The New Intolerance

[BWV 1080]

The New Intolerance
by Patrick J. Buchanan
04/09/2010


"This was a recognition of American terrorists."

That is CNN's Roland Martin's summary judgment of the 258,000 men and boys who fell fighting for the Confederacy in a war that cost as many American lives as World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq combined.

Martin reflects the hysteria that seized Obamaville on hearing that Gov. Bob McDonnell had declared Confederate History Month in the Old Dominion. Virginia leads the nation in Civil War battlefields.

So loud was the howling that in 24 hours McDonnell had backpedaled and issued an apology that he had not mentioned slavery.

Unfortunately, the governor missed a teaching moment -- at the outset of the 150th anniversary of America's bloodiest war.

Slavery was indeed evil, but it existed in the Americas a century before the oldest of our founding fathers was even born. Five of our first seven presidents were slaveholders.

But Virginia did not secede in defense of slavery. Indeed, when Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated, March 4, 1861, Virginia was still in the Union. Only South Carolina, Georgia and the five Gulf states had seceded and created the Confederate States of America.

At the firing on Fort Sumter, April 12-13, 1865, the first shots of the Civil War, Virginia was still inside the Union. Indeed, there were more slave states in the Union than in the Confederacy. But, on April 15, Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 volunteers from the state militias to march south and crush the new Confederacy.

Two days later, April 17, Virginia seceded rather than provide soldiers or militia to participate in a war on their brethren. North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas followed Virginia out over the same issue. They would not be a party to a war on their kinfolk.

Slavery was not the cause of this war. Secession was -- that and Lincoln's determination to drown the nation in blood if necessary to make the Union whole again.

Nor did Lincoln ever deny it.

In his first inaugural, Lincoln sought to appease the states that had seceded by endorsing a constitutional amendment to make slavery permanent in the 15 states where it then existed. He even offered to help the Southern states run down fugitive slaves.

In 1862, Lincoln wrote Horace Greeley that if he could restore the Union without freeing one slave he would do it. The Emancipation Proclamation of Jan. 1, 1863, freed only those slaves Lincoln had no power to free -- those still under Confederate rule. As for slaves in the Union states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, they remained the property of their owners.

As for "terrorists," no army fought more honorably than Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Few deny that.

The great terrorist in that war was William Tecumseh Sherman, who violated all the known rules of war by looting, burning and pillaging on his infamous March to the Sea from Atlanta to Savannah. Sherman would later be given command of the war against the Plains Indians and advocate extermination of the Sioux.

"The only good Indian is a dead Indian" is attributed both to Sherman and Gen. Phil Sheridan, who burned the Shenandoah and carried out Sherman's ruthless policy against the Indians. Both have statues and circles named for them in Washington, D.C.

If Martin thinks Sherman a hero, he might study what happened to the slave women of Columbia, S.C., when "Uncle Billy's" boys in blue arrived to burn the city.

What of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, at whose request McDonnell issued his proclamation? What racist deeds have they perpetrated of late?

They tend the graves of Confederate dead and place flags on Memorial Day. They contributed to the restoration of the home of Jefferson Davis, damaged by Hurricane Katrina. They publish the Confederate Veteran, a magazine that relates stories of the ancestors they love to remember. They join environmentalists in fighting to preserve Civil War battlefields. They do re-enactments of Civil War battles with men and boys whose ancestors fought for the Union. And they defend the monuments to their ancestors and the flag under which they fought.

Why are they vilified?

Because they are Southern white Christian men -- none of whom defends slavery, but all of whom are defiantly proud of the South, its ancient faith and their forefathers who fell in the Lost Cause.

Undeniably, the Civil War ended in the abolition of slavery and restoration of the Union. But the Southern states believed they had the same right to rid themselves of a government to which they no longer felt allegiance as did Washington, Jefferson and Madison, all slave-owners, who could no longer give loyalty to the king of England.

Consider closely this latest skirmish in a culture war that may yet make an end to any idea of nationhood, and you will see whence the real hate is coming. It is not from Gov. McDonnell or the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

[Barry]

This is ridiculous. In the first place, Virginia is one of the states of the "United States." While it's obviously appropriate to have museums and whatever else to commemorate the Civil War, I'm more than a little uncomfortable with setting aside a month to commemorate a movement that was a rebellion against the United States as if it were something positive (what other negative thing gets a history month?).

That aside, it's an utter joke when people try to dismiss slavery as a central cause of the Civil War. That doesn't have to mean that most of the people fighting in the war had the defense or abolition of slavery on their minds or that Lincoln didn't care more about saving the Union than ending slavery. But can anyone in their right mind think that but for the issue of slavery, there would have been a need for a Civil War? What was it that caused the anti-Lincoln panic in the South? They were afraid that he was an abolitionist. They were wrong about that, at least in the early years of the war, and certainly before the war. He disliked slavery, but didn't feel it was within the powers of the federal government to end it. His goal was to prevent it from spreading to any other existing or future states. But the popular misconception in the south was that Lincoln wanted to go further than that. While most southerners may not have had slaves, most of the powerful ones, or the decision-makers, did. To say, as Buchanan does, that "secession" caused the war, as if the secession happened in a void without slavery-related reasons causing it is absurd.

