June 22, 2022

 

 

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

 

False Hope in the Republican Party? Where Do We Go from Here? A Southerner Responds

Friends,

It did not dawn on me until I walked out to my mailbox Monday, June 20…and there was no mail. “What’s up?” I thought. “It’s Monday, and I always get mail on Monday, since it piles up on Sunday when there is no delivery.” What had happened, I wondered.

Then, I witnessed one of those special delivery postal agents who work on holidays, and I flagged her down. And come to find out that Monday was “Juneteenth,” a new Federal holiday (actually it was Sunday, but the Feds, as is their wont, postponed the observance until June 20^th). So, there was no regular mail delivery.

That explained it; I had forgotten the latest government concession in the name of “equity” and “liberal democracy,” and advancing the “ideals of America” as exemplified somehow in the Declaration of Independence.

As a national Federal holiday “Juneteenth,” this latest paean to political correctness and abject apology for our past sins as a nation, was enacted by the US senate unanimously on June 17, 2021, and by a vote in the House of Representative of 415 to 14. Literally no one stood forth to explain what actually was occurring: politically craven expediency and servile acquiescence to ideology.

That set me to thinking, and I recalled the debate years ago over the creation of Martin Luther King Day, enacted back in 1983, with overwhelming Democratic AND Republican support in the US Senate (among the Democrats, by 41 to 4; among the GOP, by 37 to 18). Despite the efforts of Senator Jesse Helms and the initial opposition of President Reagan (who caved under pressure), King Day was steamrolled into law. And since then it has arguably become more important in these United States than Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, and most other observed holidays.

We should have probably known then that the Republicans, the so-called “conservative party,” which had presented itself as the replacement for the old conservative Southern Democrats, were not, as my Uncle Clete used to say, “worth tits on a boar hog.” The “Southern strategy,” as strategized by Kevin Phillips and executed by Richard Nixon and his minions (with not a little assistance from the Democrats at the time who went crazy Left in 1972 and nominated George McGovern), paid good dividends. Between 1968 and 1988 the Republican Party…the political party which had been rightfully an anathema to millions of Southerners after the War Between the States…managed to convince us that the home-grown, traditional conservatism of older Democrats, leaders like Harry Byrd, Richard Russell, and Sam Ervin, was now incarnate, alive and well in the GOP.

And, at least for the moment, we thought we had witnessed that as reality. Reagan was in the White House, re-elected overwhelmingly; and in the US senate there was that former Democrat, elected in 1972 as North Carolina’s first Republican senator in seventy years, conservative Jesse Helms. Millions of disaffected conservative Democrats would vote for him. And there were others, as well: the indomitable Strom Thurmond in South Carolina was now a Republican, and John East—the scholarly professor—was North Carolina’s other US senator.

The presence of Reagan, Helms, and their like reassured us that we were doing the right thing, and, in a certain sense, continuing the heritage and beliefs that had for so long guided us when we were all Southern Democrats.

But we were, in fact, deceived. And the MLK Day debate and fiasco, and Republican presidential and legislative politics, both on the national level as well as the state level, since then should have dispelled our initial enthusiasm. For it was but a long history of broken promises and continued deception. We should have known better as the national GOP nominated such disastrous candidates on the presidential level as John McCain, Mitt Romney and George W. Bush. Yes, when they came South they talked a good game and explained that they could be trusted, but we should have known better.

They lied.

We should have known better when President Reagan signed off on the Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform Bill of 1986 which “legalized most undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the country prior to January 1, 1982.” It was touted as the “final solution” to our illegal immigration question.

It wasn’t.

Rather, it did little but open the door wide to more “reform” and an influx of millions more illegals.

We should have known better when so-called “conservative Republicans,” boasting of their steadfast opposition to same sex marriage, all of a sudden ceased to mention the topic after the Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 Obergefell v Hodges decision (June 2015). Never mind that in states where the question had been on the ballot, twenty-nine of them had approved by popular vote bans on same sex marriage (by 2008). But after that decision, the GOP and Fox News essentially renounced their earlier “steadfast” opposition, while embracing as many same sex personalities and prominent figures as they could find. “Look at us,” Fox seemed to be saying to their competitors further to the Left, “we have Guy Benson, Tammy Bruce, Rick Grenell, and Douglas Murray, all of them happily consorting with their partners.”

