Rebel History
When Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell declared April “Confederate History Month” he was quickly attacked for failing to mention slavery. On MSNBC’s Hardball, said an indignant Chris Matthews to his Confederacy-defending guest Pat Buchanan, “600,000 Americans were dead because you guys wanted to keep slaves.” Replied Buchanan:
“Virginia did not secede over slavery. Virginia stayed in the union when Lincoln was elected… at the time of Fort Sumter it was still in the Union. What took them out of the union was when Abraham Lincoln said we want 75,000 volunteers, your militia, your soldiers in Virginia, to attack the Deep South and bring them back into the union. They said we’re not going to kill our kinsmen. That’s how Virginia left the union… There were eight slave states in the union at the time of Fort Sumter and seven in the Confederacy… Lincoln’s first inaugural offered to make slavery permanent. He offered to help run down fugitive slaves if the seceding states came back…”
Ignoring all of Buchanan’s points, Matthews replied, “The point of the Civil War was slavery, let’s not get confused.” Yes, let’s not get “confused.” In fact, let’s never question, reflect, or reexamine any part of our history ever again. The Civil War was about slavery, period, any and all facts, logic or Pat Buchanans be damned.
Admittedly, only a fool or a Southern partisan would say that the War for Southern Independence had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. Likewise, only a fool or a blind partisan would say that it had only to do with slavery, and Matthews certainly fits this bill.
To reexamine the Civil War beyond the issue of slavery, inevitably invites questions concerning federalism, the nature of the union, state rights’, the Constitution’s delegation of authority, federal power and the scope of the executive branch-all questions that continue to be pertinent to modern American politics, including the Bush and Obama administrations. For liberals like Matthews, these questions are already settled because the Civil War settled them. Yet when Buchanan or anyone else attempts to unsettle them by making states’ rights or similar arguments on their own merits, the Left automatically dismisses the very legitimacy of any such debate on the grounds that it’s racist. Liberals, and quite a few mainstream conservatives, believe that any questioning of official Civil War history is not even to be permitted. “Let’s not defend the right to slavery,” MSNBC political analyst Karen Finney said during the spat between Matthews and Buchanan, ignoring the glaring fact that Buchanan did not even remotely approach defending anything of the sort.
Whittling down complex history to a single, divisive issue in order to prevent debate or serious examination is nothing new, and Buchanan is certainly no stranger to questioning official records. In his book “Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War,” Buchanan writes:
“In his memoirs, Churchill, who led Britain to victory in World War II, wrote: ‘One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once, ‘The Unnecessary War.’ There never was a war more easy to stop than that which has just wrecked what was left of the world from the previous struggle.”
Without getting into the intimate details of Buchanan’s argument, it is worth recognizing that he questions the necessity of WW II by noting that even Churchill questioned it. Buchanan questions the mainstream narrative that the Civil War was just about slavery by noting that Lincoln himself vowed to protect slavery if only the seceding states would return. For pursuing such obvious logic, Buchanan is often painted as a racist, or worse.
This is not to say that I necessarily agree with Buchanan or others who dare to question conventional history — the point is, they aren’t even allowed to ask such questions. Did the size and nature of American government change radically after the Civil War? Well yes, but of course this was all necessary, justified and not even worth debating, according to men like Matthews. In aiding Josef Stalin to defeat Adolph Hitler, did we not accommodate and encourage a Communist regime that murdered more innocent people than the Nazis and led to a costly, decades-long Cold War? Sure, but it’s nearly impossible to contemplate this publicly.
Today, anyone who suggests states’ rights solutions — or who simply seeks to honor his Confederate ancestors — is automatically marginalized by accusations of racism, and anyone who suggests the US adopt a more practical, less interventionist foreign policy is accused of “isolationism” or of appeasing the next Hitler. This stems from the prevailing logic that if all prior history is unquestionably justified, there can be no justification for any questions to the contrary, including any alternative solutions that might stem from such contrarian views. Such a constrictive public discourse will always limit our ability to effectively change the status quo — something no one will admit to being happy with-precisely because we are not allowed to make suggestions or changes that deviate from the status quo. And the degree to which settled history continues to dictate the present is exactly why guardians of the establishment are so quick to pounce on anyone who might unsettle it.
