The South Was Right

by James Ronald Kennedy

  Major General W. T. Sherman wrote from Vicksburg on January 31, 1864:

  The Government of the United States has … any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war—to take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything. … war is simply power unrestrained by constitution. … To the persistent secessionist, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better. …51

  Please note that Sherman is not making these remarks in the heat of battle but while writing to one of his subordinates. Note also the fact that he claims the right to execute all secessionists, either male or female!

  The super-patriots and other one-hundred-percent Americans will come to this United States general’s defense and claim that he was not really sincere about his desire to kill innocent men and women, that he was only exaggerating. Yet, look at his remarks five months later on June 21, in a letter to Secretary of War Stan-ton:

  There is a class of people [Southerners] men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order.52

  Instead of moderating his position, Sherman has expanded his human target to now include children! But that was not the end of the matter. Secretary Stanton, in Washington, replied to Sherman’s letter stating:

  Your letter of the 21st of June has just reached me and meets my approval.53

  The Yankee armies made every effort to fulfill the desire of their leaders to leave the Southern people with “nothing but their eyes to cry with.” Witness an order from General Halleck, chief of staff in Washington, as he relayed an order from General Grant:

  General Grant… directs that… you … make all the valleys south of the Baltimore and Ohio road a desert… .54

  How many men, women and children can survive in a desert? The officials and officers of the United States did not care as long as it was Southerners who were being exiled to the desert. But of course the army notified the people to “move out”—out to where? If a population is displaced and is forced to move, then the population that is forced to take in the refugees is now jeopardized. In other words, by forcefully relocating the civilian population, the Federal forces could put both groups of civilians at risk of starvation—another example of thrifty, efficient Yankee cunning.

  More proof of how the Yankee invader attempted to reduce the local Southern population to starvation can be seen in a report from Northern Louisiana by an officer of the United States Army of Aggression who boastfully wrote in his official report:

  No squad of men … can live anywhere we have been. The people have neither seed, corn, nor bread, or mills to grind the corn in if they had it, as I burned them wherever found. … I have taken from these people the mules with which they would raise a crop the coming year, and burned every surplus grain of corn. …55

  Notice that the Yankee’s efforts were directed not only at destroying current food supplies but also at destroying all means for recovery. The logical result, of course, was to ensure starvation and misery for innocent civilians, men, women, and children—glory, glory, hallelujah, the Yankee empire goes marching on! Sherman wrote to General Grant on October 9, 1864:

  Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources. …56

  Note the word “repopulate” and the phrase “utter destruction of its … people.” These words were deliberately chosen to communicate an idea to a friend and colleague. Remember the words of the author of A Fool’s Errand, when he admitted that it had been the aim of the post-war Reconstruction leaders to repopulate the South by settling large numbers of Northern soldiers in the South.

  General Philip Sheridan also got in on the action as evidenced by his communique dated October 11, 1864, to General Grant:

  … guerrilla parties … are becoming very formidable. … I know of no way to exterminate them except to burn out the whole country.57

  Note the use of the word “exterminate” as opposed to the military term “defeat” to refer to the local Southern resistance. Note also the manner in which the invader planned to deal with the local resistance fighters—“burn out the whole country.” Who feeds the civilian population when the country from which they have traditionally drawn their sustenance is destroyed? Starvation is the result of a scorched-earth policy. Do you suppose that the United States officials in Washington were ignorant of the result of their vigorous war policy? Or do you think they knew and approved of the results? Which do you think is more likely? Lincoln, on October 27, 1864, sent a letter to General Sheridan declaring, “… my own personal admiration and gratitude for the month’s operations in the Shenandoah Valley.”58 It is rewarding to be appreciated by one’s superior, especially when one is conducting a tough campaign against defenseless men, women, and children!

  General Sheridan received this letter of encouragement from General Sherman:

  I am satisfied … that the problem of this war consists in the awful fact that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright rather than in the conquest of territory … a great deal of it, yet remains to be done. … Therefore, I shall expect you on any and all occasions to make bloody results.59

  On January 21, 1865, Sherman sent this communique:

  The people of the South … see … the sure and inevitable destruction of all their property. … They see in the repetition of such raids the inevitable result of starvation and misery.60

  These officials and officers of the United States knew that their intentional war against the Southern civilian population would produce starvation and misery. They knew it, they planned it, and they carried it out.