We should have known better as the newest—and logical—manifestation of the sexual revolution raised its head: transgenderism and the gender-fluid destruction of traditional natural biology.  With alacrity Fox and the GOP jumped on board, after all they always had to protect their Left flank from criticism and prove just how progressive they were.  Thus, Fox invited transgendered Caitlyn Jenner to come on board as a contributor (making her first appearance on the Hannity program, March 31, 2o22). And then in June 2022 they lauded a family that had their infant girl—so young she was unable to actually communicate with her parents—undergo sex “transitioning” to a boy.

We should have known better when then Republican governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley ordered that “the Confederate flag” which hitherto had flown on the South Carolina capitol grounds be removed. “It should never have been there,” she offered. And Haley’s reaction illustrated the GOP’s retreat not just on flags of the Confederacy that were once celebrated nationally as symbols of valor and devotion, but increasingly on monuments commemorating not just Confederates but other Americans who could in any way be tainted with the historic “sins” of racism. The GOP temporized, and such opposition as there was has mostly been from the grassroots.

We should have also known better when (in 2020) the US Senate voted 86-14—with a large majority of Republican senators joining in the mad scramble—to remove the names of American military institutions named for Confederate leaders. Our arguments to the contrary, our petitions, the polling—all were to no avail. “We mustn’t be seen as ‘racists’,” we were answered.

Gun control and “red flag” laws?  Fourteen Republican senators, including John Cornyn (TX), Thom Tillis (NC), Lindsey Graham (SC), Bill Cassidy (LA), Roy Blount (MO), and Richard Burr (NC)—all Southerners—joined Democrats in insuring that greater government control over gun ownership and the gutting of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution would proceed.

And these solons are just the tip of the iceberg. For an agenda of dissimulation and deception pervades and infects the GOP all the way down to the state and local level in many cases.

The advent of Donald Trump and his incredibly surprising victory in the 2016 presidential contest changed all that, at least for a while. Admittedly, he ran against perhaps the most loathsome candidate ever chosen to represent either political party, Hillary Clinton. But his election still was unique. For what Trump did—and I suggest it was his major accomplishment amidst many failures—is that he, at least partially, tore off the forbidding mask that hid the evil intent and designs of what we call “the deep state” and the national political duopoly. By that I mean he was able through his abrasive personality, one would say his almost irascible nature, to force the agents of America’s long-running and practically impervious managerial bureaucracy, and its pliant prostitutes in the media (most all of it) and political minions in Congress, to show themselves for what they were and what they intended for us.

As never before those apparatchiks in the managerial class, the Washington “insiders,” the permanent bureaucrats and politicians, saw their hegemony threatened. And they telegraphed this immediately to the networks and online journals that acted on their behalf. Trump became, as it were, a larger-than-life menace and danger to “our liberal democracy” (understood to actually mean that if they let him get away with his bravado, it endangered their increasing stranglehold on what was left of the collapsing American republic). Thus, the two impeachment charades, and the ultimate immense and diabolical act of ideological political theater, the “January 6 Committee.”

Perhaps Trump’s most serious failing was in his appointments. Many of them were essentially and profoundly opposed to him as well as his agenda. His explanation was that he was attempting to create “party unity” by naming individuals who had originally opposed him, and somehow building an administration that drew on the available talent in the party. His willingness to listen to some individuals close to him (Jared Kushner comes to mind) was disastrous. From the beginning, party unity was a pipe dream.

To even have considered Mitt Romney for a pivotal position in his administration, to have named neoconservative Elliott Abrams to represent the United States in dealings with Venezuela and Iran, to have appointed Never-Trumper John Bolton as national security advisor, to have made Nikki Haley ambassador to the United Nations—these were just a few of the horrid miscues, the abject failure in following the advice of some of those individuals who grouped around him.

But it also illustrates a permanent disease within the Republican establishment and amongst its votaries. Many of them begrudgingly accepted Trump when he became the party nominee, while secretly (and not-so-secretly) harboring a desire to see him fail on major portions of his agenda, and in various instances attempting to insure that failure.

