The Treasury of Counterfeit Virtue

“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!”
     —Robert Burns

Not long ago, a well-known conservative historian lamented that the American public was  not  morally engaged to undergo sacrifice after  the 9/11 attacks, unlike the heroic response to  Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor. 

 Wait a minute.  Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were massive sneak attacks by foreign enemies.  The reduction of Fort Sumter was preceded by a gentlemanly warning,  was bloodless, and the garrison was allowed to depart with honour.  It would not have happened at all if Lincoln had not maneuvered to bring it about.  Think about this.  Why should Southerners (free Americans)  permit a fort that had been built with their tax money for their protection  to be used as a base to conquer and extort taxes from them?  When every other federal post in the South had already been peacefully transferred  pending a political settlement of the issues raised by secession.  One can become outraged at Fort Sumter only by placing a higher value on the will of the political party controlling the machinery of government than on the core purpose of a free regime to protect the people.

Nor did Lincoln’s call after Fort Sumter for 75,000 troops to suppress “the rebellion”  evoke  unity and determination like that after Pearl Harbor.   The (illegal) call   was either a deliberate deception or the most  terrible miscalculation in American history since over a million men were  eventually required to complete the conquest of the Southern people and the destruction of their self-government.   The immediate effect of Lincoln’s mobilization was to drive four more states out of the Union and  put the Border States into bloody play.  The long-range effects were  military rule in much of the North such as was unprecedented in American experience, a staggering cost in blood,  and  systematic terrorism against Southern noncombatants. 

It is true Lincoln got a temporary boost of morale from having forced the Confederacy to “fire on the flag,” but that did not last.  The number of Northern men who evaded service in Mr. Lincoln’s war in one way or another was in the hundreds of thousands. Others signed up for the minimal possible time: there were examples of whole regiments going home on the eve of battle. Compared to complete mobilization in the South, no affluent or connected  Northerner ever saw service unless he wanted to. Recent study suggests that Lincoln could not have raised his armies if it had not been for widespread industrial unemployment at the beginning of the war, an immense expenditure on enlistment bounties, and unlimited access to foreign recruits who made up  a fourth of the military manpower.  More Northerners voted against Lincoln in 1864 than had in 1860, even though the army was used to control the polls.  Lincoln and his friends never put complete trust in the Northern public and saw conspiracies under every bed. They behaved with the ruthlessness of a revolutioinary cadre. After victory history was re-edited to portray a unified righteous North.

One wonders that the historian mentioned above would even allow Southerners to fight beside real Americans in later wars since he equates Lee and Jackson with Tojo and Bin Laden.   Perhaps it has always been this way in Boston, which happens to be the location of the scholar referred to.  But in general it has not always been so.   Franklin Roosevelt had no objection to being photographed with Confederate flags.  Harry Truman chose a romantic equestrian portrait of Lee and Jackson for the lobby of his Presidential Library.  Dwight Eisenhower went out of his way to correct someone who called Lee a ”traitor,” and John Kennedy chose Calhoun as one of the five greatest Senators.

For a long time Americans North and South observed a Truce.   It was agreed that The War was a great tragedy with good and bad on both sides, from which a stronger and better country had emerged.  In this scenario, Lincoln is the great martyred Peacemaker who would have “bound up the nation’s wounds” and avoided the evils that followed the war.  This is a dubious estimate of Lincoln, but one in which it was useful for all parties to believe.

As Southerners well know, things have changed in the last few years.  There is a concerted effort to banish the South into one dark little corner of American history labelled “slavery” and “treason.”   For our purposes here in the Lincoln bicentennial, we can note that  there has been an accompanying literature that celebrates Lincoln not as the Peacemaker but as the great  Hero of Democracy who was justified in using  any means to destroy evil (i.e., kill recalcitrant Americans).   This accompanies and justifies America’s turn toward a mission to impose “global democracy” by unlimited force and pre-emptive war. Even General Sherman is once more being celebrated as a great military hero for his ruthless campaigns against civilians.  (There has been a counter-trend, exemplified not only by Thomas DiLorenzo’s and Ronald and Donald Kennedy’s best-selling books but by a number of solid monographs exploring the uglier aspects of Northern motives and actions in The War.  If my  e-mail correspondence from above the Potomac and Ohio is any measure, a great many non-Southern Americans now regard Lincoln as the fount of  the excessive centralisation and imperial  warmaking under which we now live.)

In 1961, during the Civil War centennial, Robert Penn Warren published a little book called The Legacy of the Civil War.  He had some critical things to say about the tendency of his fellow Southerners to use The War as an excuse for  their shortcomings.  But for our purposes, what he had to say about the American majority is more pertinent.  The eclat of having “saved the Union” and freed the slaves had left Northerners with “a Treasury of Virtue.”  This is a kind of plenary indulgence that automatically pre-justifies the motives  of American wars and the goodness inherent in  America’s acts to force the world into conformity with its ideal version of itself.  Decide for yourself the degree of truth in Warren’s observation as it applies to the current American posture in the world.