  As we have already noted, this was not a war against the white South but a war against all Southerners, both black and white. The attitude of the United States government can best be demonstrated by quoting Sherman:

  I have [your] telegram saying the President had read my letter and thought it should be published. … [I] profess … to fight for but one single purpose, viz, to sustain a Government capable of vindicating its just and rightful authority, independent of niggers, cotton, money, or any earthly interest.61

  After the war came Reconstruction. We have seen, in Chapter 10, that the radical leaders wanted to “hang” all Southern leaders. The hatred of the North for the Southern people can be seen in an incident in Vicksburg, Mississippi, where Joseph Davis was attempting to recover land from the local politically correct Carpetbaggers. Here is what the Carpetbagger thought of Southerners:

  … instead of temporizing and arguing with traitors, I would urge the most prompt and effective measures of force to quell and exterminate them.62

  Note the use of the word “exterminate.” This report pleased the local Federal official who sent it on to Washington, D.C., where it was accepted without comment. There was nothing unusual in the report, just a continuation of the planned destruction of a nation, a culture, and a people.

  This vicious campaign of genocide, conducted by the United States government, was not limited to black and white Southerners. While it was conducting its campaign of extermination down South, the United States government was also actively attempting to solve its “Indian” problem. The solution was strangely familiar. Yankee general John Pope declared, “It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux.”63 Pope planned to make a “final settlement with all these Indians.” His plan was to shoot and hang as many as possible and then remove the rest from their land.64 The Yankees’ “final solution” for the Indian problem was very similar to their “solution” for the Southern problem. They planned to kill as many as possible, deprive those who were left of their land, and then re-educate them so they would become Yankees!

  Notice how the Yankee mind will not allow for the existence of a culture differing from his own, especially if that culture stands in the way of the Yankee’s economic gain. The Northern reformers were determined to re-make the Native Americans into white (i.e., Yankee) men. T
he Native Americans were viewed as barbarians because of their nonmaterialistic values. The Yankee sought to remake them in order to

  change the disposition of the Indian to one more mercenary and ambitious to obtain riches, and teach him to value the position consequent upon the possession of riches.65

  Throughout this chapter we have documented the cruel and evil attitude of United States leaders during their conduct of the war. This evil attitude or mind set is not pleasant to look upon and serves as a source of national embarrassment for many one-hundred-percent Americans.* This may be one of the reasons why the Northern conduct of the war tends to be ignored. Most authors find it unpleasant and therefore prefer to pretend that the entire episode never occurred. The cruel fact is that these events did happen, and it was the Southern people who suffered at the hands of the United States government!

  Lyon G. Tyler of Virginia addressed the question of the United States’ willingness to use cruel methods to further its aggressive intent:

  During the war for Southern independence the Northern generals everywhere disregarded the international law. The policy everywhere was cruel imprisonment, waste and destruction. Unlike General Lee, Lincoln revelled in using hard language—“Rebels,” “Insurgent Rebels,” “Insurgents,” etc., occur everywhere in his speeches, letters and messages. Because these terms are recognized as insulting, … such words were greatly objected to by our Revolutionary fathers, and a committee of the Continental Congress imputed to this habit of the British the licentious conduct of the British soldiers. They were taught by these words to look down upon the Americans, to despise them as inferior creatures. And the same influences operated upon the Northern soldiers, who plundered the South. Lincoln taught them. The North having no just cause for the invasion and destruction of the South, which only asked to be let alone, has ceaselessly tried to hide its crime by talking “slavery.” But logically flowing from this attitude is the idea that slavery deprived the South of every right whatever, which was the doctrine of the assassin, John Brown. General Sheridan’s philosophy of war was “to leave to the people nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war.” General Sherman’s, “to destroy the roads, houses, people, and repopulate the country.” General Grant’s to leave the Valley “a barren waste” and shoot “guerrillas without trial”; and President Lincoln’s the adoption of “emancipation and every other policy calculated to weaken the moral and physical forces of the rebellion.” (Nicolay and Hay, Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, II, p. 565.) The damage done by the German troops in France was a trifle compared with the damage done by the Northern troops in the South.66

  Southerners, who are by custom courteous, have been reluctant to discuss this evil attitude of our Northern adversaries. This reluctance has worked to the general benefit of the Northern myth-makers and to the enormous detriment of the South. When courtesy and politeness allow our adversaries an unfair advantage and assist them in maintaining their social, political, and economic domination of our people, then courtesy and politeness are no longer virtues but damnable vices!

  Thus far we have demonstrated that the free Southern nation was invaded, many of our people raped or murdered, private property plundered at will, and their right of self-determination violently denied. We have seen that the leaders and officials of the United States government and military held the Southern people in contempt and that their actions were guided by this disparaging attitude. We have seen how the United States government attempted to destroy the South physically as a people and then made early efforts to re-educate the survivors to ensure that future generations of Southerners would remain loyal to the newly established national authority (or at least be made ashamed of their past and therefore remain docile and pacified). We must now review current events to determine if the Northern-controlled establishment has relented in its early campaign of cultural genocide or if perhaps they are continuing their campaign to destroy our Southern culture and heritage.

