Know your Southern history so that you can help to defend it. Our heritage is too important to leave to Yankee and Scalawag revisionist.

In America today most are proud to boast of their cultural background whether that be Irish, African, Hispanic or whatever. One of the largest segments of the American population is attacked for displaying pride in their heritage, those with Confederate ancestors. We are immediately classified as racist if we display the battle flag that the Southern soldier carried as he defended his home and family from invasion. We have made some progress in convincing others that our flag is meant to symbolize heritage not hate but we have further to go. The author is one Southerner who feels that his ancestors were like their grandfathers before them, simply fighting for their right to self government. They did nothing to be pardoned for and we do nothing wrong in being proud of them just as other Americans take pride in their ancestors. The best way to do this is to become familiar with our history. In recent years many academic historians have joined the attacks of our Confederate heritage. We must not leave our history to be told by Yankee and Scalawag revisionist historians. Everyone who feels the same way should read this outline of Southern history for Unreconstructed Southerners.

Magnolias and Cornbread

An Outline of Southern History for Unreconstructed SouthernersBy Leslie R. Tucker

iUniverse, Inc.

Copyright © 2010 Leslie R. Tucker
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-4502-4147-2

Contents

Preface.................................................................................ixIntroduction............................................................................1Chapter 1: Colonial South...............................................................23Chapter 2: Birth of a Nation (1754-1789)................................................47Chapter 3: Early Constitutional United States (1789-1848)...............................79Chapter 4: Northern Hatred of the South and Southerners (1848-1860).....................117Chapter 5: The War (1860-1865)..........................................................143Chapter 6: Reconstructing Reconstruction (1865-1877)....................................171Chapter 7: The New South, Rednecks, and Jim Crow (1877-1920)............................213Chapter 8: The Fall of the South (1920-1970)............................................233Chapter 9: The Real New South (Since 1970)..............................................257Chapter 10: Conclusion..................................................................279Bibliographical Essay...................................................................283

Chapter One

Colonial South

Introduction

The colonial period has become an important battleground for true Southern history. The Librevs claim that the South did not really have a regional identity until shortly before the war and, in fact, was not really all that strong until Reconstruction. They call this the "lost cause myth." They consider the Sons of Confederate Veterans and United Daughters of the Confederacy to be defenders of this myth. I am like most unreconstructed Southerners in that I have no doubt that our people are different and that the difference is too deep-seated to be the result of the Civil War. Grady McWhiney has been the chief defender of the view that has become popular among the unreconstructed. I must clarify that I am not claiming that McWhiney was one of the unreconstructed but simply that his work is popular among us. McWhiney said that not only were Southerners different but that difference dates back to the British Isles. It is part of the Celtic fringe theory. The idea is that the colonists of New England were Anglo-Saxons who came from the Southeast of England. The dominant culture in the South was Scottish, Irish, Welsh, and those from the west and north of England. I will not attempt to add to McWhiney's efforts but simply point out that my history of the South is based on the assumption that he was right. Most of the liberal revisionists do not like his thesis and they do not accept it, but they have not proven him wrong.

I personally do not accept the main part of the Celtic fringe theory, which is that because of the Celtic background of Southerners, they are more warlike. I do not believe that among the Germanic northern European population that one is any more or less warlike than the others. McWhiney argues that the Scottish are this way because of the many generations of warfare between them and the English. Many people around the world have traditions of rivalry with neighboring cultures; the Scottish are not unique in this. Nonetheless, I do believe the idea that the Celtic population was different from the Anglo-Saxon and that this culture has had more influence on the South. Even the Librevs do not dispute the homogeneity and Anglo-Saxon ancestry of the New England colonies nor the large number of Scots in the South. For me, the main point is that they were different from the beginning and became more so once in America. This is opposite of the Librev theory of the "lost cause myth," which is widely accepted among the liberal academic historians.

I can only guess as to why they think this is such an important issue, but I believe they use it to justify their siding with those who favor the banning of our Confederate heritage. I accuse them of bias on this topic. They have accepted the fact that most of us do not see the Confederate icons as symbols of racism, and they have heard our cries of "heritage not hate." Now they argue that these are not really symbols of our heritage. This way they can use history to justify the cultural genocide that is aimed at our Confederate heritage.

I recall seeing a concert of the Highwaymen recorded in Aberdeen, Scotland. At one point, Kris Kristopherson said, "We are in our country," he went on, "the three best countries to play in-Ireland, Scotland, and Wales." I doubt that Kristopherson is familiar with the Celtic fringe theory, only that he connected with these people compared to those in other nations where they have played. Most Southerners sense a connection with Celtic culture, and I can think of no better example of the cultural connection than the music of the South. When dealing with history, we should depend on what is provable. However, sometimes we just know inside that something is true. This is one of those cases. Historians debate the merits of McWhiney's view, but we Southerners know we are not the same race as those to the north.

