American Negro has been taught, by Northern historians, to think of himself as the descendent of white immorality, and white crimes against humanity. The American Negro has been branded with abuse that is highly exaggerated and greatly distorted. This creates a sense of moral advantage, and therefore the Negroe must preserve--yea, develop his sense of victimhood. It is nearly impossible for him to give it up. It was made his identity--by the North.
The abundantly evident fact that he is uncomfortable around whites, that he is dissatisfied with himself, his appearance, his skin, or whatever, is all hidden behind the grand wrong of slavery. How much of this state of mind is created by whites remains to be demonstrated. How much of it is natural in the Negro also remains to be determined. The point is that American history has branded the Negro. He is still enslaved--in the notorious sense. The Negro seems held in the vice of discontent. Few there be that rise above this. Few there be that have discovered what real freedom is, what freedom really is, and what it means to be free.
Black radio talk show host Kyal Betton says, over and over again, "Coming to America was the best thing that ever happened to black people!" That should be obvious, but, given the political nature of American society, and given the free enterprise system at large, it isn't. Rather, it seems to many that the Negroe's advantage is in remaining miserable and remaining wronged. He daren't think of himself in any other way. This is the heritage of the North. This is what the Civil War did for the American Negro. It was all a dreadful mistake. It was all done wrongly, in the most hurtful, permanently harmful way possible. The Negro is a victim all right--of Northern moral fantasy.
The establishment of the United States of America was clearly a Purtan vision, that is, a coming about of Puritan values in a large social scale. That government was originally out of Boston, then Philadelphia, and, ultimately, Washington, DC. The Northern colonies, though begun subsequently to those of the South, were more successful, and earlier so, principally due to the fact that the northern colonists began in faith, with a vision of spiritual values for a society. The southern colonies were simply English financial enterprises of a few wealthy men in London. The northerners had enduring devotion to a moral, spiritual value system, and expressed this in their organization and in their personal fortitude. The southern settlements were, in the beginning, characterized by demoralizing disappointment and psychological depression, lethargy, and abject despondancy. Things of course picked up before the end of the 17th century, but, there were distinct psycho-social molds. The north was a place of intense obligation and productivity. The south was always 'laid back.' New populations came to both the north and the south, but the north generally far out-numbered the southern population. With the enormous immigrations to the northern industrial sites, the North was the chief draw. Europeans looked to the success of the Puritans. The South seems a closed society, with artistocracy or poverty. A very different sort of ambience and tenor of life.
But there was a dramatic spirituality preceding the Civil War, especially in the North--whence even the great Advent movements of first Charles G. Finney and then William Miller had evolved. The new spirituality had more to do with a visceral brand of supernaturalism, and ironically, it flurished in the North, not in the South. A nasty kind of "spook-ism" took hold in New York State in the spring of 1848. Three young sisters living in a farm house in Hydesville, NY got into communication with ghosts. It was the rebirth of the ancient art of sooth-saying, or, fortune-telling, or better, necromancy--seeking the dead for advice for the living. "The Fox Sisters" became a phenomenon of hysterical fame and notoriety. In their lifetimes, a new religion was founded in American society: Spiritualism. It started out as child's play, when the girls were indeed children, but it became the gripping rage of the North. One might speculate that the pace of life, the intense industrialization of the north--which alarmed many sincere thinkers like Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804-1864), Herman Melville (1819-1891), and especially Edgar Allan Poe (1801-1849)--gave rise to the need for a more touchy-feely religion. By the mid-19th century, religion in the North had become theoretical in contrast to the overwhelming dominance of economic prosperity and the total devotion to personal development and gain. Ralph Waldo Emerson is a good example of how the fundamentals of faith were evaporated by the fires of industry, and the remnant was not "refined," but morphed into a intellectual indulgence of some kind. Religion was reduced to a poetic sentiment at best.
One of the staunch Puritan personalities of the day, a radical female writer, and most prolific writer of the age, Ellen G. White (1827-1915), accused the North of abandoning the faith in this matter of the new spiritualism. Interestingly, she divined that the Civil War was prolonged into unspeakable agony due to the fact that Northern generals sought spiritualist mediums for advise in battle. In 1863 she wrote:
Very many men in authority, generals and officers, act in conformity with instructions communicated by spirits. The spirits of devils, professing to be dead warriors and skillful generals, communicate with men in authority and control many of their movements.
