America's Crossroad

 CONTENTS

HATE IS EVIL
HISTORICAL EVOLUTION TOWARD OUR CURRENT CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATUARY DILEMMA
DIALOGUE

HATE IS EVIL

In my opinion, the journey from hate to love and empathy requires open, honest, considerate dialogue. The errant idea that some hate is not as evil as other hate, is at the heart of most of the current social and cultural animosity related to slavery, our nation’s Founders, Confederate and other statuary, civil rights, and race relations in the United States.  When discussions are framed without any historical perspective, truth can be misrepresented or lost. My hate is not as evil as your hate is very personal paraphrase of the statement. With this idea as the starting point, the other side must apologize and admit that they are absolutely wrong before any meaningful discussion, understanding, or reconciliation can occur. With this as our starting point, we have no hope for an end to the civil strife plaguing our nation today. That is the unfortunate problem with hate.

Hate is hate. Bigotry is bigotry. Violence is violence. All hate is evil. The basic motivation for all hate is evil. Another word for evil is sin. In James 2:9-10 we read, If you show favoritism, you are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whver keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it (all of the Law, NIV). Leaders cannot show favoritism; or they are not real, consequential leaders. This is a basic principle of leadership, morality, and ethics. It is also a basic Christian principle.

The death of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Virginia, at the hands of a white supremacist has increased the intensity of the civil rights, race relations, and hate debate in our nation. The debate concerning white supremacists, Confederate and other monuments, and post-Civil War race relations in the context of slavery is historically complex with emotionally charged cultural issues and real animosity on all sides. This discussion is my attempt to provide some social, cultural, and historical context for the attitudes, some say hate, that motivates the advocates of the two sides of the debate regarding the symbology of the Founders of our nation, the Confederacy, civil rights, and race relations in the United States today.

There is no difference between the source or reasoning, if any reason exists, behind hate. While considering these critical issues, perhaps consideration of this scripture is relevant. 1 John 1:4 says, If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us (NIV). Consequently, the hate of Antifa, Black Lives Matter, or Occupy Wall Street demonstrators, is not less evil than the hate of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), white supremacist, white nationalists, Nazis, or neo-Nazis. Hate is hate; hate is evil; and all hate must be unequivocally rejected. In my opinion, the idea that my hate is less evil than your hate constitutes the attitude of Thought Supremacists. Those promoting the Political Correctness movement on our college campuses and culture are also Thought Supremacists.

It is critical to note that the vast majority of those on the political right condemn all racists, white supremacists, and fascists. The fact that white supremacists and fascists believe that they are superior to any other race, ethnic group, or religion is evil. Some of these groups claim that their hate is justified because their beliefs are based on Christian principles. However, careful examination of Scripture contradicts their point of view. Four examples will suffice. In Romans 3:9-12 we read,

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who ds good, not even one (NIV).’

Romans 3:22-23 states,

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (NIV).

Romans 6:23 states, For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (NIV). Finally, the words of Jesus Christ also contradict white supremacists and fascists. In John 3:16-18 Jesus said,

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whver believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whver believes in him is not condemned, but whver ds not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in his name of God’s one and only Son (NIV).

Clearly, from the Scriptures cited, God ds not distinguish between groups of people; all includes all humanity; and no one is excluded from God’s love by the pronoun whver. When Scripture says that There is no one righteous, not even one, God includes white supremacists and fascists along with all humanity in His condemnation regarding sin. In the Great Commission, Mathew 28:18, Jesus told His followers to make Disciples of all nations. Acts 1:8 provides more detail for the command of Jesus, You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. According to the command of Jesus, most of the first Christians converted from Judaism. Mathew, Mark, John, and Paul also converted from Judaism. These men, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, penned most of the New Testament. Therefore, if God ds not show favoritism among humans, the world, all nations, or Jerusalem all Judea and Samaria, how can we?

In Scripture, all humanity is broken into only two categories, Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles include all non-Jews; and among Gentiles, no distinction is made between races, ethnicities, or religions. Except for converts who are not limited by race, ethnicity, or other religion, Jews are the descendants of Abraham and members of the twelves Tribes of Israel named after the twelve sons of Jacob, who God renamed Israel, Abraham’s grandson. Jesus was born a Jew from the Tribe of Judah and a maternal descendent of King David, second King of Israel.

God established an everlasting covenant with Abraham and the nation that would arise through his descendants, Israel. Two Old Testament examples of this covenant follow. First, in Genesis 12:2-3 we read,

I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you. I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whver curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you (NIV).

God reaffirmed this covenant with Abraham in Genesis 22:17-18 where God said,

I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky. Through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me (NIV).