European Background

There is some background information that we need if we are going to understand the English colonies in America. I do not believe that the conflict between North and South was over any morality issue such as slavery. I believe that the war was the result of economic and political competition. For this reason, it is important to understand the development of economic interest in America. The age of exploration and resulting colonization in the Americas came about because of the development of world markets. The world markets came about because of the transition from the agricultural feudal economy to the merchant economy of the modern age. This change did not occur overnight. The foundations were laid a long time before 1500. The transition was not complete by the founding of the colonies. In fact, we still have remnants of European feudalism in our culture today. I do not agree with those who have viewed the South as the last defenders of the dying feudal society. However, there are some aspects of this transition that are relevant.

Perhaps the greatest influence of feudalism on America was the lust for land. Though the modern Englishman led the way in the development of capitalism, they still attached a great deal of status in the ownership of land. Many of the nouveau-riche English merchants purchased a country estate as soon as they could afford one, and many even bought a title if they could. Most of those who came to the colonies came in search of land. Some were the younger sons of the aristocracy but most were the rising "middling sort." This included those in the Northern and central colonies too, but the love of land is greatest in the South. Whereas the man who strikes it rich in the North looks for a penthouse in Manhattan, the Southerner still wants acreage with a big house, white rail fences, and grazing horses. Of course I am speaking in generalizations to which there are many exceptions, but any Southerner will see the truth in what I say.

The lust for land caused Southerners to be more expansionist in the years before the Civil War. They needed the land for their plantations. Even though Europeans understood the principle of crop rotation, they evaluated the cheapness of the land compared to the high profits from planting the same crops year after year. They established the habit of growing one crop until the land could not produce any more; then they would abandon their old place and moved west. The demand for land also came from the growing population, most of which was due to natural population growth. By the early twentieth century, the American people paid for the abuse of the land with massive erosion problems throughout the West and South. The most famous example of this is the Dust Bowl.

The Growth of the World Markets

Markets existed in feudal society, but they were not as important as in modern society. This can best be demonstrated by the growth of cities. Cities equal market economy; that is the reason for their existence. During the Middle Ages, the city of London never had more than ten thousand people. By the seventeenth century, it had hundreds of thousands.

The first world markets were the Italian city states, such as Florence, Rome (the Papal States), Milan, or Genoa. Of course, theirs was not a true world market but rather the world as they knew it. The merchants prospered and purchased art and culture with their profits. Though Spain got a great head start with "discovery" of the New World, the first true world market leadership soon passed to Antwerp. Because of their conflict with Spain, the center of world commerce shifted to Amsterdam. By the eighteenth century, England captured the title and retained it until the twentieth century. The colonists who went to America were part of the British Empire and thus key players in the world-market economy.

Nationalism

Nationalism came with the rise of the world markets. Whereas the feudal peasant or knight could turn to the local lord for protection, the globe-trotting merchant needed something more all encompassing. At first he turned to the king. It was during the modern age that kings found "absolute" power as reflected in palaces such as Versailles. The greater the power of their king, the more protection the merchant might expect and find in the world. When the English achieved domination of the world markets, they did so with the rise of the English navy. The English still label their navy as "His or Her Majesty's Ships." When the English and the French established their colonies in America, they were still second-rate powers struggling for their share of the world-market economy.

This struggle for national identity was as much a part of what was happening in the nineteenth century as anything. Though the Great Britain that we all know and love today was established with the unification Act of 1707, it took several more generations before the average Englishman achieved the level of national patriotism that we see today. There was still no unified Germany until the mid-nineteenth century. Neither was there a unified Italy. When we speak of Robert E. Lee as a man who was a Virginian first and an American second, we are not talking about someone clinging to the vestiges of feudalism. We are talking about a man going through the same experience that many other Europeans went through. The struggle for national identity was neither unique to the United States nor an example of Southern backwardness. Some people are still reluctant to surrender their local identity for the sake of the nation. Southerners should understand this better than other Americans.

The Development of Ideas

Increased literacy came with the rise of the merchant economy. The merchants and their families had a need to keep up with their business transactions, and thus, they had to learn to read and write. As more people became literate, they read the Bible, which of course led to the Reformation. Soon after came the scientific revolution, and people began to turn to the laws of nature as an explanation for the events around them. After defining the laws of nature, we next learned to harness them. This led to many technological advances that climaxed with the Industrial Revolution.

As the foundations of feudal society crumbled to the advances in literacy and learning, men began to question the nature and order of their societies. This is called the Enlightenment. This period gave us many things that we associate with the modern age, such as novels, encyclopedias, dictionaries, newspapers, and coffee houses for debating intellectuals. It also gave us economics, democracy, and the notion of government by contract. It is also at this time that we find a significant number of people questioning the institution of slavery.