Nikki Haley stands out as a conspicuous example of, first, damning and blasting Trump, then embracing him in one of those particularly nauseating efforts at ingratiation and self-serving about faces, only to once again position herself for a potential presidential run either in 2024 or later. The lady has no shame, just overweening ambition.

There are some—a few—true conservatives, a few Republican office holders who have risen a bit above this process, figures who refuse to follow the poisonous agenda and template. But they are notable because they are exceptions. Their number up to now has been relatively small.

A Marjorie Taylor-Greene and a Lauren Boebert and a Thomas Massie stand out in the House of Representatives, even as they are given cold shoulder by the GOP leadership. You can see that by the number and viciousness of attacks loosed upon them. They deserve our support. While over in the US Senate Mitch McConnell exemplifies the “good ole’ boy” network which continually gives way to the next installment of Democrat and “woke” radicalism.

On the ground there are now voters who view perhaps for the first time in their lives the real and actual corrupt nature of our current political system. And even if only vaguely, what they behold is nothing more than a forbidding playground for our unelected oligarchs of Silicon Valley, international corporations, and foul politics which have turned this republic into a kratocracy, in which the more those elites scream at us about the necessity to “defend our democracy,” the more they control our expression, destroy our liberties, and control our destiny, and, in fact, demolish what is left of that “democracy.”

We should have known better—we should have recognized the signs and the markers along the way. We should have taken notice of the disturbing events and the history—it was there for us to see. But it perhaps took an unlikely brash New York businessman, who didn’t always watch his language, to cause the “deep state” serpent to strike back and, ironically, reveal its nefarious and diabolical intents and program.

Since then the managerial elites, the permanent bureaucracy, both Democrat and Republican, have sought, as it were, to put the genie back in the lamp. In the end perhaps their mistake was to react so violently and hysterically to what happened in 2016 (and then in 2020). It was bound to unleash a reaction. But their calculus was that events—and their revolution—had proceeded too far that there was nothing really effective that we could do in response. Things were, as they say, too far gone.

Trump, perhaps unknown to him, did open a slight crack in the unrelenting façade of the Behemoth that has progressively taken control of our country and our lives.

But the old republic is, in fact, effectively dead…and what we can and must do is salvage what we can, doing our duty, fighting like Hell, while waiting upon the judgment of God who will in His judgment decide the fate of our nation. That must be our hope and what motivates us to continue this humanly unequal struggle.

                                                    June 8, 2022

 

 

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

 

“Gods and Generals” and Remembering Who We Are as Southerners

Friends,

Lest we forget, it has been nineteen years since the film “Gods and Generals” was released to screens across the United States—to be exact, on February 21, 2003—almost ten years after the release of the blockbuster film, “Gettysburg.”

“Gods and Generals” was based on the historical novel by Jeff Shaara, while “Gettysburg” was based on a work by his father, Michael Shaara. An intended third installment, “The Last Full Measure,” which would have carried events of the War Between the States to its conclusion, was shelved after critics savaged “Gods and Generals,” citing what Wikipedia termed its “length, pacing, screenplay, and endorsement of the controversial neo-Confederate ‘Lost Cause’ myth.”

Undoubtedly, “Gods and Generals” is more episodic than its prequel, which indeed centers its action around one pivotal event in the war, the epochal Battle of Gettysburg. And, yes, it is long—the director’s cut is four hours and forty minutes in duration. Yet, “Gettysburg” in its original version is only slightly shorter. But given its thematic unity it succeeds, perhaps, as more theatrical and digestible by a public attuned to simpler plots and more compact storylines. Whereas in “Gettysburg” the viewer watches as events unfold steadily toward an eventual climax that we all know is coming and at the same time manages to engage those who experience it as if—somehow—it is happening now for the first time, “Gods and Generals” is somewhat reminiscent of a mini-series with episodic segments attempting to offer viewers an impression of how the war actually began and how, in its first two years, it was fought.

In a certain sense, then, “Gods and Generals” is akin to a docudrama.  I think here of such filmed efforts as “Tora! Tora! Tora!” (1970) and the two-part drama “Hiroshima” from 1995 (which is over three hours long but in two parts). And I believe this is the best way to judge it and to see it. For throughout its episodic nature it does exactly what it sets out to do—give a broad and panoramic view of major events occurring (albeit mostly in Virginia) in 1861 and 1862 while attempting to infuse life and believability into the history it portrays.