And leaders in the [Northern] army really believe that the spirits of their friends and of dead warriors, the fathers of the Revolutionary War, are guiding them.
See, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, No.9, "The Rebellion," pp. 363, 364. This is an unusual source, and rarely if ever given consideration. White also accuses most of the Northern leaders of hypocrisy, envy, personal ambition, disloyalty, perfidy, and a host of unworthy moral conditions which led to continual frustration, confusion, and loss in the Northern efforts. This is all extraordinary. While she condemns slaver as immoral, she condemns the North for actually fostering it.
Another unusual source on spiritualism is found in a rare book by D. R. Hundley, Esq., Social Relations in Our Southern States (New York: Henry B. Price, 1860). He makes a satirical comparison of "spiritual" conditions in the south with those in the supposedly superior north. In 1860 he uses the label "poor white trash," and cites a 1770 document of Sir William Berkley--referencing English, Scottish, and Irish paupers, convicts, and indentured servants. In Hundley's view, the poor white trash of the South were not in quite so bad a shape as the common middle class northerner (p.155):
In religion the Poor Whites are mostly of the Hard-Shell persuasion, and their parsons are in the main of the Order of the Whang Doodle. They are also very superstitious, being firm believers in whitches and hobgoblins; likewise old-time spiritualists, or, to render our meaning plainer, believers in fortune-telling after the ancient modes--such as palm-reading, card-cutting, or the revelations of coffee-grounds left in the bottom of the cup after the fluid has been drained off. Poor simple souls! they have not yet risen to the supernal glories of table-tipping, horn-blowing, and the other modern improvements in the mode of consulting such as have familiar spirits: for, although these boast that they number a million or so of adherents in the more enlightened Free States, we suspect they could hardly drum up in the entire South one thousand fools credulous enough to embrace their miserable dogmas.
Yet in scarcely a settlement of Poor Whites will you fail to find some gray-headed old crone, who professes to be able to tell you all about your past laft, as well as to predict that is to be your future career: but she does not charge very exorbitant prices for her disclosures, being well satisfied to receive the small sum of twenty-five cents for each consultation. Whereas, in the enlightened city of New York, in which are hundreds of professed star-readers, (the united annual incomes of these Professors of the Black Art being one hundred thousand dollars,) and where, it is said, sixteen hundred persons are foolish enough every week to consult such damnable imposters; the regular fee varies from on to five dollars.
Hundley's chief objection then to the Northern sooth-sayers is their spirit of filthy lucre. Far be it from the Southern spirit, where Lord knows only the sincere social marginal would even stoop to the practice.
The point here is that the 19th century "psychic" was abundant and influencial, far more than historians of the Civil War have ever bothered to note. That their colossal cadre would manipulate circumstances of the war is something that we would probably find in private letters, rather than official military records. But the thought that the confusion and the protraction of the most miserable of wars could be cause by the direct influence of evil spirits is a sobering thought. That the leaders of the North should be accused of vanity, personal ambition, selfish motive, betrayal, Southern sympathy, disregard for slavery, is equally eye-opening.
Surely, any civil war in any country can be cast in much the same language, with much the same application. The complexities of civilization seem to disallow even the appearance of sincerity and integrity. One procedes in faith, or one dies hard in personal purposes. Certainly, the American public is about filled to the brim with confusion over our leaders of today. Ron Paul alone seemed free of any too obvious personal ambitions. He spoke only of the Constitution. Yet, he didn't outline--in digestible ways, how his applications of the Constitution would effect our present crises. He essentially called for radical surgery, with no articulation of recovery or therapy following. This discouraged many from espousing his perspective--which is nevertheless the only one of its kind in our current political race.
Cynical, McCain says of Republicans who are discouraged with the Republican Party--for the very likes of McCain! We need positive thinking, do we? I've always been for positive thinking. It is my preferred approach. But, it does not follow that outrageous violation of the U.S. Constitution, in the name of globalism, is to be ensconced within a positive view of America. I do not support John McCain at this time. Definintely not. His would be a slow death, as opposed to a leap into the abyss--led by either Hillary or Obama. I reject either death.