The Treasury of Virtue renders Americans immune to  simple truth.  The War was a war of conquest against other Americans.  It was not a righteous crusade or a family spat.   "Government of the people"  would not have suffered if  a war of coercion had not been launched against the Southern people.  The opposite is true.  The purpose of the war was fundamentally to protect the prosperity of the ruling elements of the Northern states by keeping the South captive as a market and a source of raw materials and exports.  The philanthropic Boston abolitionist Theodore Parker announced that war was being waged for the supremacy of "Northern industry."   European observers, immune to American self-righteousness, took this for granted.  The primary goal of and the primary  result of the Republican party victory was permanent instalment of Hamilton’s "blessings"—a national debt, a protected market for industrialists, and a collusion between bankers and politicians. Many Northerners said plainly that they wanted emancipation because "free labour" was cheaper and more disposable than "slave labour," i.e., more profitable.

Orestes Brownson, a strong supporter of the Union, lamented afterwards that the war had not been sustained by patriotism—but by patronage, profit, and a trumped-up hatred of Southerners. The last exemplified by the bigotry and blaspheny of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"  and more than a few New England clergymen calling for the extermination of wicked Southerners.  The Republican party’s war was accompanied and sustained by immense corruption.   Americans seem to have persuaded themselves that the postwar corruption of "the Great Barbecue" somehow mysteriously erupted after  Lincoln.  No, it was a creation of The War for the "Union."  At least one major military expedition was mounted to steal cotton to enrich  Union commanders. Plunder of the government and the South made many of Lincoln’s supporters wealthy.   Lincoln himself encouraged various acts of corruption for political purposes if not for personal profit.

The Lincoln hagiography that is an essential part of the Treasury was a post-assassination creation.  As one Southern wag put it, Lincoln had so many admirers when he was dead because he had none when he was living.  When looked at coldly, the man Lincoln and his career contains much that is tawdry. The strongest supporters of his cause regarded him as incompetent and temporising.  The possibility cannot ever be dismissed that they were implicit in his assassination.
One would think that the event would have received exhaustive investigation.  Instead, the alleged conspirators were quickly and secretly seized and murdered by the army.  Confederates were not angels.  Unlike their conquerors they  never claimed to be.  But by comnparison they shine with honour bright, something which much of the world has sensed.

In the history books and  in popular imagination  Americans are in  denial—they  cling to the their Treasury of Virtue—the belief   that  war was waged with righteousness and   philanthropic motives and in defense of "government of the people."  Realities do not register.  In the North, on the whim of an army officer, people were dragged from their homes and held incommunicado in military prisons, without any formal charges or right of counsel, and with no set duration.  Sometimes these people were guilty of nothing more than a "disloyal" word in private conversation, being the object of some anonymous spite, or even whistling the wrong tune. Overwhelmingly, the arrests were not for acts but for opinions.  In the case of newspaper editors, they were held until they agreed either to dispose of their press or refrain from further criticisms of the Lincoln administration.  This "American Bastille" was more oppressive and unprecedented at the time than it seems now.  Republican  mobs were also active in punishing dissenters.

In the Border States of Kentucky and Missouri and the early-seized regions of Tennessee and Louisiana, occupation involved  execution of innocent civilian hostages, uprooting the population of extended regions, and wholesale imprisonment of women.  From the first step of the federal army across the Potomac, the people of the South were seen as fair game for looting and vandalism.  (One Northern critic of the war wondered what law gave federal soldiers the right to steal Southern pianos, watches, and silver tableware.)  This soon became systematic policy.  Houses, barns, tools, livestock, stored food, standing crops, children’s pets, schools, churches, convents, libraries,  were systematically destroyed, the houses usually being looted first. A Georgia lady recalled how Union officers’ wives went through her home and divided up her furniture for shipment north. This policy was not directed just at wealthy planters as some recent apologists have claimed, but at the entire population, white and black.  Old men and blacks were tortured and fresh graves, of which there were many in the South,  despoiled to reveal the location of valuables.  "Historians" on public television recently claimed that Sherman’s depredations were limited to "military necessity"— despite his announced desire to make the women and children of the South howl in misery. Not to mention the bombardment of cities and the deliberate destruction of undefended cities that had already surrendered.  As General Lee wrote: "These people delight to destroy the weak and those who can make no defense;  it suits them."
   