The problem with Pat Buchanan is not his rather unique interpretation of U.S. wartime history, specifically, his take on the Civil War, World War II, both Gulf Wars, the war in Afghanistan, and so on.
The problem is that, his unique historical perspective aside, Buchanan is indeed a racist and an anti-Semite. And that charge does not stem from Al Sharpton-style, politically correct race baiting. It is a tragic fact.
Those who argue otherwise would do well to get on the Web and dig up two brilliant articles on Buchanan that came out 20 years ago, in late 1990 and early 1991. The first was published in the New Republic and was written by Jacob Weisberg; it’s titled “The Heresies of Pat Buchanan.” The second is titled “Patrick J. Buchanan and the Jews,” published in COMMENTARY and penned by Joshua Muravchik.
Yes, Messrs. Weisberg and Muravchik are Jewish, as am I. But that is beside the point. The point is that both writers put forth airtight cases against Buchanan and his brand of politics, characterized in both essays as being on the extreme right-wing end of the American political spectrum, not too different from the kind of demonology practiced by David Duke and the white-power movement.
And, ironically, neither article gets into Buchanan’s Civil War beliefs, but they do delve heavily into his World War II revisionism and specifically, his penchant for exonerating the German people in general and the Nazis in particular.
Buchanan seems to be doing the same thing now – absolving the old antebellum slave masters of their horrific activities in his quest for openness and candor on the Civil War.
Historical inquiry is all well and good, but Buchanan politicizes it in favor of those who would quash the basic human rights of racial and ethnic minorities, specifically, Jews and African-Americans. It has been said that Pat Buchanan is basically David Duke with a master’s degree, a $1,000 suit, and a $4,000 Rolex. Sad to say, that rather blunt characterization is true.
Blah, blah, blah…….same old “anti-semite” and “racist” BS.
if the salient issues are “questions concerning federalism, the nature of the union, state rights’, the Constitution’s delegation of authority, federal power and the scope of the executive branch” and have little or nothing to do with the defense of holding humans as chattel, then why can’t the right find causes other than Jim Crow, segregation and Confederate defenders of slavery to argue their case?
To say it is not about race is intellectually dishonest and cowardice. State your true cause and defend it. If a superior status is what you fight for then simply state it.
“Racism” and “anti-Semitism” are such hackneyed topics; why not discuss something new, like the Jewish role in the murder of 30 million Russian Orthodox Christians?
Columns full of ad-hominem attacks are “air-tight?” Both articles were apparently inspired by comments Buchanan made that were as true then as they are now – that only 2 groups are beating the drums for war in the Middle East.
Perhaps you should read Rothbard’s retort, “Pat Buchanan and the Menace of Anti-Anti-Semitism.” As an atheist, I scoff whenever religion is injected into a debate – you state that yours is beside the point – so what is it that causes you to attempt to turn this into a discussion about Israel and Judaism? Why is it that whenever there is criticism of Israel or the United States’ unquestioning support for it, the critic is condemned as an anti-semite, and if the target is big enough, the ADL sounds the alarm. As with the charge of racism, it’s losing its bite.
So let me get this straight: “They said we’re not going to kill our kinsmen. That’s how Virginia left the union…” So Virginia left the USA so they could remain neutral during the Civil War and avoid killing their neighbors (like Switzerland)? Who knew?
Guess that strategy did quite work out. To quote Wikipedia: “Brother against brother” is a slogan used in histories of the American Civil War, describing the predicament faced in families (primarily, but not exclusively, residents of border states) in which loyalties and military service were divided between the Union and the Confederacy. There are a number of stories of brothers fighting in the same battles on opposite sides, or even of brothers killing brothers over the issues.
To people like Mr. Weir, the truth is no defense. I invite readers to visit the ADL website. There you will find an Orwellian dossier on Pat Buchanan. Then judge for yourself whether Buchanan’s comments are anti-Semitic or the words of a fearless and brilliant man. And Weir’s playing the guilt by association card by linking Pat with David Duke is tiresome. Anyway, who is more destructive to the health of the republic, a powerless David Duke or some Zionist billionaire who funds AIPAC, AEI and the settler movement on the West Bank.