God blessed all nations on earth because God sent His Son, a maternal descendant of Abraham, Jesus Christ to bless whver believes in him with eternal life. A logical conclusion, based on these Scriptures and promises of God, is that all anti-Semites, white supremacist, and fascists who hate Jews and non-whites will be cursed by God, and God only curses those who do evil, sin, by disobeying God. Again, all hate is evil.

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION TOWARD OUR CURRENT CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATUARY DILEMMA

The issues motivating those involved in our current statuary, civil rights, and race relations dilemma are complex, deeply held, and historically based. These issues include tensions over slavery and race relations between the northern and southern states which predate the Revolutionary War. Slavery had a lasting sociological and psychological impact on African-American individuals and culture today. It is my hope that the following discussion will provide some insight and historical perspective on the statuary, civil rights, and race relations attitudes that evolved over the past 400 years in the history of the United States of America.  It is also my hope that this discussion will reduce the level of hate on all sides in our national debate on these issues. Detailed discussion of the history related to social, cultural, and regional issues not strictly related to slavery is needed since these issues are rarely discussed and generally dismissed by the media, popular culture, and progressive academia. The cumulative impact of these issues was as significant as the institution of slavery resulting in the tumult of the Civil War.

Although slavery ended in the United States over 150 years ago, slavery still affects attitudes about civil rights and race relations including relationships between most African-Americans and other races, especially Caucasians or “white” people to this day. Unfortunately, slavery, which still exists in some cultures, has a multi-millennial history in most non-hunter-gatherer cultures, civilizations, and societies. Slavery was an acceptable source of inexpensive labor throughout the world including Judeo-Christian societies for millennia. In the United States, slavery started in colonial times when a Dutch trader brought the first slaves to Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. Taxes and tariffs imposed on virtually all colonial commerce under British Mercantile Law were especially difficult in the southern colonies with small profit margins for agricultural crops. Under mercantilism, slave labor allowed agriculture to remain a viable segment of the southern economy for the next 150 years. During most of the last half of the 1700s, slavery was declining in importance in the colonies including the South. Most thought that slavery would be an uneconomical source of labor by the early 1800’s which made constitutional compromise on slavery somewhat more acceptable in in the South.

However, the 1793 invention of the cotton gin changed the economics of slave labor. The cotton gin provided a quick inexpensive, high capacity means of separating cotton seeds from the fibers increasing cotton production to meet the demands of rapidly expanding textile mills of Britain and France. Slavery became highly profitable in cotton fields. As a result, cotton, which accounted for 80% of US exports at its peak production, became the preeminent southern crop institutionalizing slavery in the southern states.

In 1860, only 30% of Southerners owned slaves and about 50% of those owned five or fewer slaves. Slavery was an integral part of the Southern economy and culture. On plantations, the value of slaves exceeded the value of the land and equipment. Southern per capita income was 50% greater compared to the North; and 60% of the wealthiest men in the United States lived in the South. Owning a relatively small number of slaves brought respect and stature to Southerners and represented both personal and corporate wealth. The economic power of cotton and slavery was so great that the southern states did not develop an adequate industrial base which proved to be a critical economic miscalculation that would impact the outcome of the Civil War. However, fewer than 10% of the Confederate soldiers owned slaves: and most Confederate military slave owners were high ranking officers.

Tensions between northern slave free states and southern slave states preceded the revolutionary war. One of the first significant disagreements regarding slavery occurred during the Constitutional Convention. Because the economic base of the South was largely agriculture, the South had comparatively fewer large metropolitan areas compared to the North. Southern states correctly feared political domination by the more populous northern states. The South wanted the census to include slaves because counting slaves would increase southern votes in the United States House of Representatives. Some northern abolitionist delegates wanted the Constitution to abolish slavery, and most Northerners did not want slaves to be counted in the census. The slavery controversy and debate over inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution nearly caused the convention to fail. Equal representation for each state in the Senate, the Electoral College, the three-fifth census rule compromise for slaves, and the Constitutional clause stating that slave importation could continue until 1808 assured approval of the Constitution. When the thirteen states ratified the Constitution, there were seven slave states and six free states.

Several factors contributed to steadily increasing north-south tensions and animosity from the time the United States was established under the Constitution until the Civil War. First, the more populous northern free states had a majority in the House of Representatives. Consequently, Senate parody between the North and South was essential for the southern states to maintain some control of their destiny. Prior to 1812, when there were nine slave and nine free states, maintaining balance was not critical to ensure preservation of the Union. As north-south tensions over slavery and economic policies mounted, the Senate balance was maintained by the Missouri Compromise until 1850 when each side counted 15 states. Over the next 11 years, four free states were added to the Union. Southerners considered this a betrayal for failure to honor prior agreements regarding the balance between slave and free states. North-South animosity toward the citizens of each opposing   side in disputes began to grow into hate for the opposition.