Both films now are roundly condemned as defending “white supremacy” and engaging in “neo-Confederate ideology,” and the celebration of “the myths of the ‘Lost Cause’.” And “Gods and Generals” gets the worst of it. Yet, in many ways, given its unfolding denouement and diverse focus, it succeeds admirably in painting vivid pictures in intimate, and at times endearing, detail of major historical characters.

Some reviewers have written, and I think rightly so, that “Gods and Generals” is in large part a biographical look, a kind of portrayal of General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. Indeed, much of the film revolves around him, his beliefs, his code of ethics, his brilliant and unparalleled generalship, and his remarkable humanity. Indeed, Stephen Lang’s portrayal of Jackson has been lauded, if begrudgingly, by some reviewers even if they dislike the film.

Then, there is Robert Duvall’s incarnation of Robert E. Lee, and, for me, he simply is Marse Robert, and far more impressive and “real” than Martin Sheen’s assumption in “Gettysburg,” which I found unnatural and too stagey.

I recall viewing the film with friends from work when “Gods and Generals” first showed up in the theaters. Back then we were able to take time off from our jobs to go—but that was 2003, and with the passing of nineteen short years since then I doubt that we could get the same benevolent permission to leave work for such an activity today. And that says a lot—far too much—about how the times and the country have radically changed. From the rumbles of political correctness so visibly apparent, yet not completely dominant, of twenty years ago, to the insane and hysterical full assault on everything, and anything, in and of our Southern heritage, we have descended into a hellish cauldron in which our culture and our people face virtual extinction.

All the more reason to return to films—and they are rare—like “Gods and Generals,” which actually assist us to both see and hear history without the accumulated ideological and poisonous dross that infects almost everything coming out of Hollywood these days. Given the extent of advancing “cancel culture” in our day, we need to treasure films like “Gods and Generals” and “Gettysburg,” as well as others such as “The Conspirator” (2010) and dozens of movies made before this age of cinematic putrefaction.

What I’d like to do, then, following the accusation that “Gods and Generals” is overly long, episodic and perhaps too diffuse, without a certain thematic unity, is to take seven pivotal scenes from the film, each around two or three minutes in length, and offer them in succession (though not necessarily chronologically). Each scene and representation offers, I would suggest, a “key” to the underlying objectives of the movie; that is, what it is attempting to portray, both cinematically and historically. Certainly, there are other significant scenes and moments in a four and half hour film that can be highlighted; but those I have chosen, I believe, are essential in understanding the personalities and critical issues “Gods and Generals” hoped to examine when it appeared in 1993.

So, let’s take a look via Youtube at the scenes I have in mind. Although they take only a total of about 18 minutes, seen in succession they form a natural progression of themes in “Gods and Generals,” and an enticement to go back and spend the time to view the entire film, with perhaps a keener appreciation of its objectives and how they relate to the whole.

First, there is the magnificent scene with Robert E. Lee (played with absolute realism and believability by Robert Duvall), refusing command offered to him of the entire Federal army intended to suppress the “cotton states” and succinctly stating his reasons why (April 1861) (3:55):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeGBpTFZhh4

Then, in logical order Lee’s acceptance (after he had resigned from the US Army and after Virginia had seceded—so there is absolutely NO question of treason at all) of command of the troops of the independent State of Virginia (2:51):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLKofMCiMOE

Both clips in a few well-chosen phrases give the viewer a basic refresher in constitutional theory as understood by the Framers of the Constitution—and enunciated by Lee and the Virginia assembly, essentially framing why there was a war and why Southerner were completely justified in resisting the usurpations of a reckless Federal government, intent on violent anti-constitutional subjugation.