With the subject of spirituality, "spiritualism," and the supernatural, we can again gain great insight into our national personality by reconsidering the Civil War. Perhaps the spirits have effectually disguised themselves today, so that we discern them not in the ideologies rampant in our media. For that reason, we may do well to double our efforts to recognize evil when we see it. Or shall we regard evil itself as a mere ideology?
BadEagle.com mentioned before the unusual and beautiful article by Ann Coulter entitled, "The Battle Flag." It is found in her collection of articles, How to Talk to a Liberal, If You Must (2004), pp. 203-211. It is Coulter's tribute to the South, to the home-spun patriotism, to close-to-the-earth love of country found in the southern states. If there is anything that is precious proceeding forth from the devastation of the Civil War, it is the indelible impression that the South loved the land it was on. The South was a home. Yes, it was the South that was invaded. Indeed, for that reason, from the wounds of Dixie blossomed forth the permanent sentiment of patriotism--of a blood red kind that never dies. "Confederate soldiers became a romantic army of legend, not sullen losers," says Coulter.
That Southern battle flag, "the stars and bars," symbolized everything that was noble and patriotic in a heart-felt way, not an intellectual way. For the South, the war was over a homeland invasion, not really ideology. Therefore, what came out of the war was love of country for them, not love of an idea. They came out closer to home, after all. Indeed, they were closer to home all along. That's why they fought. The vast majority of them certainly did not own slaves of any color.
Coulter observes many precious elements preserved in the Confederate Flag. "It is the proud military heritage of the South that the Confederate flag represents." Then she observes some wonderful facts about the entire military history of the United States, and how it is by far the Southerners who are "overrepresented in this country's heroic annals." Then she cites ten amazing examples of Southern gallantry in modern times. A "warrior class" she calls them.
General Rober E. Lee, the supreme gentleman.
Why is this important now? Ann demonstrates how liberals have tried to make a kind of slavery mascot issue out of the Confederate battle flag, when it hardly represented any such thing. The protests against the stars and bars was just another attempt to emasculate the warrior, to feminize the culture, to denigrate manhood. It was another Democrat ploy.
But the Confederate battle flag not only represents the warrior class of the South, it represents the fact that a whole section of the country questioned the authority of Washington to rule over the states. It was about states rights. The Confederate flag forever stands as a reminder that half the country once stood up against the federal government. State against state, family against family, brother against brother.
Coulter offers illustrations of the nobility of the Southern officer, who was, in fact, a gentleman in social status. She cites remarkable instances of surrender in which the behavior of the Southern officer was exquisite. The code of honor was perfectly eloquent. War is war, but, the manner of surrender always bespeaks the real character of the opponents. The North was not without great honor as well. Ann says that President Lincoln, on the day the South surrendered, had a band play "Dixie" on the White House lawn.
The manner of surrender. Gentlemen can take it. The South was culture chiefly of gentlemen, men of honor. Men of bravery. Men of war.
And men of a homeland, and a way of life. Never before had America--any portion of America, had to fight for their homes and their way of life. The Southern came out of the war with an unforgettable image of home. And that's really what patriotism is about--the home. Love of home. To the Southerner, his own state was one giant, extended family. The unity and brotherhood they felt was akin to a nationhood. Their state was more important than any political theory or economic congolmerate pawned off as "nationhood." To the Southerner, home wasn't an idea. It was a place, a real place, with real houses and land, that grew real food and had real people--family, living on it. Those stars and bars stand for home. The "idea," or we should say, the reality, of home, is expressed in that Confereate battle flag. In a way, the Stars and Stripes were never the same. Home came with the victory. The South was held as part of the Union. The North bought a home, really. At least a sense of it, as never before.
The Union should remember the South for that mighty lovely cause. Home. Otherwise, the idea of the United States is little more than a giant business. Without the South, there is no sentiment of home in the United States. (I wouldn't expect most American people to understand how the Indians feel about the homeland, but, they should be able to grasp how Southerners feel. But, in a way, Southerners are like Indians. Indians still today enlist in the armed services from sheer intuition of valor, or warriorhood. Our home is still here, our land is still here, despite what has happened to us. The same is true for true Southerners. After the Civil War, their reservation was a bit larger, I must say, but, they were never trying to rule the world either. Like Indians, they just wanted to be left alone.)
