Recent surveys clearly demonstrate why “Civil War” history is so skewed to support Leftist ideology. Leftist ideologues dominate the modern history discipline by a 33:1 margin. Gone is any semblance of balance so necessary to the free exchange of ideas. Gone is the opportunity for reasoned evaluation of all viewpoints regarding secession and war. Gone is the very opportunity for truth to win the day as a product of critical evaluation. The Southern half of that evidence can never even see the light of day in any semblance of fair consideration.
That the “Civil War” is now made a convenient poster war with a singular focus on the interminable “oppression” of “white supremacy” is no surprise. This attendant issue that existed on the periphery of the 19th century conflict is now made the central theme because it is fashionable as a politically expedient exercise of crass presentism.
History students are no longer taught how to think. They are taught what to think. Much evidence is spun, suppressed or dismissed as “lost cause myth” – the catch phrase employed to avoid any serious consideration of what the South said and demonstrated was its motive in secession and war. The Confederacy is villainized, creating a rallying focal point by which students are more easily manipulated to become, not scholarly historians, but rather social justice warriors. Naïve young minds are manipulated into narrowly viewing human history through a neo-Marxist lens as a great struggle between “oppressors and oppressed.” Generations of history students have, for the past sixty years, been craftily molded into a constituency for the advancement of a political agenda. How successful the powerful in academia have been in herding students into universities that are now, for the most part, no more than Leftist ideological echo chambers. A place where propaganda that’s custom-made for ideological preferences can be craftily administered through a fanciful manipulation of history.
However, the Left should not bear all the blame. Before they overran the academic history discipline beginning in the 1960’s, it was the Republicans who, before the “Civil War” was even over, began carefully spinning the war to be what it was not, a humanitarian crusade to “free slaves,” instead of a reprehensible war of political and economic control that had long been disguised by the euphemism of “preserving the Union.” In reality, it never ceased to be a war of economic control. That control was made possible BY “preserving the Union.” America’s founding principle of “government by consent of the governed,” the essence of freedom, was supplanted by forcing States to remain in a Union against the consent of their polities, which is the opposite of freedom. All done for the goal of preserving revenue while simultaneously preventing economic competition from a Confederation of free trade States forming on the Union’s Southern border.
When the absurdity of this abandonment of true freedom was realized and began being exposed around the civilized world, a crafty shift was made to cover the North’s inhumane and hypocritical bloody tracks with the ruse that the war was to “free slaves.” It was the perfect moral ruse to cover an immoral war. And it held a convenient political motive for the Republican Party as well in realizing that the freed slaves could be manipulated into a political constituency thinking the Party had their true interest at heart. The reality was that Republicans sought to use freed slaves to punish hated Southerners and maintain political control in the South. It was a strategy based upon creating racial animosity in the South where it had not previously existed. This eventually led to Southern appropriation of the North’s “Black Codes” in the form of segregational Jim Crow laws as a means of pushing back against political scheming. For the first time, a strong anti-black sentiment evolved, and segregation was introduced in the South. It was a direct result of a Republican political strategy that turned the descendants of former masters against the descendants of former slaves and vice versa.
The push-back against Northern intrusion in Southern affairs tired the North. As soon as the Republican Party realized it had enough new Northern allied States created in the West to maintain political power without the South, it abandoned the Southern blacks to the racial animosity it had created. It then turned all its so-claimed “egalitarian ideals” on the Plains Indians in a crusade that stopped just short of extermination.
Yet the new ruse was firmly established among Republicans – that they had led a great moral crusade against slavery, and Lincoln was made into “the Great Emancipator.” It was all a fabrication. And though historians of the first half of the twentieth century knew better, Northern politicians continued to chest thump and play the “slavery emancipation card” as an integral part of their imaginary American identity. Still today, Republican “neocons” champion Lincoln, and the ideal of an “American Exceptionalism” based on this fantastical claim. The claim, even if it were true, would certainly be an “exception” in human history rather than anything “exceptional.” Even if it were true, America would be the only developed nation that had to resort to a bloody war to end slavery. Hardly something to champion as exceptional!
Had Yankee cupidity not ruled the day in the Lincoln administration, there would have been no war, no divisive Reconstruction, and slavery could have been ended in a manner that held a genuine humane concern for the freed slaves. Instead, racial animosities were engineered by scheming politicians that led to another 100+ years of black oppression in America.
A few years ago, I spoke with a person who had traveled to Americana, Brazil to conduct research regarding the history and society of this small municipality. Americana was founded by former Confederates who had fled, along with their slaves (at the slave’s request), to Brazil rather than live under Yankee rule. It was noticed that there was no history of racial animosity in Americana like there was in America. Black and white descendants celebrated together the founding of their city. When the citizens were asked why there was no racial animosity the response was “because we did not have Reconstruction.”
Don’t look for a discussion of all this in the modern Leftist dominated history discipline. It doesn’t fit the historiographical method.