Memorial Day 2009

 

I sit here thinking back on my time in the service of the United States of America. I spent nearly nine years with the Army, and was MOS qualified in both Infantry and Artillery. When I left, I was glad to be leaving as I had lost that intense sense of devotion to the US as practiced in foreign policy, although I remained committed to the ideals espoused in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I was personally in a time of great philosophical transition and upheaval. When I had first enlisted, I was a devout conservative Christian Republican; when my service ended, all of that was in doubt. I was unable to continue in service under some mercenary-like idea that it was a job with a paycheck and good benefits. I had come to the point where I did not relish the idea of being an instrument of policies in which I no longer had faith.

 

Still, I do not look back on this period of my life with any shame, either for having held naïve beliefs about the ways in which America operates in the world at large, nor for having lost those beliefs and abandoned a job, nearly halfway to retirement, which no longer suited me. My experiences in the Army greatly altered who I was and led me to start down the path to whom I would become. I saw much of the world, and every travel exposed me to differing perspectives on every aspect of life. Both within the camaraderie of the barracks and among the civilian and military populations of foreign lands, I came to appreciate differing opinions and perspectives. And I realized that many things formerly viewed as black and white were frequently shades of grey. I realized that most disagreements and violence were caused by failure or refusal to understand the other side or were the result of posturing over primitive issues of feral concepts of dominance.

 

The military service of my country gave me an unprecedented opportunity to grow as a human being and as a citizen. For these reasons, I can never not recommend military service to anyone and believe that many, who have not, should serve. There is nothing like the necessity of laying aside petty personal disputes for a higher professional cause; not necessarily higher morally, but higher in the participation in global events acted out at an immediate point in time and space.

 

Those serving in uniform represent dramatically most of the differing cultures, ethnicities, levels of education, and various life experiences that can be found in the US. In Germany, I met an Iraqi national who had served in desert Storm with distinction, fighting against those from the country of his birth with those from the country of his choice. At Ft. Bragg, I met a man whose blackness was obvious but who always included Italian when discussing his ethnicity. In the military service of the US, one’s color tends to take rear seat to one’s character. And, yet, there were all of the modern American stereotypes represented in the ranks; Rasta from Jamaica, Ex-, sometimes, just temporarily, ex-thugs from Compton, barefoot redneck hillbillies from the Ozarks, cowboys from Wyoming, bluebloods from old New England families , even a card-carrying communist Jew from Brooklyn. But only rarely did those identities matter in the prosecution of the mission, whatever that may have been. Friendships crossed boundaries rarely even encountered in civilian society, and, I believe, most of us were made better, more tolerant people as a consequence.

 

So, today, I reflect, and I write this, remembering those fallen and not who have gone before.

David Souter: Hero of the Supreme Court

 

David Souter’s recent announcement of his impending retirement has drawn both ahs of admiration and huhs of disbelief, as well as some snide remarks from the conservatives on Capitol Hill. His stated reasoning for preferring to live in his home state rather than in Washington, DC, has drawn more than a few snickers from those who think power and position are the only ideals worth striving for. Justice Souter, though, has shown us all a higher way. David Souter, by personal example, has placed public service against his own self interest.

 

David Hackett Souter was born 17 September, 1939 in Melrose Massachusetts. He spent much of his childhood in New Hampshire. He attended Harvard from where he graduated magna cum laude. He was then selected as a Rhodes scholar and received his Master’s From Magdalen College, Oxford. Justice Souter then returned to Harvard, this time entering Harvard Law, from which he graduated in 1966.

 

Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, David Souter served as Assistant Attorney General of New Hampshire from 1968. He then succeeded to Attorney General in 1976. He was appointed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court in 1983. In 1990, he was appointed to a judgeship on the First Circuit US Court of Appeals, and was nominated by President George H. W. Bush for the Supreme Court of the United States just two months later.

 

Souter’s appointment was opposed by just nine Senators, including both Sens. Kennedy and Kerry of Massachusetts. Also weighing in against his nomination and confirmation were the National Organization for Women and the NAACP. This opposition was grounded in the idea that David Souter would prove an extreme right-wing Conservative addition to the Supreme Court. He quickly dispelled that notion, advancing, after being sworn in, the idea that Court rulings always have a human affect that must be considered in deliberations. Initially, it seemed, in the first few years, that Justice Souter would vote on the conservative side of issues. He then went on to prove in later years to be a left leaning centrist. Supreme Court Justice David Souter disproved his supporters and detractors both, standing not as a strict constructionist in the mold of Hugo Black, but far more progressive.