Secondly, the differential impact of import tariffs on the northern and southern states and infrastructure expenditures created early tensions between the North and South. Since cotton exports dominated the southern economy, ships from England and France brought needed inexpensive European goods to southern ports and returned to Europe filled with cotton. While the South was expanding cotton fields, northern manufacturers were expanding production of similar goods including textiles needed by the South. Northern politicians, knowing that tariffs would not severely impact the North, used this situation to impose high tariffs on imported goods adding as much is 50% to their cost. The high tariffs on European goods allowed the northern manufacturers to sell their products in the South at inflated prices that were still more affordable than the high tariff European goods. Southern anger over these tariffs resulted in a threat by South Carolina to secede from the Union in the early 1830’s. President Andrew Jackson ended secession talk with the threat of a naval blockade of South Carolina ports. Another result of the tariffs was the beginning of the Southern states’ rights movement related to Amendment X of the Constitution .

States’ rights played a significant role in the attitude of Southerners during the lead up to the Civil War. Southerners did not believe the national government had the right to end slavery in any state. Similarly, Southerners felt that national government expenditures on roads, harbors, canals, etc. were disproportionately weighted toward Northern interests. Some consider the tension over these two issues, especially the tariffs, to be the first seeds of animosity, hate, toward the North which was synonymous in their mind to the Union. The issues started the thought that the South could be better served as a separate nation.

Thirdly, the abolitionist movement in northern states began in the late 1700s. In the early 1800’s, abolitionist started the Underground Railroad which sheltered and moved escaped slaves to the north; and importation of slaves was banned by an Act of Congress in 1808, as soon as possible under the Constitution. Both actions infuriated Southerners; and breeding slaves for sale became more prevalent in the South. As the movement grew, pressure to abolish slavery grew. When abolitionist started to characterize slavery as immoral rather than simply a social evil, some Protestant denominations split between the North and the South further increasing animosity. In 1852, abolitionist zeal reached a peak with the publication of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Southerners felt that the novel portrayed the exception, not the rule, regarding slavery; and their hate and anger towards the North only increased.

Fourthly, the attitudes about the character of the people of the North and South toward each other grew increasingly derogatory and demeaning. In the North, all Southerners were considered to be immoral, corrupt, and cruel for their support of slavery. Northerners also resented the fact that eight of the first eleven United States presidents were Southerners, primarily Virginians. Southern dogma asserted that Yankees were inherently inferior to Southerners. Yankees were descendants of the cold Puritan traitor to the British crown, Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell and his trouble making followers were forced to flee to Holland before finally settling at Plymouth Rock, Massachusetts. Accordingly, Yankees had evolved into gloomy, saturnine, and fanatical people who seemed to repel all the more kindly and generous impulses common to the easygoing, chivalrous, honest Southerners.

Finally, several other significant events increased tensions and animosity ultimately leading to the level of hate between the North and the South over slavery. In 1850, California was admitted into the Union as a free state angering Southerners. To appease Southerners, congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which required return of escaped slaves where ever they were found. The Act only increased Northern sentiment against slavery because it mandated Northern complicity in slavery. The 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed residents of new states to decide whether the state would be slave or free. The famous Dred Scott Supreme Court Decision of 1857 overturned the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had restricted slavery in the Louisiana Purchase territories north of the southern Missouri boundary extending the provisions of the Kansas-Nebraska Act to all United States territories. The Dred Scott decision also ruled that people with African blood were not eligible for  citizenship. Southern slave states hailed these pro-slavery decisions. Conversely, the Dred Scott decision galvanized abolitionist, gave new energy to the candidacy of Abraham Lincoln, and the new Republican Party. Removal of restrictions against slavery in the territories resulted in a race between abolitionists and Southerners to settle the territories and petition for statehood as either slave or free states.

In the Kansas territory, abolitionist John Brown formed a band of marauders that killed pro-slavery Kansas settlers. October 16, 1859, Brown and his followers seized the federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry, VA (now West Virginia), in a plan to arm a slave insurrection. Brown’s plan failed; and he was captured, convicted of treason, and hanged. Northern abolitionists made a martyr of John Brown. Southerners came to believe this was proof the North intended to wage a war of extermination against white Southerners. The level of hate of those in the North and South for their opposition grew because of John Brown’s actions.