[BWV 1080]

That aside, it's an utter joke when people try to dismiss slavery as a central cause of the Civil War. That doesn't have to mean that most of the people fighting in the war had the defense or abolition of slavery on their minds or that Lincoln didn't care more about saving the Union than ending slavery. But can anyone in their right mind think that but for the issue of slavery, there would have been a need for a Civil War? What was it that caused the anti-Lincoln panic in the South? They were afraid that he was an abolitionist. They were wrong about that, at least in the early years of the war, and certainly before the war. He disliked slavery, but didn't feel it was within the powers of the federal government to end it. His goal was to prevent it from spreading to any other existing or future states. But the popular misconception in the south was that Lincoln wanted to go further than that. While most southerners may not have had slaves, most of the powerful ones, or the decision-makers, did. To say, as Buchanan does, that "secession" caused the war, as if the secession happened in a void without slavery-related reasons causing it is absurd.

I agree with that, there is no doubt that the North went to war over secession and the South seceded because of slavery.

[Ralph]

"No army fought more honorably" than that of Lee. How about the documented, high command sanctioned murder of black federal soldiers?

[RebLem]

"The New Intolerance" strikes me as nothing more than D W Griffith Redux.

[HoustonDavid]

the Southern states believed they had the same right to rid themselves of a government to which they no longer felt allegiance as did Washington, Jefferson and Madison, all slave-owners, who could no longer give loyalty to the king of England.

Consider closely this latest skirmish in a culture war that may yet make an end to any idea of nationhood, and you will see whence the real hate is coming. It is not from Gov. McDonnell or the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

For a short few minutes there Steve, I thought you were agreeing with this malarkey. Thank
goodness (and good sense) you made it clear you were disagreeing in your next post. This very
obvious threat at the end of Buchanan's column echoes the speech made by Governor Perry here
in the secessionist State of Texas, when he told a Teabagger rally that Texas should secede if
Obama forced health care reform on us.

I haven't heard any serious references to secession from his office since he cinched his re-election
by soundly defeating moderate Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Republican primary. She was
quoted as saying his secession speech would guarantee his defeat. In a rational world, it would and
should have. In a rational world, Buchanan would be laughed out of the newsroom.

Have we reached the stage that secession from the union can be the topic of a serious column by a
respected columnist? It is frightening indeed that so many racist slurs, posters, and so much spittle
is coming from a nearly all white minority party, at least some of whom are obvious racists. Have we
really returned to the 1860's?

[BWV 1080]

This is ridiculous. In the first place, Virginia is one of the states of the "United States." While it's obviously appropriate to have museums and whatever else to commemorate the Civil War, I'm more than a little uncomfortable with setting aside a month to commemorate a movement that was a rebellion against the United States as if it were something positive (what other negative thing gets a history month?).

It was a civil war, not a rebellion - a rebellion infers to the actions an illegitimate and outside group against an established government (i.e. the American revolution or the Bolshevik where groups overthrew regimes that had never granted them real political authority) While a civil war is a dispute between organized groups within a single political body. The Southern states that seceded were roughly half of the country (by state not population). The entities that seceded were the same entities (i.e. the elected state legislatures) that entered and approved the Constitution, so whether or not one believes they had a right to secede, they certainly did not rebel against the North.

Now the decision to secede was tragic and stupid, as slavery was not threatened by Lincoln and later some sort of compensated emancipation program could have ended slavery on much better terms for all parties involved

[jbuck919]

This is ridiculous. In the first place, Virginia is one of the states of the "United States." While it's obviously appropriate to have museums and whatever else to commemorate the Civil War, I'm more than a little uncomfortable with setting aside a month to commemorate a movement that was a rebellion against the United States as if it were something positive (what other negative thing gets a history month?).

It was a civil war, not a rebellion - a rebellion infers to the actions an illegitimate and outside group against an established government (i.e. the American revolution or the Bolshevik where groups overthrew regimes that had never granted them real political authority) While a civil war is a dispute between organized groups within a single political body. The Southern states that seceded were roughly half of the country (by state not population). The entities that seceded were the same entities (i.e. the elected state legislatures) that entered and approved the Constitution, so whether or not one believes they had a right to secede, they certainly did not rebel against the North.

Now the decision to secede was tragic and stupid, as slavery was not threatened by Lincoln and later some sort of compensated emancipation program could have ended slavery on much better terms for all parties involved

Lincoln considered it both a civil war and a rebellion and used both terms. The south considered it neither; they claimed that they had legitimately separated from the Union and formed a new country, hence their insistence on "War Between the States." Though Civil War has always been universally used and accepted (with the exception just noted), every other civil war in history I can think of at the moment (for example Rome, England, Spain, and China) was a struggle between two factions for control of an entire political entity. Regional separatist movements are called something else. Of course, every one of them that I can think of has had an ethnic component that was lacking in the Civil War.