 

 

When the Supreme Court in 2000 sided with George W. Bush over the disputed Florida ballot results, Souter was ready to retire in protest and disgust. But the gravity of the situation prevented him from doing so. Justice Souter realized that his retirement would give the new President, against whom he had dissented with the Court’s Bush v. Gore ruling, the power to appoint Justice Souter’s replacement. He had long wanted to retire to his home, and to leave, DC, a place he loathed for many reasons. But he placed what he believed to be the public’s interest ahead of his own. Justice Souter’s action prevented the second Bush administration from placing another conservative ideologue upon the bench, and thus prevented the Court’s ideology to shift dangerously rightward for a generation. Now, with a Democrat in the White House with much popular support, Justice Souter sees the opportunity to serve his country and himself at the same time. He can retire has he has long wished to do and provide the current administration another opportunity to make an appointment that will last another generation. Godspeed Justice Souter.

 

 

Plato and Aristotle on Tyranny: an Ancient Discussion of Modern Significance

 

Plato and Aristotle have differing viewpoints on tyranny; one sees it as a justified form of governance, while the other sees it as a “perversion”. While Plato justifies tyranny as evidence of a man’s ability to rule, Aristotle sees it as counter to the purposes of political association. Aristotle’s arguments against tyranny rely heavily upon his theory on the role of government and its proper end in promotion of virtue.

 

            As Plato sees things, tyranny is a justified form of government because cities are not comprised entirely of good men. (The Republic, pg 31, Jowett and Knight translation). This being the case, those seeking the first two forms of payment, money and honor, are the more likely to rule. Men who would truly regard the interests of their subjects first would also disdain the holding of office except to prevent the ruling by one who is worse. (The Republic, pg 31).  Based upon this, one can see that it would be better, in Plato’s view, to have one who was “the true artist”, seeking the betterment of all, or even self, rather than a collection of assorted interests competing for the various modes of payment. From tyranny comes order, whereas other forms of government sow chaos. Another justification for tyranny in Plato’s view is that the practitioner of any art must be adept at the skills antithetical to the art itself, as summed up nicely with the quote from Homer regarding Autolycus (pg 11) during the dialogue with Polemarchus. Thus, as the guardian most adept at theft is best to guard, so, too, the man most qualified to rule is the man most qualified to usurp a ruler. This also results in the idea that, in a tyranny, some form of merit has been demonstrated by the tyrant, whereas a monarch is born into his position without consideration to ability.

 

            Aristotle would argue Plato’s assertion on a number of counts. Aristotle directly attacks Plato’s Republic in many chapters, but the real dissension is shown in Aristotle’s general theory. Aristotle refers to tyranny as a perversion of rule due to its serving the interests of the ruler, as opposed to serving the interests of the ruled. Aristotle would also argue that tyranny defeats his concept of distributive justice, as explained in the heading for Politics, ch. 9, in which each person receives honors and office in accordance with his contribution to the good of the city. Tyranny also is of a lower form of rule, being that of master over slave, than is required for the political association of the city. Finally, tyranny defeats the nature of man. The purpose of political association is ever-increasing self-sufficiency and the realization of virtue or the good life; under any form of tyranny, this is impossible due to the ruler’s concentration on self-interest. Tyranny, Aristotle would argue, depends upon a perversion of rule that serves the interest of the ruler rather than of the subjects and creates a master to slave relation in rule that denies the purposes of political association. It also refuses to acknowledge Aristotle’s concept of distributive justice and further erodes the pursuit of the good life and virtue. These counts of Aristotle’s political theories are sufficient to show his disagreement with Plato without necessitating recourse to his direct attacks.

 

            The proper end of government, in Aristotle’s writing, is the pursuit of the good life. Aristotle arrives at this conclusion by going through the various forms and levels of association which human beings form and developing a hierarchy of political association. As Aristotle sees it, the association arises from the natural impulse of man to leave behind something like themselves. Starting with the association of male and female, Aristotle takes the reader through a series of expanding developments, family and village, to the sovereignty of the city or polis. The impulse, after the association of male and female, becomes that of increasing self-sufficiency, as indicated in his comments on the human associations that lead to the city. The height of self-sufficiency is reached in the political association of the city and the natural impulse changes form again to become the search for the good life. This good life might also be referred to as virtue, civic excellence, self-realization through community participation. No longer is the association’s primary goal self-preservation. The city represents the true nature of man as the natural mature development of his associations. From the city is man’s true nature revealed and derived. In the city, man is perfected and the best of animals, by virtue of association and the pursuit of the good life, while isolated from the city’s law and justice, he is the worst of animals. From this development of natural impulse toward association, man arrives in the political association of the city naturally impelled to pursue the good life which is Aristotle’s belief in the end of government. Government preserves man’s ability to associate and pursue his higher end, which is found within the association itself.