Anyone who has any understanding of history and who pursues the truth must admit that economic issues, especially the protective tariff, were as important causes of the American “Civil War” as was slavery, or more accurately the issue of the expansion of slavery into the territories. However, history is written by the victors, who typically have little fidelity to facts and truth.
The same Republicans, who were supposedly so supportive of the human rights of Southern slaves, committed, after the “Civil War” ended, genocide against the Plains Indians. But again harkening back to economic issues, the Plains Indians stood in the way of the settlement of the West and in particular the construction of the transcontinental and other railroads. As morally reprehensible as slavery is, I believe that genocide is even worse.
The problem with Daniel Weir is not his skewed perspective that everyone he disagrees with is an anti-semite, but rather that HE is a racist, and above all, an anti-gentile.
Heck, I’m Jewish myself, and I applaud the smacking down of this Weir character.
I’ve been reading Pat’s columns on LewRockwell.com, and antiwar.com for the past two years, and I can’t remember seeing him expressing any sort of racism towards Jews. Critical of Israel? Sure. I’m highly critical of Israel. Criticizing the Jewish state does not a racist anti-Semite make. The are Orthodox and Hasidic Jews that are very critical of Israel. Are they anti-Semites as well?
Despite our nation’s constant pandering to Israel, they continually flip us they metaphorical bird by continuing settlement in East Jerusalem, and trying to goad us to drop bombs on Iranians. Does it make me racist towards MY OWN PEOPLE to point this out, and call the Israelis on it?
The New Republic and Commentary have a very good reason to insist that Buchanan is a racist; simply put, if he isn’t a racist, he’s a legitmate voice against American Wars around the world. That, for these neo-cons and neo-liberals, won’t do.
The justifications for our military adventures collapse under scrutiny, so it works better to abuse context and brush over nuances to make everyone who opposes them look racist. It’s impossible to be a high-profile opponent to US war policy without being accused of racism. That’s just how it works.
Daniel Weir,
I haven’t seen the two long-ago articles you mention. But unlike Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran once did respond–brilliantly–to charges of his anti-Semitism. It’s reprinted in one of WFB’s books–the one that includes Buckley’s attack on Sobran, which Sobran makes mincemeat out of, or so I thought when I read it some years ago. Buchanan may simply be too proud or obstinate to respond to charges that he might think are beneath contempt, assuming that the charges of his racism and anti-Semitism are in fact beneath contempt.
Let Sobran’s essay serve as a benchmark for the debate about alleged paleoconservative anti-Semitism. What do you have to say about Sobran’s argument that he is not guilty as charged?
Daniel Weir,
I haven’t seen the two long-ago articles you mention. But unlike Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran once did respond–brilliantly–to charges of his anti-Semitism. It’s reprinted in one of WFB’s books–the one that includes Buckley’s attack on Sobran, which Sobran makes mincemeat out of, or so I thought when I read it some years ago. Buchanan may simply be too proud or obstinate to respond to charges that he might think are beneath contempt, assuming that the charges of his racism and anti-Semitism are in fact beneath contempt.
Let Sobran’s essay serve as a benchmark for the debate about alleged paleoconservative anti-Semitism. What do you have to say about Sobran’s argument that he is not guilty as charged?
[Not sure this went through--the computer mucked up. I'm submitting this comment again.]
“I’ve been reading Pat’s columns on LewRockwell.com, and antiwar.com for the past two years, and I can’t remember seeing him expressing any sort of racism towards Jews. Critical of Israel? Sure. I’m highly critical of Israel. Criticizing the Jewish state does not a racist anti-Semite make. The are Orthodox and Hasidic Jews that are very critical of Israel. Are they anti-Semites as well?”
Kudos to you, sir.
As far as the likes of Buchanan are concerned, the issue is not and never was “the Jews.” The issue is and was Zionism, and being brave enough to treasure intellectual honesty over political correctness EVERY time.
Though he wasn’t universally repected among the Confederates, we neo-Confederates are nevertheless proud of Judah Benjamin, often called the “Brains of the Confederacy.”
Because the issue is not and never was “the Jews.”