Since the mid-20th century Americans have been obsessed with race and it has become de riguer to  declare that The War was about slavery and nothing but slavery.  Earlier generations knew better.  Emancipation of the slaves was not a purpose but a by-product of the conquest of the South.  The mass of the Northern public and army was far more anti-black than it was anti-slavery, and the destruction of the South was as hard or harder on the black population than on the white.  The notion that soldiers in blue and emancipated slaves rushed into each other’s arms with shouts of Hallelujah is pure fantasy. Ambrose Bierce, who fought for the Union the entire war, said the only emancipated slaves he saw were the concubines and servants of Union officers.  He respected Southerners but had only contempt for the foreigners in his army. 

Nor was slavery (domestic servitude)  in 1860 at all  the horror that it is now imagined to be.  In 1860 in New York City there were women and children working 16 hour days for starvation wages, 150,000 unemployed, 40,000 homeless, 600 brothels (some with girls as young as 10), and 9,000 grog shops where the poor could temporarily drown their sorrows. Half the children did not live past the age of five.  Further, half of the free black people in the country were in the South and  generally lived better  than the despised free blacks of the North.    One Southern Unionist testified to his belief that half the black population of his  state had perished  in the deprivations and dislocations of invasion.  In Louisiana free black people pleaded in vain that their hard-won property not be destroyed.  Federal soldiers had been told that no black people could own property in the South.   New England shippers got rich  in the illegal African slave trade to Cuba and Brazil right up to The War and Bostonians owned slave sugar plantations in Cuba even after The War.

A Southern planter who reflected on the circumstances in which he had been born,  observed the the everyday life around him, and examined his Christian conscience, saw no reason to forever meekly accept the hatred and abuse of strangers who claimed moral authority over him. The hatred and abuse had been going on for thirty years prior to the war and was a main cause of secession.  A great man of the North, John Adams, had observed that the only distinction between the slaves of the South and the poorest workers of the North was in the label. 

In American tradition and understanding, secession should have been an occasion for Constitutional negotiations such as the Confederate government sought, especially by a President whose position, ambiguous and two-faced as it was, had the support of less than 40 per cent of the people.  Instead, Lincoln declared that the solemn, open, deliberative, democratic acts of the people of eleven States were merely "combinations" of  criminals too numerous to be put down by the marshals.  He supported his position by a false American history and the  transparent lie that the "people" did not really support their States.  The day of Lincoln’s inauguration the Constitution died as a governing document for the people and their statesman.  It became a mere rule of thumb for politicians and lawyers, who continue Lincoln’s heritage of twisting it to suit their ends.  After all, the Constitution defines treason against the United States as waging war against ":them," not as resisting  the  federal government. Lincoln’s very intent to coerce, if successful, required that Southerners be deprived of citizenship and their States destroyed. It was Lincoln who was engaged in a rebellion to overthrow the Union.  He had to dispense with the real Constitution because it not only disallowed a war of coercion against Americans but also most of the acts of central power in favour of private profit that his party was determined to make permanent..

In fact, Lincoln’s campaign to "retake the seditious states" could only rest on the tacit assumption that the Southern states, their land, resources, and people, were and always had been the property of the federal government;  or more properly, of the politicians who had got control of the federal machine. And that the South existed not for itself as a self-governing part of America but for the benefit and disposition of the North. The consent of the people could only be given one time and ever after they were  bound  to obey to the federal machine.  Thus the primary pricniple  of the Declaration, that governments rest on the consent of the governed, was abolished.  A Northern critic of the war remarked: "If this war is right then the Revolution was wrong."  The Union was not preserved and it could not have been under such assumptions, any more than a marriage can be properly preserved by battery.  It was changed into something else.

Lincoln’s pretty words in the Gettysburg Address managed to have it both ways—he was,  he claimed, preserving the sacred old Union and  at the same time promulgating a "new birth of freedom" that was somehow necessary to save government of the people.  But these were not the arguments normally used by the spokesmen of his party to justify their war.  They spoke instead of conquest and authority, of empire and punishment of disobedience,  of the removal of obstructions to  their designs.  This is not a Southern accusation, it is the overwhelming evidence of their own words, both public and private, evidence refused by the American consciousness.  Lincoln’s icing has been mistaken for the cake.    Karl Marx agreed enthusiatically with Lincoln’s interpretation of the Declaration of Independence, proclaiming the war to be  a rebellion of "slave drivers"  against the "one great democratic republic whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued."  Marx, like many other supporters of Lincoln’s war, also regarded it  as a rebellion against progressive German immigrants who somehow were better Americans than the Southern sons of patriots and founders.

It is unlikely, but if Americans could ever come to recognise and admit how much counterfeit is contained in their Treasury of Virtue, then they could have a more realistic view of themselves and play a more humble and responsible role in the world.
They would realise that they are not above history nor  immune from sin.

(Clyde Wilson  is a long-time Contributing Editor to Chronicles and is guilty of many other offenses as well.)

And that, my friends, is all she wrote.
[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]