 

            In contrasting the perspectives of these two philosophers, one sees that they disagree on the topic of tyranny and the proper role of government in human affairs, Plato argues in favor of tyranny while Aristotle criticizes Plato’s work directly and indirectly, arriving at an entirely different conclusion. Ultimately, Aristotle’s argument rests upon his definition of the role of government. Aristotle sees government’s end as the preservation and promotion of the highest self-sufficiency and the pursuit of the good life.

Russian Social Change 1891-1932

Russia fundamentally changed between 1891 and 1932 when one looks at the cities and metropolitan areas. For the peasant in the countryside, the change was less significant, but also more greatly and persistently resisted. Although many cultural and intellectual landmarks and hallmarks were retained, and the Soviet people were still largely Russian people in their cultures, language and minds, the changes to the landscape were reflected in the popular life and mind. The stabilizing effect of logic, reason and atheism locked in certain artificially contrived ideas of nationality and ethnicity. In some respects, the change was to have a retarding effect upon the development of national culture as the Soviet sought to organize and homogenize the various ethnic components of Soviet society.

 

The old monarchy was removed and disposed of. This is arguable as a point of fundamental change because it can be said that the monarchy was displaced simply by a "Cult of Personality" with Lenin at its head. However, despite the apparent consistency of autocracy, as manifested in the leadership of Lenin and then Stalin, the mechanism of power exchange altered considerably. The Party may have replaced the royal family and tsarist bureaucracy in only a metaphorical sense, but the Party, at least in theory, if not always in practice, greatly increased the potential number of contenders for the ultimate leadership of Russia and eliminated the concept of hereditary rule.

 

Emancipation in a truer sense became the rule. With the inclusion of women in 1920, emancipation was extended to all, rather than to selected members of society during this period. One person, one vote became the rule. This counts, as a matter of popular perception, even if the only voting option was for or against the party. The effect of the perception of having a voice that could be heard forever changed the outlook of the people. The development of the unions and then the soviets within the factories and other workplaces gave people something of a voice in the conditions under which they worked, which had been a virtual impossibility in the years prior to the Bolshevist Revolution of 1917.

 

Direct participation in government and corresponding social mobility became possible for those willing to sell their soul (and family and friends) to the party. Upward social mobility through party participation becomes more possible in width and depth, than ever before. This mobility was broader based than the one experienced with the military, particularly the Army, during the Tsarist era due to its application to a broader segment of the populace. Then too, the upending effect of ongoing revolution provided the opportunities for one to have his or her moment where a single decision could alter the course of a previously obscure life.

 

In all of the foregoing, it appeared to the people that they at last had a voice within their government. On occasion, that voice was actually heard favorably. Naturally, when policy or directives were altered as a result of popular resistance or declaration, the Soviets took great pride in pronouncing its democracy and willingness to hear and deliver on the will of the people. Of course, in many ways, this was simply a political maneuver to maintain order and prevent counter-revolution, but the people became adjusted to the idea that their voice might be heard and acted upon.

 

It is in the period arising post-Revolution that the Industrial Revolution finally takes hold in Russia. Russia comes into the fold of modernity during this period, with its emphasis abruptly shifting from agricultural to industrial production. Under Stalin, this shift would be magnified as he sought to bring the Soviet Union to a position of industrial might comparable with the rest of the developed world. As in all things under his leadership, the Soviet Industrial Revolution was brutal and unconcerned with the needs, safety, or welfare of the individual. This move had two purposes. First, one couldn’t have a true socialist state without having a large proletariat, something that Russia did not possess prior to the Revolution, nor at the Soviet Union’s inception. Second, bringing industrial production up to competitive levels reduced the threat of being a socialist state surrounded by potential enemies while proving to the world that socialism could work.  Though the prevalent production was still agricultural in 1932, the inexorable move to industrial production had been accomplished and would consume the Soviet Union in the following ten years.

 

Economically, things were changed as the Soviets experimented with various combinations of controlled and market economies. The end result of these experiments was an economy of equality in poverty. Famine and lack of basic resources were the rule during this time. Socialism failed to produce anything equivalent to its promise in terms of general prosperity. The net result was a deprivation that the worst of Tsarist policies had not matched. The bulk of the population suffered equally, if somewhat differently, from the unresponsiveness and lack of foresight of a ponderous bureaucratic system.