It’s depressing to see how Mr. Buchanan can craft intelligent, challenging, and often devastating critiques of events and then shoot himself (and those who agree with him) in the foot with tedious, pointless haranguing about Jews and Israel. I have no idea if Mr. Buchanan is an anti-semite or not. I don’t particularly care either. Voltaire was a raving anti-semite but that doesn’t stop me from enjoying Candide. What I do know is that Jews in general (and Israel in particular) make too many appearances in his commentary. Please, give it a rest.
The problem with anti-Southern bigots is that they’re simply too far gone to have a rational debate with. All that was said by the author of this article is that the War for Southern Independence wasn’t ONLY about slavery. Yet, a few comments here are retorts to a claim that the war had very little or nothing to do with slavery, a claim that was never made by Pat Buchanan or Jack Hunter (this article’s author). They simply heard someone question the idea that all of the Southern states were evil and only wanted to leave to protect slavery, and went into autopilot on their accusations of racism.
Slavery was a key issue in the war, but so were other things as Dennis mentioned earlier. Someone who claims the war was fought over slavery and had little to do with anything else is just as bigoted and ignorant as someone who claims the opposite. The author of this article clearly stated this in not so many wards, yet we still get comments on here that rant about how stupid people are if they think the war had nothing to do with slavery.
Study history. Do some honest research beyond what you learned through public education, Hollywood and the mainstream media.
The important thing anti-Southern bigots need to learn is that their heroes in the Union army cared just as little or even less for the African Americans than the Southerners did. White supremacy was the prevailing belief for the average American, North and South, in the 1860s. Why do you think the Yankees didn’t have a problem eradicating the Native Americans in the Midwest? That is proof alone to dispel the notion that 19th century Yankeeland was full of compassionate and righteous champions of equality and human rights. If they really were what so many of today’s ignorant Americans believe them to be, then they could never have tolerated such a thing. However, they not only tolerated it, but they cheered it……just as they had cheered the recent invasion, plunder and murder of white Southern Americans in the South. You can honestly say the Yankees did not show prejudice and discrimination…if you look at those in terms of how they were perfectly happy to murder and confiscate the lands of anyone who stood in the way of their agenda.
Yes, Northern abolitionist publications get a lot of attention in school textbooks, but abolitionists were in fact just a small vocal minority, even in the North. Until Lincoln got desperate to keep Europe from intervening after the Confederacy proved to be a formidable foe on the battlefield and issued the emancipation proclamation, you won’t find much evidence from Lincoln, Northern media or Union soldiers that they were waging war on the South to free the slaves. The South had no desire to overthrow the federal government; they only wanted to be separate from it. The North invaded and subdued an erstwhile free people of the South solely to protect their own interests. They fought to “save the Union” which again was simply protecting their own interests since the South did not need the Union and was able to sustain a coherent Confederacy for nearly 5 years even while expending enormous financial and human costs to defend its land against a vastly numerically superior invader.
That’s the truth, no matter how hard you want to believe in the mythical legend of Lincoln and the righteous Union army of the “Civil War”.
Like Taki’s Top Drawer, The American Conservative has degenerated into only two topics of discussion: Anti-Semitism and denying it is anti-Semitic.
Leaving aside all these trivial reasons for the states picking sides in the Civil War or Lincoln’s progression from preserving the Union slaves or not to full Emancipation, the Civil War was ultimately about slavery, States rights, tariffs, industry vs agriculture were not the main issue. This is like saying the cause of WW ll was a duspute over the Danzig Corridor or ethinc Germans’ rights in the Sudetenland.
Here it is, once again let me remind all you conservatives, the GOP was formed as an Abolitionist party and when they won the presidential election the first time, that is when the South chose to leave. Everything else is detail.
maxsnafu, on April 13th, 2010 at 8:15 am Said:
“Racism” and “anti-Semitism” are such hackneyed topics; why not discuss something new, like the Jewish role in the murder of 30 million Russian Orthodox Christians?
Why not discuss the Jew hater’s ability to twist things around to make the Jew look like the evil perpetrator instead of him? After all Lenin, Stalin and Feliks Dzerzhinsky(the CHEKA’s Founder) were raised as Orthodox & Catholic Xtians