The third clip shows General Jackson before the First Battle of Manassas, invoking the assistance of Almighty God, and connecting the Confederate cause with Godliness and the necessity to defend those God-given rights conferred on his fellow citizens. The Youtube excerpt captures Jackson’s fervent faith, a faith that was shared by his fellow Southerners (1:50):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC_VHIVq0P4

Now, we see General Jackson’s depth of patriotism and devotion to the Cause, and his comprehension that what the new Confederacy was attempting was truly a “Second War for Independence.” One cannot help but be moved by Jackson’s address to the First Brigade. His words resonate today as they did back then (2:31):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkqZncVDxN8

Here we have what we may call the Confederate General Staff as assembled at Fredericksburg for Christmas, 1862. And once again Stonewall Jackson, interacting with a young girl, is moved to encapsulate many of the sincere wishes and longings of Confederates under arms in defense of their homeland and their families (3:29):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59AGVg9VJyg

Next we have General Lee (Duvall), before the Battle of Fredericksburg, poetically recalling his history, his family, and fundamental beliefs that course in the veins of every thinking Southerner whose memory has not been destroyed or polluted by the dominant American culture (1:10):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiJKhs4r4CM

As a final scene in my series, and a defiant reminder of the importance of our heritage and our present duty, I pass on perhaps the most inspiring moment in the film—“The Bonnie Blue Flag,” as sung by the assembled Confederates in winter quarters. Even as “Dixie” is, in a sense, “the national anthem of the South,” “The Bonnie Blue Flag” represents an exultant and militant Southland and its citizens, ready always to do their duty to family and country, under the guidance of and obedience to Almighty God (2:28).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-3WAhbulFs

Thus my vision of how we can see and comprehend some of major points in “Gods and Generals,” and relate to the film historically, by becoming part of it, seeing with the eyes of its characters and fathoming what they were able to recreate historically. Not just a “re-enactment,” but a window into the lives and minds of our ancestors, and a path to a greater understanding of what they did and why they did it.

                                                   May 29, 2022

 

 

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

 

What I Would Tell a College Student: Recommended Books about the South and Its History

Friends,

A friend recently asked me for a list of good books about the South and “the Late Unpleasantness” which he could share with his two sons, one of whom will be entering college this fall, and the other who will be a high school senior. I began naming some volumes, at random. But my friend stopped me in mid-sentence and asked if I could compile and write down a list of about ten books which would essentially touch the main points of Southern history and culture: that is, offering a non-politically correct view of the War Between the States, placing the institution of slavery in its proper context (as not the determining factor for the War), and taking a sympathetic view of the richness of our Southern heritage…and, perhaps most importantly, suggesting some works that a bright college freshman and high school senior could understand and refer to as they navigated the corrupted hallways of our American educational system.

That was more difficult than it seemed, as there are a number of excellent volumes in print which address those issues—but would they connect with a college freshman and his high school senior brother, even if they were exceptionally intelligent?

After some thought I was able to come up with a list, but in any such endeavor what is left out or omitted can be just as significant as what is included. I recognize this, and thus my list is just an impressionistic selection, a beginning, fully understanding that there are dozens of other excellent and solid volumes that could well be listed.

One volume stands out as fundamental to any survey, any overview of the South, its history and culture, and the War for Southern Independence. It is The South Was Right! (2020) by the indefatigable brothers, W. Donald Kennedy and J. Ronald Kennedy. If anything would serve as a superb and comprehensive introduction it would be this volume, now in its updated third edition. It is quite accessible and well-documented, an excellent primer for those interested in a comprehensive understanding of why the South is unique, why it is hated by the progressivists and globalists who dominate the world, and why its history and culture must be defended at all costs.  Of course, the Kennedy brothers have authored other excellent studies treating various topics of real influence on Southerners, including Yankee Empire: Aggressive Abroad and Despotic at Home (2018) and Punished with Poverty (2020). These and other excellent volumes by the brothers are available from Shotwell Publishing, Columbia, South Carolina.

The second volume on my list would have to be the late Richard Weaver’s The Southern Tradition at Bay: A History of Post-Bellum Thought. The original hard back edition was published by Arlington House in 1968; a new inexpensive paperback appeared in 2021. Weaver’s book is a tour-de-force and should be required reading for any Southerner (or non-Southerner, for that matter)—it is a full-throated exploration of the heritage of the Southland, tracing that rich heritage and those traditions in the context of the South as one of last remnants of Western Christian civilization. Weaver examines the ideals and ideas of the Southern tradition as expressed in the military histories, autobiographies, diaries, and novels, especially those authored after the defeat in 1865. In that sense, he opens wide the door to a luminous wealth that each Southerner may lay claim to. Additionally, there is an extensive bibliography for those wishing to pursue the alleyways of our inheritance.

