My Fort Sumter
Those of you who know me perhaps know that I am from Kentucky. Those of you who did not know that now do. Rather than attempting to explain that I have had the option of wearing shoes all my life, I would like to discuss an issue that has been swirling in my brain the past couple of days about the American Civil War.
I have heard this war described as "The American Iliad." It is the source of this description that started the wheels turning on this particular issue. I have recently subjected myself to reading a series of novels by Newt Gingrich and Dr. William Forstchen that are centered around the Battle of Gettysburg and a big what if. What if Lee had not attacked the Union position on July 2 and instead marched fifty miles to the Union rear, seizing their supply depot and cutting them off from Washington, thus forcing the Union to attack on unfavorable ground. In essence what would have happened had Lee followed the advice of one of his corps commanders, General Longsreet? The book contains a lot of military "detail" and seems entirely believable. I know as I read the story I found my sense of history and my heart being pulled in different directions. We all know that the North won the Civil War, but the book dares to ask what if?
Well, What if?
Without getting mired in issues that have been debated ad nauseum, I will make the following comment about the stated position of the Confederacy: Slavery is wrong, and State's rights are important. Let's say that by some unusual, although not impossible, series of events the South had won the Civil War. The aforementioned authors believe that the rest of the continent would then be fordoomed to even more secession and war as sections declared independence and European powers were removed. This seems to have some weight in it until one realizes that the states that did secede were by no stretch of the imagination completely unified, yet for some reason they held together. The answer to this puzzle seems to be that the concept of preserving the union was important to everyone, one that was only superseded by State's rights in the mind of some, and only then as a last resort.
It seems to me that if the Confederacy wins the war, it might possibly retain its independence and unity until World War 1 or the Great Depression. It took a herculean effort for the whole country to get through those times, and one must wonder if the South would have been able to support itself through those times. Reunification would most likely occur within a generation or two because of the similarity that would have existed between the two countries. Much is made of both the differences (factories, railroads, Military leadership etc.) and similarities (Brothers fighting Brothers, same religion, same language etc.) by pointy headed historians, but i say that the similarities would bring the South full circle and result in the reunification of the nation.
Thus as a Kentuckian I am forced to look at this in a very different way because I am completely objective. I am forced to be a proponent of State's rights when I see federal judges legislating from the bench; declaring state laws, approved by the people of that state, unconstitutional. However I am also forced to recognize the inherent weakness of the Confederate position declaring that they were fighting for their freedom while at the same time holding other men in bondage. Whats a good Southerner to do?
1. I will continue to make fun of all northern accents because, let's face it, you either sound like Vikings or you sound like you have a mouth full of cotton balls.
2. I will fail to pronounce a whole consonant whenever I choose in my pesonal speech.
3. I will continue to vote for candidates, not parties in an effort to not be a hypocrite.
4. I will continue to be a card carrying member of the "vast right wing conspiracy" while I have the chance.
I have heard this war described as "The American Iliad." It is the source of this description that started the wheels turning on this particular issue. I have recently subjected myself to reading a series of novels by Newt Gingrich and Dr. William Forstchen that are centered around the Battle of Gettysburg and a big what if. What if Lee had not attacked the Union position on July 2 and instead marched fifty miles to the Union rear, seizing their supply depot and cutting them off from Washington, thus forcing the Union to attack on unfavorable ground. In essence what would have happened had Lee followed the advice of one of his corps commanders, General Longsreet? The book contains a lot of military "detail" and seems entirely believable. I know as I read the story I found my sense of history and my heart being pulled in different directions. We all know that the North won the Civil War, but the book dares to ask what if?
Well, What if?
Without getting mired in issues that have been debated ad nauseum, I will make the following comment about the stated position of the Confederacy: Slavery is wrong, and State's rights are important. Let's say that by some unusual, although not impossible, series of events the South had won the Civil War. The aforementioned authors believe that the rest of the continent would then be fordoomed to even more secession and war as sections declared independence and European powers were removed. This seems to have some weight in it until one realizes that the states that did secede were by no stretch of the imagination completely unified, yet for some reason they held together. The answer to this puzzle seems to be that the concept of preserving the union was important to everyone, one that was only superseded by State's rights in the mind of some, and only then as a last resort.
It seems to me that if the Confederacy wins the war, it might possibly retain its independence and unity until World War 1 or the Great Depression. It took a herculean effort for the whole country to get through those times, and one must wonder if the South would have been able to support itself through those times. Reunification would most likely occur within a generation or two because of the similarity that would have existed between the two countries. Much is made of both the differences (factories, railroads, Military leadership etc.) and similarities (Brothers fighting Brothers, same religion, same language etc.) by pointy headed historians, but i say that the similarities would bring the South full circle and result in the reunification of the nation.
Thus as a Kentuckian I am forced to look at this in a very different way because I am completely objective. I am forced to be a proponent of State's rights when I see federal judges legislating from the bench; declaring state laws, approved by the people of that state, unconstitutional. However I am also forced to recognize the inherent weakness of the Confederate position declaring that they were fighting for their freedom while at the same time holding other men in bondage. Whats a good Southerner to do?
1. I will continue to make fun of all northern accents because, let's face it, you either sound like Vikings or you sound like you have a mouth full of cotton balls.
2. I will fail to pronounce a whole consonant whenever I choose in my pesonal speech.
3. I will continue to vote for candidates, not parties in an effort to not be a hypocrite.
4. I will continue to be a card carrying member of the "vast right wing conspiracy" while I have the chance.
posted by Nick Ulrich at 12:30 AM
1 Comments:
I strongly uphold the right of a people's right to constitutional self-determination. What does the saying, "preserve the Union" mean outside of its imperialistic implications? Furthermore, it is unclear whether or not the South would have been able to maintain its independence, but my mantra is that if Switzerland can do it, the Confederacy had at least a fighting chance. In the least it was their right to try.
Americans are lucky that they were able to quickly reunite the peoples of the North and South and that hatred did not last too long. But in places where the population being supressed is largely different than that of its rulers this is not the case.
If democracy is to be that at all, it must be so on all levels. The people and their localized governments must be the determining factor for how and by whom those people are to be ruled.
Thus, I believe in a free Ireland, a free Catalonia, a free Chechnya, a free Tahiti and if they were still to desire it by popular consent, a free South.
To quote everyone's "favorite" professor, "Lee surrendered, I didn't."
Post a Comment
<< Home