With the election of Abraham Lincoln as President, Southerners felt that their fears would soon turn to reality. This was despite the fact that Lincoln did not plan to end slavery where it existed. He believed that the United States would not survive abolition of slavery in states where it already existed. Before the inauguration, seven Southern states seceded from the United States. In February 1861, these states formed The Confederate States of America; and on April 12, 1861, forces of South Carolina, which had previously threatened secession, attacked Union forces at Fort Sumter starting the Civil War. After the start of hostilities, four more southern states joined the Confederacy for a total of 11 states.

Three technological innovations that changed the nature and lethality of war were introduced during the Civil War. Widespread use of rifled barrel muskets and the barrel cleaning minie bullet increased the rate of fire, accuracy, and range of riflemen. The rifle and the simple invention of a method to mass-produce shovel blades drastically altered Confederate tactics and the Union response to those tactics. Riflemen could effectively engage targets at 400 yards, or more, which made frontal assaults and cavalry far less effective. Artillery was forced further from the front lines of battle reducing its accuracy because the rifle made cannoneers targets. The mass-produced shovels allowed Confederate forces to maneuver to high ground and quickly dig defensive entrenchments. Rifles and trench warfare were a deadly combination for both sides. If Union forces did not have a three to one troop advantage, they were generally unsuccessful in defeating the entrenched Confederates. Tactics were not complicated. The numerically superior Union forces sought to maneuver the Confederates into open field battles. The Confederates sought to maneuver to defensive positions, structures or high ground, trench, and defend. The Civil War became a war of brutal attrition. Finally, the Union used the newly developed locomotive and railroad technology to provide logistical support to carry the battle deep into Confederate territory.

No war in the history of the United States resulted in more deaths and injuries than the Civil War. The Civil War death toll was approximately 50% greater than the death toll of World War II when the population was far greater. In my opinion, four components of the Civil War impacted subsequent civil rights and race relations almost as much as the first boatload of slaves unloaded centuries earlier. First, the staggering loss that occurred in the male population of the country caused profound sadness, loneliness, hopelessness, anger, and  hate. Many of the survivor’s lives were permanently altered by debilitating injuries and disabilities. The long term demographic impact was profound. Union losses were 75% greater than Confederate losses; and the hate of angry Northerners demanded retribution against the South for slavery and starting the war.

Secondly, although the total number of casualties suffered by the Confederacy was far lower than Union suffering, the proportional impact to the South was equal or greater than the losses of the North. Confederate battle losses were also strategically more significant than the Union losses. The major Confederate attempts to invade the North were repelled by Union forces. Confederate forces never captured a major Union City or industrial center. As a result Northern civilians rarely suffered at the hands of the Confederacy. The exception was Confederate raiding forays into the northern states. Conversely, a majority of the Civil War battles were fought in southern states. Union forces had a superior navy, superior numbers, the raw materials and capacity to manufacture the necessary war materials, and an effective long range railroad logistical system. As a result, Union forces attacked cities, transportation, logistical centers, and factories throughout the Confederacy. Most of the civilian population of the South suffered the sting a war. The resulting resentment toward the invading Yankees would build to hate and last for decades.

Thirdly, on March 2, 1864. President Lincoln promoted Ulysses S. Grant to Lieutenant General and Commander of all Union Armies, answering only to the President. Lincoln and Grant devised a final strategic plan to defeat the Confederacy that included the principles supporting Sherman’s March to the Sea. The plan involved five simultaneous coordinated attacks designed to prevent Confederate shifts of reinforcements within their interior lines and destroy logistical support and supply lines including war material manufacturing centers. Grant and Meade attacked Lee’s army in northern Virginia while  Major General William T. Sherman attacked and defeated Confederate forces in Tennessee and moved on to Atlanta. The Confederates attempted to defend Atlanta which was almost totally destroyed by Union artillery. In response, Confederate President Jefferson Davis thought that having General P.G.T. Beauregard, a Confederate hero early in the war, lead the defense against Sherman’s March would awaken a certain enthusiasm among the citizenry. Davis ordered Beauregard to coordinate the region’s military response to Sherman’s advance. Encouragement of civilian resistance, when followed, played into the strategic plan of President Lincoln and General Grant amplified by General Sherman in his plan to march through Georgia and capture the port city of Savannah. General Grant approved Sherman’s planned march to the sea.