 

The tsarist slogan of “Autocracy, Orthodoxy, and Nationality” gave way to Lenin’s “Bread, Peace, and Land” which proved even less fulfilled or fulfilling. The peasants were stripped of their family and communal lands in collectivization, a more “rational” approach to the problem of feeding the nation and fulfilling the requirements of socialist ideology. The process of collectivization reduced the amount of bread available, fostered a civil, class war in the countryside, and ruined much of the arable land then in use through mismanagement.

 

The peasants saw changes that were usually less substantial, but always more rigorously resisted, than the rest of the population. Though it might be argued that the switch from communal to collective farming was little more than a change in logistics designed to provide more for the working cities, the perception and the reality were far more brutal. Peasants resorted to exaggerated versions of long used tactics of flight, agitation, proclamation, demonstration, and outright revolt to prevent the destruction of the fabric of their lives and culture. Collectivization required the dislocation of families from land that was usually theirs through a system of heredity combined with allocation and compensation. The influence of the Church was reduced by socialist ideology and programs centered on logic and reason. Atheistic, linear thought processes were introduced and taught to the population, replacing the icons of the Church with those of the State. This in itself threatened peasant identity. Collectivization also eliminated most of the incentive system that traditionally kept farms productive. The peasants still worked the land, unlike those who had, voluntarily or not, gone to work in the industrial fields of the cities over the preceding decades. However, the way in which the peasants worked the land was completely altered in relation to the traditional peasant culture.

 

For women, in spite of emancipation, many things remained the same. Traditional views of the baba- a traditional endearment of women speaking to a mothering, nurturing, though generally incompetent outside of the home, role- retained most of their strength well into the 20^thcentury. By 1930, women’s sections, formed to address the particular needs of the woman in soviet society and the workforce, were disbanded with the simple declaration that their work had been accomplished. Though considerations for maternity and family matters had been legislated as a result of the efforts of the women’s sections, enforcement was typically lax and ineffective. The Russian woman was seen as little more than a tool, or a reserve resource, to be called upon in the interests of socialism when needed and otherwise ignored.

 

Finally, the Soviets purported to espouse the promotion of the various cultures represented within the Soviet Union. This, however, was more of an artifice that locked into acceptable, rational, pro-Soviet imagery the ever-evolving panoply that is cultural identity and reality. The circuses and such that developed froze these misrepresentations into microcosms that could be directly established and altered at the whim of the Party leadership. These faux depictions were rarely accurate, had a glaring propaganda bent to their performance and retarded, by way of promulgating ethnic stereotypes, the true and independent development of cultural identity in post-revolutionary Russia.

           

 

Many could dispute the entirety of this analysis for valid reasons. The Soviet Union, as the Russian Empire before it, saw an ever-increasing gap in real and realized income for the wealthy and the poor. A class system of party loyalists as aristocrats and the common people as serf laborers began to arise in the years following. A middle class of minor party officials established itself, replacing the bourgeoisie. All too frequently, Party positions in the lower ranks became hereditary in that the current official had great influence in naming his successor. Callous disregard for the lives and welfare of the populace in the interest of the country or its leadership hallmarked both eras. However, many, if not most, of the parallels that can be drawn to the Tsarist era came into focus after the period in discussion.

 

Battles of Cynthiana; History Re-written?

A year ago, I wrote a blog following my viewing of a re-enactment of Morgan’s Raid in Georgetown, Kentucky. The same group that performed that re-enactment is now planning a similar event in Cynthiana, Kentucky for the same time frame this year. They will be re-enacting the Battle of Cynthiana, in which John Hunt Morgan’s Kentucky Cavalry Brigade took part. If previous re-enactments in Georgetown are any indicator, they will not present history, but, rather, myth. The re-enactment in Georgetown was given a narration that extolled the virtues and valor of Confederate soldiers and politely suggested a passive racism that denied the true reason for the Civil War. I have sent e-mails to the listed addresses on the website for the Battle of Cynthiana. In these e-mails I asked if the re-enactments would depict truth and illustrate Morgan’s crushing defeat at Cynthiana and if they would present the revisionist deceit of the Civil War as a simple family dispute with no right or wrong at issue. I have received no reply.