  The War Continues Contemporary Cultural Genocide

  During the late 1960s, amidst strident cries of “black power” and “burn, baby, burn,” there emerged the concept of “black pride.” The black community insisted that it had a right to teach its children “black history.” The general rationale given was that pride in its heritage would serve as a bulwark against attempts to dominate and exploit the black community.

  The liberal media and education establishments actively endorsed and promoted black pride, black studies, and Afro-American cultural programs. This support has resulted in not only the education of black children in various Afro-American studies programs but also the forced indoctrination of all children regardless of their cultural heritage.

  Our Southern society has a heritage rich in cultural diversity. The study of the various cultures that comprise this heritage is certainly relevant and laudable. The problem is that the liberal education establishment has assumed unto itself the right to decide which cultures are relevant and which ones must be ignored. It has assumed unto itself the right to teach cultural diversity in a manner that will best support its left-of-center, liberal bias. An example is the manner in which our children are taught about Martin Luther King.

  Many Southerners are offended by the way in which the liberal establishment has deified King. For instance, his extreme leftwing views, especially his attempts to undercut the support of our troops during the Vietnam War, were not shared by most Southerners. The various charges that continue to emerge regarding his plagiarism of his doctoral thesis and the assertions by his own friends that the Reverend Dr. King was a voracious “womanizer” all tend to detract from his “heroic” status.

  The important point to remember is that, even though certain aspects of King’s life are offensive to many Southerners, the liberal establishment still forces us to pay homage to their left-of-cen-ter hero. Across the South today, in virtually every city, you will find Martin Luther King avenues, parks, and various other public displays honoring the slain activist. These displays are paid for primarily by taxes paid by middle-class Southerners—many of whom, if not most, did not and do not agree with the left-wing political philosophy promoted by King. Yet even though many Southerners do not agree with his political philosophy, there has been very little, if any, resistance to this liberal-sponsored hero worship. Southerners have generally taken the position that, if this is the type of man the black community desires to hold up as their hero, then let them do so—it is their business.

  As we have pointed out, the liberal establishment not only has assumed the right to put a left-wing spin on its teaching regarding King but also more importantly for us, has assumed the right to decide which culture should be ignored. By ignoring and or falsifying our Southern heritage the liberal establishment is engaging in a deliberate campaign of cultural genocide.

  Campaigns of cultural genocide are not new. It has been a commonly used tool to maintain the domination of an external power over a subjugated people. The invasion and subjugation of Scotland and Ireland by the English imperialists provide examples of how the destruction of a culture was used to maintain control of a local population. The wearing of kilts, the playing of bagpipes, and the gathering of the clans were at various times outlawed by the English occupation forces. Why? Did kilts and bagpipes pose a threat to the English empire? No, not directly, but as a means to encourage a people to be proud of their heritage—their individualism, their past—it tended to encourage them to think of themselves as a people under bondage and to incite passions for such forbidden fruit as liberty!

  After the United States occupied the Southern nation, the Federal authorities issued orders similar to those issued by their English kinsmen who occupied Scotland. The displaying of the Confederate flag and other visible symbols of the Confederacy were forbidden. This included all military insignias, even buttons on uniforms. Often returning Southern soldiers were forced to remove or cover the buttons on the only clothing they possessed. Whitelaw Reid, a Radical Republican and Yan
kee journalist, was eyewitness to a drunken Union sergeant forcing a former Confederate officer to stand and allow him to remove the buttons from the officer’s uniform. One of Stonewall Jackson’s former staff officers was thrown in jail and charged with the high crime of treason when he was caught by Federal officials as he returned from having his photo taken while wearing his Confederate uniform. Yankee hatred for Southerners even extended to the dead. Arlington Cemetery has witnessed the spectacle of United States troops standing guard to prevent Southern ladies from placing flowers on the graves of Southern dead! United States authorities at An-tietam battlefield were forced to give Southern soldiers a proper burial only after hogs began rooting up the remains of Confederate dead, thereby fouling the area close to where the slain Northerners were buried!67

  The former communist empire of Eastern Europe offers another example of how an invader attempted to destroy local cultural pride to prevent resistance to the empire. The central government in Moscow outlawed the celebration of certain cultural events if these events tended to promote regional pride and awareness. Many tourists during the Cold War era returned from occupied countries with stories of local residents giving them old currency and asking them to take it out of the county to the free world as a reminder that their occupied nation was once free. The communist imperialists made every effort to erase all traces of the occupied nations’ history. With their history gone and their culture forgotten, who would remain to challenge the empire’s domination of the forgotten nations?