Ann Coulter
Curiously, Ann Coulter grew up in Connecticut. She was born in New York City, but the family moved to New Canaan after she was born. She is not only a Northerner, but a New Englander. That she should perceive what she does about the South shows true greatness, in my opinion, both hers and the South's. It is rare, such a view, from a Yankee, especially today. She also has said how much she hates liberal thinking, and perhaps in the ferver of her rage against their egregious effrontery she is led into strange dimensions of truth. Who knows? She saw the glory--in the South. That's all that can be said. She saw it, and wrote about it, and published it.
In a sense, the Civil War will never be over. It was the expression of an ever-occurring battle of ideas. Who shall rule, and to what extend. The nature of the country is under perpetual examination. With the trend toward globalism, the abolition of nationhood, and the delusion of global financial imperialism, we do well to raise the Confederate flag, and fly it high--above every other issue.
The nature of our country, the meaning of our nationhood, the idenity of the United States of America is under seige--the enemy being Wasghington, DC. The challenge is from traitorous, avaricious failures who are unable to understand America, and behave like angry opportunists, like children fighting over the biggest piece of pie.
At least the Confederate flag reminds us of something in the way of origins, something of how that pie came about. The Confederate flag calls our attention to the true identity of the United States. Obviously, we need to reconsider--when we see the kind of people running for the highest office in the country today.
Red Cloud, a most elegant man. In a way, he was
like a Southern general. Home comes with
him, always. The Indian is the land.
April is Confederate History Month, a special time to remember this era of American history. BadEagle.com is proud to enter this sacred ground, to feel the glory, to see the truth, and to honor the blood.
What is America? Many people ask this question today, but it was asked before. During what is called the American Civil War, or the War of Northern Aggression, 1861-1865, the question came to a national crisis. A terrible, bloody war was fought over the meaning of America. We do well to reconsider, in the light of our own crisis today. At a time when our political system is proven unworthy in nearly every regard, at a time when very aspect of nationhood is under question, contest, and protest, at a time when our legal system functions as a competitive business, and truth is a mere player in the sport, we do very well to think again on the meaning of nationhood, and the meaning of the United States of America.
BadEagle.com will consider a number of important aspects in the coming days, even the question of whether or not such an event as the Civil War could possible develop again. We will look at great men, great deeds, and great thoughts that went into the war, and which also came out of the war. It is our sincere hope that history can prove some worthy guide in this present hour of our confusion and blindness. Surely, if we are in fact capable of learning anything from the past (--and that is truly a question), we need those lessons now, when our national leaders are prepared to dissolve sovereignty in the name of international business, when our country is being made into just another item on the menue of a world buffet, when, in the name of equality, the truth is partners with a lie. As long as the war is in some far off foreign country, among people of a murderous religion, shall we consider ourselves safe and secure from the same? Are we thereby free, or immune, from self-reflection?
A poster on BadEagle.com by the name of WriteSong a month ago gave notice of this Confederate History Month, for which we duely thank him. He provided a number of important links about it as well.
Perhaps we should begin with the setting, the religious mind set of society in the mid-19th Century. It is most important to note that America (and the religious world) had just passed through a couple of decades of severe religious fervor in expectation of the return of Jesus Christ in the clouds of heaven, and the cataclysmic end of the world--all based on biblical prophecy. Adventism, it was called. Interdenominational, international, and transcendent. The sentiment was compelling. I wrote a book-length manuscript on this aspect of American society when I was at Harvard in 1982. As a Special Student, I had begun work in preparation for a Ph.D. in the American Studies department--which, unfortunately for me, I never finished. But my aborted program under Prof. David Herbert Donald did result in the manuscript entitled, The End of the World in Poe: The Sociological Context of Adventism in Selected Writings of Edgar Allan Poe (1983). I am preparing this manuscript for publication at the present time. The end of the world was an absorbing theme for much of America.