[Barry]

This is ridiculous. In the first place, Virginia is one of the states of the "United States." While it's obviously appropriate to have museums and whatever else to commemorate the Civil War, I'm more than a little uncomfortable with setting aside a month to commemorate a movement that was a rebellion against the United States as if it were something positive (what other negative thing gets a history month?).

It was a civil war, not a rebellion - a rebellion infers to the actions an illegitimate and outside group against an established government (i.e. the American revolution or the Bolshevik where groups overthrew regimes that had never granted them real political authority) While a civil war is a dispute between organized groups within a single political body. The Southern states that seceded were roughly half of the country (by state not population). The entities that seceded were the same entities (i.e. the elected state legislatures) that entered and approved the Constitution, so whether or not one believes they had a right to secede, they certainly did not rebel against the North.

Now the decision to secede was tragic and stupid, as slavery was not threatened by Lincoln and later some sort of compensated emancipation program could have ended slavery on much better terms for all parties involved

Whether the word rebellion is technically accurate or not, they weren't called "rebs" for nothing. And even if I grant you that point completely, I still see it as inappropriate to have a month celebrating a cause that was essentially driven by the desire to maintain the institution of slavery in one of the "United States." Perhaps a "Civil War History Month" that deals with the war in its entirety and includes the necessary references to slavery would be more acceptable.

[david johnson]

"No army fought more honorably" than that of Lee. How about the documented, high command sanctioned murder of black federal soldiers?

Show here that the Army of Northern Virginia did it.

[david johnson]

I do not think my companions here know much regarding the War Between the States.
I believe they have already shown they don't understand the difference between the AoT and the ANV.

dj

[RebLem]

This is ridiculous. In the first place, Virginia is one of the states of the "United States." While it's obviously appropriate to have museums and whatever else to commemorate the Civil War, I'm more than a little uncomfortable with setting aside a month to commemorate a movement that was a rebellion against the United States as if it were something positive (what other negative thing gets a history month?).

It was a civil war, not a rebellion - a rebellion infers to the actions an illegitimate and outside group against an established government (i.e. the American revolution or the Bolshevik where groups overthrew regimes that had never granted them real political authority) While a civil war is a dispute between organized groups within a single political body. The Southern states that seceded were roughly half of the country (by state not population). The entities that seceded were the same entities (i.e. the elected state legislatures) that entered and approved the Constitution, so whether or not one believes they had a right to secede, they certainly did not rebel against the North.

Now the decision to secede was tragic and stupid, as slavery was not threatened by Lincoln and later some sort of compensated emancipation program could have ended slavery on much better terms for all parties involved

In him memoirs, U S Grant referred to it as the rebellion. Sometimes he capitalized it, sometimes he didn't, but that's what he called it, and he ought to know. Personally, I call it the Great Southern Insurrection.

[John F]

Buchanan had a great-grandfather who fought in the Confederate Army and is proud of it; he's a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, whom he defends toward the end of the piece without acknowledging that he's one of them. Like many in the South, he keeps on fighting the war his ancestors lost, with words instead of guns. It's an obsession. My mother and her family were from southwest Virginia, and I know.

Obviously Roland Martin (who he?) got it wrong. The uniformed soldiers in the Confederate army were not terrorists (any more than the Union soldiers in Sherman's march to the sea, which Buchanan wrongly calls terrorism). The terrorists were the Ku Klux Klan, and though founded by Confederate veterans after their surrender, they obviously can have included none of the Confederate war dead.

As so often, it's about trying to use words as weapons, and bending them all out of shape.

[Kevin R]

Typical Buchanan and typical neo-Confederate drivel.

To label Sherman a terrorist is asinine. The Southern myth of "Uncle Billy" rarely coincides with reality.

To say that "Slavery was not the cause of this war" is an ignorant statement. I suggest he read Charles Dew's excellent book "Apostles of Disunion." The Confederacy fought to preserve slavery and strengthen white supremacy.

He is equally confused about the Emancipation Proclamation. I would advise him to read Allen Guelzo's "Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America." In it, Guelzo points to the true significance of this document, showing that it was a "stake in the heart of slavery."

Buchanan also fails to inform his readers (or is unaware?) of a couple of important things. First, Lincoln had already drafted the EP when he wrote his famous reply to Greely. This document changed the goal of the war, and Lincoln (pragmatic politician that he was) needed to prepare Northern whites for that possibility. Second, Lincoln wrote of his "official duty," but he also stated his well known views concerning human bondage.

“I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.”

Fact is, Buchanan's great grandpappa fought for a leadership that wanted to keep African Americans in chains and for the noxious principles of white supremacy. His bluster and ignorance of the facts won't change that.

[diegobueno]

The confederacy doesn't deserve a single second on our calendar, much less a minute, an hour or a day. Why should any American honor the sacrifice of traitors engaged in killing loyal United States troops? One might as well declare Viet Cong History Month. The idea is offensive way before slavery gets factored in.

[BWV 1080]

killing loyal United States troops? One might as well declare Viet Cong History Month. .

or Native American History Month

or Mexican History Month

[HoustonDavid]

Ouch!! I thought Americans were always the good guys?