The Battles of Cynthiana website can be accessed here:

http://www.geocities.com/morgansraid/

An accurate but brief description of the fight is on Wikipedia, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cynthiana

 

Having done some additional research in the intervening year, I have discovered that, leaving aside the falsehoods of Southern outrage and States’ Rights, the story of John Hunt Morgan and his Kentucky Cavalry Brigade is neither as honorable nor as courageous as its re-enactors would have one believe. The Kentucky Cavalry Brigade, like that commanded by that other false hero of Confederate cavalry, Nathan Bedford Forrest, focused its  military power on civilians and tiny garrisons, choosing, whenever possible, to flee actual Union battle formations. While sabotage, espionage, and logistical interdiction of opposing forces are all valid military operations, rape, pillage, hostage-taking, and murder of civilian populations are not; yet these latter more accurately describe the actions of John Hunt Morgan and the Kentucky Cavalry Brigade during the Civil War.

 

Expecting the same sort of tripe masquerading as history from the re-enactment of the Battles of Cynthiana as occurred at the Morgan’s Raid on Georgetown, I again share the analysis that I wrote last year. If the committee for the re-enactment chooses to contact me, I will have more to share.

 

Southern Revisionism

 

Two weeks ago, this writer attended the Morgan’s Raid festival/reenactment in Georgetown. This event celebrates or commemorates the raid of Confederate cavalry forces on the Georgetown area. Morgan’s Raid, as the event is popularly known locally, brings many questions to this writer’s mind. Many Kentuckians today feel compelled to claim Southern heritage, although Kentucky was overwhelmingly in favor of the North during the Civil War. Kentucky was a major, well-used and publicly known path for the Underground Railway into Indiana and Ohio; Kentucky’s legislature voted to remain with the Union and declared neutrality to keep Confederate forces from using Kentucky as a staging area for harassment of the North. At the end of the reenactment behind the Cardome in Georgetown, one of the senior characters announces for the crowd that the Civil War had no winners, that all were losers and that neither side was right or wrong, that the War was simply the result of political disagreement.

All of this calls into question the general American perception of the Civil War, and the efforts of nearly a century-and-a-half of Confederate/Southern sympathizers to re-draft the War as something more noble and socially acceptable than it was. Why would a state that went with the winning side claim allegiance to the loser after the fact? Why would primary and secondary history lessons claim falsely that the true issue behind the Civil War was States’ Rights, when in fact the War was fought over only one “States’ Right”- slavery? Jesse Helms used this same “States’ Rights” false argument to fight the Civil Rights Act, knowing full well that his true allegiance was to entrenched racism. Why would people align themselves behind a heritage based upon an ancient wrong and resistance to its demise? Why have I never, despite living in regions generally of Southern alignment for twenty-six years, met the great-great-grandson or -daughter of a Confederate private or NCO- they’re all at least captains? Why do people without Southern descent claim preference for Southern ideals? The short answers are revisionism and racism. American public school history seeks to integrate all of the American people, especially the whites, in a way that fails to point out the many failures of that majority in ethics, morality and law. American history textbooks have been written to minimize the evil perpetrated by the South in its continuation of a morally bankrupt economic system and its political and military efforts to protect that system.

Although Kentucky voted to not secede, it declared itself neutral in the military disputation of the Confederate secession from the Union. The Confederacy invaded Kentucky in September 1861 for the purpose of securing strategic ground for attacks along the Ohio River and pillaging civilian stores, while recruiting what few secessionist supporters they could locate. In all, only about 30,000 Kentuckians fought for the South, the largest single component being found in the Kentucky Cavalry Brigade. Otherwise, Kentuckians overwhelmingly fought for the Union, with approximately 70,000 enlisting in arms to oppose the South. The Kentucky Cavalry Brigade’s modern writers make the boast that, “it was never captured or surrendered in combat, and only voluntarily turned itself in to Federal authorities after discharging its last assigned duty..,” http://www.morgansraid.com/hostunit.html What is left out of this statement is the unit’s regular failures; except in attacks against civilians, the Kentucky Cavalry Brigade lost 80% of the time. In its raid through Indiana and Ohio in 1863, the brigade suffered over 2,000 prisoners taken out of a force of 2,462. It seems to this writer that someone certainly surrendered or was captured, including John Hunt Morgan himself. Morgan shortly escaped and later re-constituted his brigade, but that does not negate the defeat, surrender, and capture of the unit, and its leader, denied by modern supporters. Those who re-write or re-phrase history to favor figures and events in defiance of the facts are often called revisionists.