A third volume dates from 1930, but has been reprinted several times since then and retains much of its relevance today. It is I’ll Take My Stand: The South and the Agrarian Tradition. Twelve noted Southern writers contributed to the it, including poet, essayist and historian Donald Davidson; poet, novelist and essayist Andrew Lytle; historian Frank L. Owsley; poet and essayist John Crowe Ransom; poet and biographer Allen Tate; and Robert Penn Warren, poet, novelist, essayist, and the first Poet Laureate of the United States. Centered at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, these men were known collectively and informally as the “Southern Agrarians,” and their incisive and elegantly written works defended a discernable “Southern way of life against what may be called the American or prevailing way….” But I’ll Take My Stand is more than a simple defense of Southern agrarianism against the advancing industrial and materialist age; it offers a broad vision of the South as a developed civilization, deeply rooted in the land but also faithful to natural law and Divine Positive Law, something very unique in the context of the ongoing decline of Western civilization. A fairly recent paperback edition was issued in 2006.

In 1981 an illustrious group of Southern scholars contributed to the volume Why the South Will Survive: Fifteen Southerners Look at Their Region a Half Century after ‘I’ll Take My Stand’, which offers a fascinating re-appraisal of the topics discussed by the Southern Agrarians in 1930. A 2011 paperback edition exists.

Certainly there are major questions that arise for any perceptive Southern student.  First, there is the issue of secession and if the Southerners who pledged their loyalty and lives to the Southern Confederacy were traitors, if they committed “treason,” a phrase we hear far too often bandied about by the loathsome and ignorant pundits at Fox News and by their favored “conservative historians” like Allen Guelzo and Victor Davis Hanson. Far too often Southern students at our universities are unprepared for the stifling barrage of anti-Confederate rhetoric concerning just what occurred during those fateful days between November 1860 and May 1861, about the serious arguments made, and about the constitutional issues at stake during those few short months. Several significant volumes have explored those questions in some detail. In 2018 James Rutledge Roesch published From Founding Fathers to Fire-Eaters, an examination of exactly what the Founders and Framers intended when they came together to create these United States. Roesch mines the original sources, illustrating that the Southern view of the nation’s creation was the constitutional and correct interpretation.

The brilliant and much-lamented Southern scholar, Mel Bradford, explored these and related issues in detail in several volumes, including Founding Fathers: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (paperback, 1994) and most significantly in his volume, Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution (hard back, 1993), a fundamental and in-depth study of the nature of American constitutionalism, what the Framers intended, and what it meant to those men—representing their individual states—who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787. Bradford’s work is sometimes dense, but always revelatory…and essential to understanding the nature of the Old Republic as delegated to our ancestors, and now in danger of collapse.

 Charles Adams’ When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession (originally published in 2000, with a subsequent paper edition, 2004) remains a pivotal study of the question of secession and its constitutionality. Nearly as important is Secession, State & Liberty (2017), edited by the David Gordon, and bringing together contributions by a number of noted scholars who explore the issues surrounding secession and its real and admitted constitutionality.

Several other works add to these considerations by focusing them in the context of events, the steps and missteps, largely on the part of the newly-elected administration of Abraham Lincoln in the first few months of 1861. Here I recommend strongly the works of historian William Marvel, and in particular his engrossing volume, Mr. Lincoln Goes to War (2006). As a promo for the book states: “Drawing on original sources and examining previously overlooked factors, Marvel leads the reader inexorably to the conclusion that Lincoln not only missed opportunities to avoid war but actually fanned the flames—and often acted unconstitutionally in prosecuting the war once it had begun.” Then, there is prolific historian Thomas Fleming’s A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War (2013), a balanced account of events, personalities and beliefs that led up to the fateful events of 1861, not just another screed condemning the South for its egregious “sins” of slavery and racism.

