The South Was Right

by James Ronald Kennedy

  The myth-makers stress in their argument that General Lee was opposed to secession. While this is true, the myth-makers fail to state that many, if not a majority of Southerners, were opposed to secession—opposed until Yankee aggression left no choice except secession. President Davis stated in his inaugural address that secession of the Southern states came “as a necessity, and not a choice” (see Davis’ inaugural address in Addendum III). Opposition to secession, when other remedies still remain, does not make one less of a Southern Nationalist.

  The myth-makers also suggest that General Lee really was not committed so much to Southern Independence as he was to fighting to protect his native state of Virginia.

  General Lee’s own words will put to rest this Yankee myth. In a letter to Lord Acton, dated December 15, 1866, General Lee described himself as “a citizen of the South.”69 In the same letter General Lee stated that he believed that the maintenance of the reserved rights (State’s Rights) under the Original Constitution was essential “to the continuance of a free government.”70 He then emphasized what would happen if those reserved rights were concentrated into a central government; he believed this action would result in a nation that would be “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”71 General Lee’s letter continues with a strong statement regarding the right of any state to “… prescribe for itself the qualifications of suffrage.”72 Hardly the words of a Union apologist!

  The Yankee myth-makers have made much of General Lee’s silence after the war. They infer by this that General Lee was satisfied with the outcome of the war and therefore was not a true Southern Nationalist. General Lee’s letter to Lord Acton, as quoted above, demonstrates Lee’s true attitude toward the war and the cause for which he so bravely fought. A little-known incident described in Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney helps to clarify General Lee’s silence as well as to reveal his true feelings about the South.

  The incident occurred in August 1870, when Lee and many distinguished ex-Confederates were meeting together. The Union general William S. Rosecrans was there and asked General Lee to make a statement on behalf of the Southern people proclaiming that they were now glad to be back in the Union and loyal to the old flag. General Lee refused to make any statement but did agree to set up a meeting with the other ex-Confederates and to allow them to speak for themselves.

  General Lee met each man as he entered the room and then sat quietly as the conference progressed. At the beginning of the meeting Union general Rosecrans asked each of the ex-Confederates the same question he had posed to General Lee. Governor Fletcher S. Stockdale (former Confederate governor of Texas) stated to Dabney that he thought that many of the replies struck him as entirely too sycophantic and insincere. When the question came to Governor Stockdale, he made the following reply:

  The people of Texas will remain quiet, and not again resort to forceful resistance against the Federal Government, whatever may be the measures of that government. But, General Rosecrans, candor requires me to explain the attitude of my people. The people of Texas have made up their minds to remain quiet under all aggressions and to have peace; but they have none of the spaniel in their composition. No, sir, they are not in the least like the dog that seeks to lick the hand of the man that kicked him; but it is because they are a very sensible, practical, common-sense people, and understand their position. They know that they resisted the Federal Government as long as any means of resistance was left, and that any attempt at resistance now must be in vain, and they have no means, and would only make bad worse. This is the view of the matter which is going to keep Texas quiet.73

  At this point General Lee rose from his chair and General Rosecrans took the hint that the meeting was over. General Lee stood at the door and bade good-bye to each man as he left the room. Governor Stockdale was the last to move to the door; General Lee, who had his hand on the door, closed it before Governor Stockdale could exit. With the world shut out and only himself and Governor Stockdale in the room, Lee made the following statement:

  Governor Stockdale, before you leave, I wish to give you my thanks for brave, true words. You know, Governor, what my position is. Those people [his uniform term for the Yankees] choose, for what reason I know not, to hold me as a representative Southerner; hence, I know they watch my words, and if I should speak unadvisedly, what I say would be caught up by their speakers and newspapers, and magnified into a pretext for adding to the load of oppression they have placed upon our poor people; and God knows, Governor, that load is heavy enough now; I want to thank you for your bold, candid words.74

  At this point General Lee paused for a moment and Governor Stockdale thought that the general was preparing to bid him goodbye. But Lee held the door closed, looked up, and continued:

  Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no, sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand.75

  Here we see in General Lee’s own words, as spoken to a former governor, what his estimation of the results of subjugation and Reconstruction were. We see that Lee viewed the actions of the United States government to be illegal, cruel, and disastrous for the people whom he had served so well. He believed this so strongly that he would have preferred to have died with his face to the Yankee foe than to have submitted to such despotism.

  YANKEE MYTH

  The Struggle for Southern Independence was a Civil War

  Those who do not understand the workings of the Yankee myth of history (its primary function is to create and to maintain a guilt-ridden Southern people and to justify Northern aggression, conquest, and oppression of the Southern people) will think it strange for us to insist upon the use of a specific title to describe the War of 1861-65. The important point is that the name we use conveys an implied message. Repeated over and over again, it soon becomes a “given” (i.e., one of those unquestionable “facts” that the left-of-center wordsmiths rely upon to keep the masses in line). The truth is that the war was not a civil war because there were not two factions attempting to gain control of the government. Yet the vast majority of books, articles, and lectures about the war label it as the “Civil War.”