Of course, when the return of Jesus did not occur as expected in 1844, the religious fervor was absorbed into the social crises current in the day, and religious language came with it. Ultimately, the Civil War was understood and described by many with the same apocalyptic vision that had been so widely and intensely dissemanated nearly two decades before.
"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord," wrote Julia Ward Howe in 1861. (Her great poem, known as the Battle Hymn of the Republic, was published in the Atlantic Monthy in 1862.) The lyrics are pure apocalyptic fervor. The Civil War seemed to be a great ending of some grand phase of American history. And the victory would mean the beginning of the new world, the "footstool of the Lord."
Herman Meville (1819-1891), one of America's greatest authors, wrote a little know collection of poetry about the Civil War. It was called Battle Pieces and Aspects of the War, published in 1866, right after the war. Melville, of course, is famous for his wondrous articulation of uncertainty and ambiguity. BadEagle.com has feature for some time an on-going commentary on Melville's famous novel, Moby Dick (1851). Many scholars interpret Meville as a Northern liberal, a prototype as it were, of modern liberals. Rather, the man was decidedly undecided. That is the genius of his perspective. A Presbyterian by birth, he, as many others of his day, came to the conclusion that man could not understand reality. Predestination, that absorbing, crippling doctrine, forbade any final moral conclusion about anything, or anyone. It proved to be a marvelous literary device, however. Meville developed it for all it was worth.
In the 3rd poem of the collection (which might well have been the first), we find "The Conflict of Convictions," written in 1860-61. It is but ninety lines, and arranged in a hymn-like layout, with italicized refrains. The very opening lines express utter ambiguity:
On starry heights
A bugle wails the long recall;
Derision stirs the deep abyss,
Heaven's ominous silence over all.
Melville senses the aftermath of massive death, always characteristic of war, even before the war has begun. He assesses its effects, having sensed its inevitability. The poem is not about sides, though Melville did come out finally on the Northern side; rather the poem is about inevitability, or "predestination," as it were. Melville seems accusatory of Heaven, in that inevitability robs man of free will, and history of personal meaning. "Heaven with age is cold," he writes.
The Ancient of Days forever is young,
Forever the scheme of Nature thrives;
I know a wind in purpose strong--
It spins against the way it drives.
Indeed. America saw the Civil War as a divine stroke, for better or worse. It was an unforgettable crisis--or have we forgotten it already? And are we in fact doomed to repeat it therefore?
Herman Melville, 1819-1891
The Confederacy believed that the United States was a brotherhood, a voluntary company. The Constitution said nothing about withdrawing, but only joining. There was no script for withdrawing. Massive European catholic immigration in the North, a labor force with which the South could compete only through cheap hired labor (often referred to as slavery), and the inevitable misrepresentation in Congress--that is, the North came to have more representation due to its greater population, all discouraged the South from feeling confident in the equity of government. If Washington was going to allow a distortion of equanimity through sheer numbers, then the South would simply withdraw, in a genteel and respectable manner. The nation wasn't meaning what it was supposed to mean, therefore, the South would have no part of it.
Ah, but the North believed the meaning of the nation was, at least fundamentally, a matter of unity. No state had the right to withdraw from the Union. States had rights, but pulling out of the country was not one of them. Though it wasn't written, the North would enforce the notion of unity--by arms.
And thus the Civil War ensued. Any theoretical understanding of the cause of the war, preached so fervently by the Northern politicians--ever so steeped in the apocalyptic language of the recent decades, was in fact only that. The moral impetus, the moral imperative, was imaginary at best. Theological, we should say. The North aggrandized its position with pulpit oratory, and the grandeur of the sacred desk. The South had merely a practical perspective. They felt they were being royally cheated in a card game, and simply took their cigars, rose from the table, and quiety withdrew. The North condemn them as morally wrong. Not that moral imperatives were not the fundamental approach of the United States to all reality it espoused in the world, but this was a special case. Part of America itself was deemed morally askew, and in the name of God, must be corrected.
BadEagle.com will continue to probe the sentiments of the Civil War this month of April. We can only pray that something noble, something worhty, can come of such reflection. It is our prayer that American will be blessed this month--with a renewed understanding of what it means to be American, what it means to be a nation, and what it means to be a citizen of such a nation.