Professor Thomas DiLorenzo (Loyola University Maryland), in two volumes, The Real Lincoln (2002, paperback 2003) and Lincoln Unmasked (2006, paperback 2007), examines the responsibility of Abraham Lincoln and his administration not only in bringing on the war of 1861-1865, but in various perversions of the Constitution which forever altered the nature of the American republic. As DiLorenzo indicates, the results of the “Lincolnian revolution” have been disastrous to the Framers’ vision of constitutional government and have resulted in the avaricious growth of a centralized, managerial bureaucracy, self-perpetuating and unanswerable to citizens. In a sense, despite the loud protestations of a Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden about “our democracy,” real control over our destiny and our rights as citizens has nearly been extinguished in our day. 

The issue of slavery is addressed by several of these previously cited authors in the contexts of their volumes; digesting them will offer good information on that question. There is one very recent volume which I recommend: Dr. Samuel W. Mitcham’s It Wasn’t About Slavery: The Great Lie of the Civil War, recently published in 2021. Professor Mitcham is a highly regarded author, specializing in military history. And his volume on the issue of slavery and its effect on secession is a solid examination of that almost undebatable topic. His analysis in the face of the hysterical neo-abolitionists now dominating the historical profession is both fearless and convincing. 

Additionally, intrepid researcher/historian Gene Kizer Jr. at the Charleston Athenaeum Press has done significant work in publicizing the scholarship of such now-largely ignored historians as Dr. Charles W. Ramsdell. Kizer has edited a superb compendium of Ramsdell’s writings which should be owned by every patriotic Southerner: Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States: The Irrefutable Argument (2014). Like other historians of the mid- and early 20^th century Ramsdell understood the underlying constitutional and economic issues—the rights of the states, and especially the debate over tariffs, in particular the Morrill Tariff that would cripple the economies of import-dependent Southern states and on which Lincoln had campaigned in 1860—which were the driving forces for separation in 1861. As historian Frank Taussig in his Tariff History of the United States (1967) details, under Lincoln’s agenda the South would be paying nearly 80 percent of the tariff, while most of the revenues would be spent in the North.

About the relationship between Southern masters and slaves, the late historian Eugene Genovese stands out through his profound examination and analysis. Beginning in the 1960s as a Marxist, Professor Genovese made the long pilgrimage to an identifiable position in which he defended the old South, its leaders, and its culture. While approaching the issue of slavery not as an apologist, he understood the dilemma of Southerners and sympathizes with their attempts to grapple with the question. Of his numerous books, The World the Slaveholders Made (paperback, 1988) and The Mind of the Master Class: History and Faith in the Southern Slaveholders’ Worldview  (paperback, 2005) are extremely valuable in giving the lie to modern “woke” historiography where Southerners are little more than “pre-Nazis,” while noting  that most Southern leaders, writers, and theologians were men of high and admirable standards.  Professor Genovese’s book of incisive essays on the old South and its eloquent defenders, The Southern Tradition; The Achievements and Limitations of an American Conservatism (1994), should be on the shelf of any self-respecting Southerner.

Back in 1974 two distinguished economists, Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman produced a work, Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery (reprinted in 1995), that should have altered the narrative on “the peculiar institution.” But given the historiography since then and the triumph of a zealous anti-racist, anti-white template, that did not occur. Based on their exhaustive research they found “that slavery was an economically rational institution and that the economic exploitation of slaves was not as catastrophic as presumed, because there were financial incentives for slaveholders to maintain a basic level of material support for those they held as property.” 

There are a number of older recommendable histories and accounts of the War itself. I grew up reading Bruce Catton during the Centennial events and the various histories written by Virginian Clifford Dowdey, whose books made Robert E. Lee and our War for Southern Independence come alive in my imagination as a young student. I would mention here: The History of the Confederacy, 1832-1865 (1955, republished 1992); Death of a Nation: The Story of Lee and His Men at Gettysburg (1958, republished 1992); Lee’s Last Campaign: The Story of Lee and His Men Against Grant, 1864 (1960, republished 2011); and finally, Lee: A Biography (1965, republished 2015). Dowdey was not an academic, but he knew well how to write and attract his readers. His books have not lost their flair and appeal, and are very accessible to younger readers.

Of course, there is the three-volume set by Shelby Foote, The Civil War: A Narrative (1958-1974, paperback 1986).  Although Foote’s mammoth work may not be the kind of set that one just reads from cover to cover, its engaging and fluent style, and its sympathetic and fair treatment of the Confederacy at war, remain definite attractions to Southern readers.