  The use of the compromise term “War Between the States” is also incorrect. We have in hand a copy of our great grandfather’s parole papers when he surrendered at Vicksburg, Mississippi. The names of two contending nations, the United States and the Confederate States, can be found on this document. Remember, this document was prepared and used by the army of the United States and, as such, is an official document of that government. Nowhere does this document mention the various states. 76 They were not mentioned because the various states were not engaged in a war among themselves. However, the two nations who were at war are listed77

  O. W. Blacknall in January 1915 published a booklet entitled Lincoln as the South Should Know Him (reprinted by Manly’s Battery Chapter, Children of the Confederacy, Raleigh, North Carolina). In the booklet the author states that it is incredible that the otherwise intelligent and war-like people of the South should so easily abandon the just cause of their forefathers by foreswearing the use of the “high, expressive, and honorable name of the struggle given to their fathers, The War for Southern Independence.”78 The author recognized the term “War Between the States” for what it is, a compromise name. A usual Southern compromise, we surrender something of value, and the Yankee surrenders nothing in exchange. Surely, at one point in time it was necessary for the South to forsake the use of the true title “War for Southern Independence.” Blacknall states, “The compromise name, War Between The States, which our perhaps overcautious leaders thought best to use while the South still had her head in the lion’s mouth, was, as they must have known, a clear misnomer.” Realizing this, Blacknall continues, “Nevertheless, whatever the war was, it was not war between the States. The States, as States, too
k no part in it, were not even known in it. It was a war between two thoroughly organized governments and for one great principle, that completely overshadowed all others—Southern Independence. … To every patriotic Southerner, War for Southern Independence should be a sacred name.”79

  Why is it important that we assign a specific title to the war? The importance is not its historical accuracy, but that the current title, as soon as it is spoken, immediately assigns the aggressor to the position of an equal participant in a struggle to uphold high principles. The title “Civil War” or “War Between the States” relieves the aggressor of the necessity for explaining why he used cruel and barbaric measures in his invasion and conquest of a free people. The acceptance and use of either of these titles has been a major propaganda victory for the Yankee myth-makers who continue winning this victory with the assistance of our fellow Southerners, who should know better.

  We are now in a position to take the offensive. By use of a title that is friendlier to our cause, we can put the myth-makers on the defensive. When the myth-makers are confronted with the insistent use of the term “War for Southern Independence,” they are forced to explain why self-determination is good in Eastern Europe but not good for the South. Even if they ignore our use of the term, the implied virtue of our cause is transmitted to our fellow Southerners just by the hearing of the term “War for Southern Independence.” The term is self-explanatory. It does not require anyone to explain that independence, not slavery, was the cause for which our forefathers fought.

  As Southern Nationals, we must insist upon the use of the pro-Southern term, War for Southern Independence. This is not to suggest that the occasional use of other terms is wrong or anti-Southern. There are occasions when a short term is desired, but at every opportunity, especially when dealing with the media, we should insist upon the use of the term that best describes the virtue of our cause and the villainy of our oppressors!

  YANKEE MYTH

  The South Committed War Crimes at Andersonville

  When the self-righteous Yankee is challenged to explain why he thinks he has a right to deny self-determination to the Southern people, he quickly grabs one of his two most valuable scare charges—slavery or Andersonville. With either of these magic wands of Yankee propaganda, the Northerner usually is able to silence rational discussion. We will now examine the travesty which occurred at Andersonville.

  Yankee wordsmiths have equated Andersonville with Nazi death camps. They announce the horrible “truth,” and we must accept it, as if it were announced from the mouth of God. In the autumn of 1990, the Public Broadcasting System aired “The Civil War.” This program was produced by a Northerner with a large anti-Southern bias. In his treatment of Andersonville, he offered only the Yankee side of the story, completely ignoring the Southern viewpoint as if it did not exist!

  The story of Andersonville is too long to be treated completely here. A short listing of a few relevant facts will serve to demonstrate how unfair the Confederate commander of Andersonville, Capt. Henry Wirz, was treated while being victimized by Yankee justice. Wirz was placed on trial by the Yankee government for “war crimes.”