James W. Loewen, author of Lies My Teacher Told Me and Lies Across America, has detailed much of the story of the re-writing of American history for the purpose of being more Southern white-friendly. I strongly recommend these books to anyone whose understanding of US history was developed in the American public education system. In casting the history of the American south in more favorable light, textbooks bring a “human” element to the struggles of the South and elicit sympathy for the Confederate cause. Unfortunately, this “sympathy” is indiscriminate and even argues the issue of slavery as a necessary evil of the economic conditions in the South. Many American history texts present the Southern cause as a political disagreement over certain intangible ideas, such as States’ Rights and minimize the truth, seeking instead to present the South as a victim of circumstance and necessity. The Civil War becomes a sorrowful family dispute over incompatible ideologies in the history taught to the American student, and its participants should all be honored as noble men engaged in a horrific war for mutually noble but disparate ideals. Comparatively, to this writer, it would be every bit as reasonable to honor the Nazi’s and their conflict with the rest of the world over incompatible ideals. To many who contemporarily support the ideals of Southern heritage, there is no irony in that last sentence.

The history behind this revision is complicated and even involves a late-Nineteenth Century through mid-Twentieth Century world-wide pseudo-scientific trend. The antebellum South possessed three primary socio-economic classes of people: The plantation owner/farmer, the merchants and artisans, and the poor white subsistence farmer/laborer. These classes were unified by a couple of facts; they were white, and, usually, they could vote. The Reconstruction introduced former slaves into this mix, creating economic turmoil and an identity crisis within the old structure. Once prosperous plantation owners were now faced with shrinking profit margins as they were required to pay for labor if they wanted to remain in the business of agriculture. Poor whites now had to compete with freed slaves for work, as did, to a lesser extent, merchants and artisans, as many former slaves had been trained in the various trades during their time as plantation property. Into this situation, federal agents set about enfranchising former slaves and people of color, giving them their own voice in government for the first time. At the end of the Civil War, many plantation areas in the Deep South were predominantly black, meaning that the vote of former slaves greatly outnumbered that of the resident whites.

During post-Reconstruction, when the South was released from federal control, many of these whites sought to regain the power that they had enjoyed during the antebellum period. Groups like the Ku Klux Klan had been agitating for freedom from the “carpetbaggers” –Northern federal agents sent to oversee the pacification and reconstruction of the South- and for separation of the races in public venues and affairs. Reconstruction ended as a result of power shifts at the federal level and increasing interest in overall US economic health, among other considerations. Distracting matters on other fronts and increasing power of Southern politicians in federal office shifted federal focus from an as yet un-reconstructed South. At about the same time, western science began to embrace a theory that supported European colonization of the rest of the world. This new theory, based in part on Darwin’s observations, posited that the races were the products of evolution and that certain “genetic” characteristics determined the state of a person’s evolution. Naturally, this pseudo-science being promulgated within European colonial powers, the Caucasian was determined to be the most evolved of the races. With this “scientific” evidence, it became easy to denigrate the black and advance the old prejudices and agendas of the defeated South. By the 1920’s it had become unfashionable to discuss the Civil war as being a result of the issue of slavery, as it was no longer fashionable, thanks to great efforts by the Daughters of the Confederacy and related groups, to think of blacks as fully human. Herein lies the shift in teaching the Civil War as a conflict over issues other than slavery. Thanks to the teaching of the pseudo-science of eugenics, which has now morphed into social-Darwinism, the true catalyst for the Civil War was relegated to abstraction while the new embrace of whiteness unified the majority of Americans to more closely reflect the values and ideals of the South. The influence of these ostensibly civic organizations continues today, although their prominence has fortunately waned under the light of progress in race relations since the adoption of the Civil Rights Act.

Still, the impact of this revisionism, which shaded the lines of truth in American history texts for nearly a century, continues in the attitudes of Americans, particularly white Americans, with regard to the Civil War and its results. Emancipation was not an unanticipated sideline result of the war- it was a pre-determined, if unannounced, outcome of Union victory. States’ Rights and self-determination were not the root causes of the Civil War, as the South based those arguments upon one issue alone: the continuation of slavery. The fact of this is observed quite clearly in the violence, criminality and hatred shown by the South towards people of color after its release from federal supervision under Reconstruction. Quite simply, racism is the root behind the Civil War and the revision of American history to cast the South in more favorable light. No right or wrong? This writer thinks otherwise. No winners or losers? What about those freed? All of them Americans? Americans believe in equality under the law. In truth, the Civil War was only the first fight over Southern racism; the South lost the second with the adoption of the Civil Rights Act.