Another noted historian, the late Professor Ludwell H. Johnson, who taught for years at the College of William & Mary, published the volume Division and Reunion, 1848-1877, in 1978, and it remains an excellent, one volume survey of the mid-19^th century, the coming of the War, and Reconstruction. A more recent paperback version issue (North Against South, 1848-1877) is exorbitantly priced, but the original is still available as a reprint.

On Reconstruction, itself, the work of pioneer researcher William A. Dunning remains pivotal. Dunning’s Reconstruction, Political and Economic, 1865-1877, continues to be essential in understanding the difficult post-War period. A 2010 paperback re-print of the original 1907 work is available. A much more recent study, Southern Reconstruction (2017), by Philip Leigh is easily accessible and may be the best way to approach the topic in one volume.

One way to understand the War and its meaning is to become familiar with the men who led the South during that difficult period. There are some excellent biographies that allow us to look into the minds and character of those unique individuals. I would mention, first, Douglas Southall Freeman, whose four volume, R. E. Lee: A Biography (1936), has never been bettered as a thorough study of the man who incarnated the ideals and hopes of the Confederacy. A one volume, abridged version, Lee, appeared in 1997, and should be among the books of every young Southern student.

Professor Hudson Strode authored a monumental biography of the Confederacy’s first and only president, Jefferson Davis. In three volumes he covered Jefferson Davis: American Patriot, 1806-1861 (1955); Jefferson Davis: Confederate President (1959); and Jefferson Davis: Tragic Hero, 1864-1889 The Last Twenty-Five Years (1964). Strode’s study remains the touchstone for understanding the life and history of a great man who is reviled by far too many contemporary historians.

James “Bud” Robertson’s Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend, was published in 1997, and is certainly one of the finest biographies of any War commander. It’s a true page-turner and an excellent portrait of one of the world’s great military leaders, but also a study of the man, his ideals, and how he lived out his beliefs on and off the battlefield.

For an older, even more eloquent account, Southern Agrarian Allen Tate penned a short biography of Jackson in 1928: Stonewall Jackson: The Good Soldier. Tate’s volume is a classic and was reprinted in 1991 with a preface by Southern writer Thomas Landess.  Tate also authored a biography of Davis in 1929: Jefferson Davis: His Rise and Fall (1929); a paperback edition appeared in 1998.

Of the various biographies of other Confederate leaders, I should mention Andrew Lytle’s superbly written Bedford Forrest and His Critter Company (1931). This riveting classic has also been reprinted in a paperback edition, in 1993. And more recently, Samuel Mitcham has given us Bust Hell Wide Open: The Life of Nathan Bedford Forrest (2016), an excellent modern study of General Forrest which is also in paperback.

One more biography I should include—there are literally hundreds that could be added—and that is Dr. Clyde Wilson’s magnificent volume, Carolina Cavalier: The Life and Mind of James Johnston Pettigrew (hard back, 1990). A paperback edition exists from 2002. Elegantly and superbly written by the dean of Southern historians, Dr. Wilson’s work offers a remarkable portrait of one of the South’s most fascinating and brilliant essayists and chroniclers, as well as a Confederate general of note, who tragically perished as a result of the battle of Gettysburg. Dr. Wilson is the editor of the John C. Calhoun papers (University of South Carolina) and dozens of other books and studies, many of which are available from Shotwell Publishing.

I know—what I have compiled here is far more than just ten books! But I cannot apologize, for each of the volumes cited is valuable and would be extremely helpful for a Southern collegian (or for a Southern adult, for that matter) navigating his way through the “woke” morass that purports to be our educational system these days. Some of the volumes I cite are more involved, perhaps a challenge for a college freshman, even a very bright one. But they still should find their way to his shelves, even if only as reference copies.

Finally, I will add one final volume—and assert personal privilege in doing so: my little book of essays, The Land We Love: The South and Its Heritage (Scuppernong Press, hard back, 2018). In its chapters I discuss a number of the subjects covered by this present essay, with the hope that some of my words will inspire readers to follow up and delve into our rich Southern history and heritage.

It is the only inheritance we have, and we are fast losing it.