  Wirz’s defense made several motions to dismiss the case. One such motion was based upon the fact that the charges against Wirz were unconstitutionally vague and indefinite. For example, he was charged with thirteen allegations of murder but not a single murder victim was named! How could a man murder thirteen people in the presence of several thousand witnesses (who were the fellow comrades of the alleged victims), and yet no one could remember a single victim’s name!80

  Wirz was charged with “conspiracy to destroy prisoners’ lives in violation of the laws and customs of war.”81 It takes at least two people to “conspire,” yet no one other than Wirz was ever brought to trial. Indeed, Jefferson Davis and fourteen others were also charged in this “crime.” Why did the prosecution not use the “evidence” it had obtained in the first trial to convict the others? Perhaps the Yankees did not want to subject their evidence to closer scrutiny. One of the unnamed victims that Wirz was convicted of murdering was supposedly killed on February 1, 1864. Captain (later Major) Wirz did not arrive in Andersonville until the following month, March of 1864. In addition, Yankee justice convicted him of the murder of two unnamed prisoners in August of 1864. During the time in question, Wirz was away from the camp on sick leave.82

  Of the 160 witnesses called by the prosecution, 145 testified that they had no personal knowledge of Wirz ever killing or mistreating anyone. Only one could give the name of a prisoner allegedly killed by Wirz. The problem with this testimony was that the date given by the witness did not agree with any date used in the charges against Wirz. The court “corrected” this situation by simply changing the date in the indictment to match the testimony already given!83

  The Yankee court decided which witnesses it would allow the defense to call. Several key witnesses were not allowed to testify on behalf of the defense. While on the one hand the Yankee court restricted the defense, it would on the other hand compliment prosecution witnesses for their “spirited testimony.”84 One defense witness was arrested and jailed when he arrived to testify on behalf of Wirz.

  Perhaps the most outrageous and damning of all the incidents connected with this display of Yankee justice involved the prosecution’s key witness. A man claiming to be one De la Baume testified that he personally saw Wirz shoot two prisoners. His testimony was so compelling that the court gave the witness a writtencommendation for his “zealous testimony” and rewarded him with a government job! Eleven days after Wirz was hanged, De la Baume was recognized by Union veterans as one Felix Oeser, a deserter from the Seventh New York Regiment. The veterans were so outraged they went to the Secretary of the Interior and had the deserter fired. Upon his discovery, the deserter admitted that he had committed perjury in the Wirz trial.85 (The Union veterans were angry because the deserter was on the government payroll, not because he had perjured himself and thereby had killed an innocent man.)

  The unfair treatment accorded the defense caused three of the original five defense attorneys to quit early in the case. The remaining two finally gave up and quit after their motion for time to prepare their closing argument was denied. Not to be outdone, the court allowed the prosecution to present both closing arguments! Oh, the brilliance and versatility of Yankee justice—something all Southerners have come to appreciate while watching our children as they are bused across town!

  The myth of Andersonville is yet one more example of how the Yankee wordsmiths create the “truth” to serve their purposes and then use their monopoly of the media and education to enforce their myth. Lincoln’s Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, noted that a higher percentage of Southern POWs died while in Yankee camps than did Northern POWs held by the South. Still the myth-makers have continued to select only the facts that they wish preserved in their official history.

  YANKEE MYTH

  The North Was Motivated by High Moral Principles to Preserve the Union

  The primary task facing the Yankee myth-makers is to maintain the delusion that the North was the champion of virtue and that therefore, the South represented villainy. Their basic technique has been to paint the South with the tar brush of slavery and racism. The North, in contrast, is depicted as engaging in a selfless sacrifice for human freedom and equality. Variations on this theme can be seen in politically correct textbooks throughout the United States. This theme is then routinely re-enforced by “Civil War documentaries” and twenty-second sound bits on national television networks. All in all, a rather effective propaganda effort—financed by middle-class taxpayers!

  The question still remains: Why did the North invade, conquer, and occupy an independent South? Imperialist powers usually attempt to hide their naked aggression with high-sounding moral excuses which allow them to justify their armed aggression. Saddam Hussein’s excuse for invading Kuwait was that Kuwait was really a part of Iraq that had illegally broken away; Joseph S
talin claimed that it was necessary to maintain the Soviet Union’s military presence in post-war Eastern Europe to protect international socialism; Adolph Hitler claimed that his invasion of Czechoslovakia was only an attempt to protect German nationals and to give Greater Germany living space; and the British claimed that it was necessary to occupy India in order to preserve order and to prevent French domination. Thus, those who send armies off to foreign countries to deny people the right of self-determination can always find a high-sounding moral motive to justify their invasion. The excuses given by an invader should be viewed with great skepticism. We should always look beyond the aggressor’s propaganda and attempt to determine if there are any underlying causes that motivated the invasion and occupation of an erstwhile free people.

  General Sir James Marshall-Cornwall, in the first chapter of his book Grant as a Military Commander, noted that the real issue between the North and the South was political and economic. He described the economic pressure on the North to protect its industrial expansion with high tariffs, whereas Southern agriculture needed free trade. Thus the animosity and tension between the two sections were based upon different cultures with conflicting economic systems.86