The rise of new ideas did not occur everywhere at the same time. Some become convinced before others. This is also true regarding the abolition of slavery. In the early modern period, slavery existed in many parts of the world. Today few people would condone it. As of 1861, more people in the North were convinced that it was wrong. However, most Americans, North or South, still believed in the superiority of the white race. No doubt the profitability of slavery contributed to Southern thinking. It is always difficult to prove what people thought in the past, but it makes sense that those who clung to slavery the longest were those who profited the most. It does not mean that they lacked morality or that they were inferior to the ones who could find profits without slavery. A major flaw with capitalism is that it fosters selfishness. Adam Smith called it self-interest. This means that people do what is best for them and quite often it is to the point of being selfish.

The Concept of Class

I believe that the moves for independence in 1776 and 1861 were primarily about economic competition. I also believe that the economic interest varied by class. Therefore it is important to reject the belief so many Americans have that ours is a classless society. The concept of class is considerably more complicated in the modern world. Feudal society had commoners, clergy, and aristocracy. Each of those had their well-defined layers. Everyone knew where they fit and what their roles were. Class in the modern world has often been ignored as the old aristocracy declined and the rising merchants ascended. Some old families are still wealthy today, largely because of the lands they have controlled since the Middle Ages. However, most of the wealthiest and most powerful of the modern age have come from below and were catapulted to new social and class levels by their business enterprises.

America has stood for capitalism since its founding; the aristocratic medieval titles were never transferred to the colonies. This, combined with the American self-image of exceptionalism has led many to deny that class distinctions are as great here. We have all heard it claimed many times that America is a classless society. I have always tried to understand which part is classless-Beverly Hills or Watts? Since the first colonies there has been a demand for cheap labor and those who did the labor have been looked down on by those who used their labor.

Capitalism, like feudalism before it, continued to have people who labored for others. After the merchant class turned to manufacturing they found a need for labor. The cheaper the labor, the greater the profits. This has put the owners in competition with the poor or working classes. This is why socialism and communism came into existence. In the colonial days of America, manufacturing was limited. Those who did this kind of business could meet their labor needs with their own families. Many were cottage industries. The few that expanded their business first used the labor of young ladies between adolescence and marriage. This source for labor shifted to immigrants. At first, the Irish, and later it would include other immigrant groups all the way up to the illegal aliens of today.

The greatest profits accrued to those who exploited the labor of others. In the South, they turned to slavery. I will discuss the reasons for this in greater depth later. John C. Calhoun made a defense of slavery on the grounds that the Southern slave was better off than the Northern working class. In the days of Calhoun, there was a lot of truth in this. Of course we cannot ignore the value of freedom, even if it was only in theory. The reality is that workers depended on their meager incomes, and it was not always easy to quit a job. The main point I want to make at this time is that in both cases, there were those who profited off the labor of others. The Southern planter inherited a system that had been around since the first American colonies; the Northern manufacturer adopted a system that came into being after the Enlightenment. As stated earlier, the Enlightenment was an age when intellectual discussion had turned against slavery, especially the slave trade. This did not mean that the Northern manufacturer did not exploit workers. Karl Marx certainly did not see the virtues of the system utilized by the Northern manufacturers. If a man exploits the labor of another, is one system really morally superior to another? In slavery, one does not have the freedom to choose. In the early nineteenth century, how much freedom did the working classes really have? Even today how many working people toil at a job they hate because they have a family to feed. They had the freedom to starve to death if the factory they worked for cut production. They would often end up maimed or crippled by the machines they worked with. The planter was motivated to care for his workers since he had capital tied up in them. Was the early industrialist morally superior to the planter?

The Northern preference for immigrant labor may have been nothing more than an economic decision. They did not need a capital outlay that one needs when buying a slave. They did not have to feed or shelter the immigrant when production was down. Enlightenment thinking was leading the Europeans away from slave labor, but those who followed also found economic advantages. My purpose is not to defend slavery but rather to point out that the Northern choice of immigrant labor was not necessarily the product of moral superiority.

Growth of Democracy

We quite often equate democracy with the concept of equality. American exceptionalism revolves around the notion that our nation produced modern democracy and thus has been the leader in a world campaign to show that "all men are created equal." For this reason, we have often thought of ourselves as morally superior to other nations. Northerners have seen themselves as the leaders in this. Intellectually they realize that men such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry came from the South, but they seem to think this fact has been negated by slavery. If we realize that democracy and related ideas did not come from America to begin with then we must reject the notion that Northerners are leaders of the American crusade for equality. If we understand this then it is more difficult to accept the Northern assumption that their invasion and conquest of the South was part of this noble effort to assure the equality of black Americans.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Magnolias and Cornbreadby Leslie R. Tucker Copyright © 2010 by Leslie R. Tucker. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.