For the overall plan to succeed, Union forces had to break the Confederacy’s strategic, economic, and psychological will to fight. Sherman planned scorched earth or total war. Civilian cooperation was rewarded; but resistance resulted in total destruction. Sherman knew that liberal foraging by his forces would have a destructive effect on the morale of the civilian population it encountered in its wide sweep through Georgia. Sherman’s march is known for its boldness and sheer destruction of industrial and military targets, effectively destroying the Confederate’s capacity to wage war. The Yankees were not only fighting hostile armies, but a hostile people, Sherman explained; as a result, they needed to make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war. Sherman believed his campaign against civilians would shorten the war by breaking the Confederate will to fight. After his success in Georgia, Sherman eventually received permission to carry this psychological warfare into South Carolina in early 1865. By marching through Georgia and South Carolina, Sherman became an arch villain in the South, a subject of universal Southern hate, to this day, and a hero in the North.

Finally, the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln by a group of Southern conspirators would have a devastating impact on African-American civil rights and race relations that still impact our society and culture. Apparently, these conspirators believed that President Lincoln would side with Radical Republicans who wanted retribution against the South for starting the war and slavery. The conspirators believed that Vice President Andrew Johnson from Tennessee would be more conciliatory towards the south than President Lincoln. They did not trust that President Lincoln would enact the provisions set forth in his December 8, 1863, Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, a conciliatory plan for Reconstruction of the South and reunification of the United States after the defeat of the Confederacy. At that time, Lincoln knew he needed to make some preliminary plans for postwar Reconstruction. The Union controlled much of the South. Some southern states were ready to rebuild. The plan addressed three primary issues. First, it pardoned all rebels and restored their property with the exception of the highest Confederate officials and military leaders. Second, state government could be formed after 10 percent of the eligible voters took an oath of allegiance to the United States. Third, the Southern states must enact uncompromising plans for the freedom of slaves.

President Lincoln understood that harsh retribution and punitive treatment of the South during Reconstruction could result in long term divisions within the United States and slow integration of African-Americans throughout the nation. He also believed that the best strategy was to introduce black suffrage in the South by degrees in order to accustom southern whites to black voting. A lenient program of Reconstruction was integral to Lincoln’s strategy for reuniting the nation. Consequently, Lincoln’s plan gave southern states a great deal of latitude regarding Freedmen or former slaves. As Southerners feared, Radical Republicans were adamantly opposed to Lincoln’s plan.

It is a matter of hopeful speculation to think that civil rights and race relations in the United States would have turned out more positively for African-Americans had President Lincoln not been assassinated giving him the opportunity to execute his plan for reconciliation and Reconstruction of the South. History confirms the unfortunate results of Reconstruction under the Radical Republican Reconstruction plan.

The surrender of the Confederacy on the battlefield did not solve the problems that led to the Civil War. Hate still existed in both the North and South. In reality, the Civil War only solved two issues that plagued the United States at the time. The war ended slavery and assured that the United States would remain one united nation; but the other significant issues that led to the war remained unresolved.

To Northerners, especially abolitionists and Radical Republicans, Southerners were still immoral, corrupt, and cruel for their support of slavery. After the war, Southerners were also deemed to be traitorous rebels by most Northerners. To former Confederates, the Union states, Northern abolitionist, or Radical Republicans, controlled both the legislative and executive branches of government. Yankees would control where and how Reconstruction funds would be expended in both the North and the South. Experience taught Southerners that they would not fare well regarding Reconstruction expenditures, the war notwithstanding. Southerners did not want northern abolitionists to control the nature or pace of the integration of freemen, former slaves, into the fabric of Southern society. Southerners also felt that they had been overwhelmed rather than defeated on the battlefield, thus maintaining their feeling of superiority regarding Yankees. In their mind, the Confederacy had fought nobly in defense of the right of southern states to be free and sovereign. Even in defeat, Southerners felt that Confederate leaders and soldiers deserved to be remembered and honored for their attempt to rid the South of Union domination and become an independent nation. Sadly, African-American freedmen having little experience with individual freedom, the rights of citizens, and potential for self-improvement, were stuck between and at the mercy of two adversarial visions for the future of the United States. Philosophically, the United States remained deeply divided between the northern and southern states, hate prevailed. The period in our history known as Reconstruction would only deepen the divide within our unified nation.

The first two to four years after the end of the Civil War and Lincoln’s assassination would set the tone for Reconstruction, civil rights, and race relations in the United States to this day. The era of Reconstruction lasted from 1863 when President Lincoln attempted start Reconstruction in the first defeated Confederate states, until 1877 when depression became a greater issue for the nation. Johnson’s plan was nearly identical to Lincoln’s Reconstruction plan. Both plans were opposed by Radical Republicans because they were supportive of States’ rights and Federalism regarding the integration of freedmen into the society of the former Confederacy. Johnson’s plan also left establishment of voting rights for former slaves to the states.

Unfortunately for the South and African-Americans, Johnson lacked the personal and leadership skills of Lincoln. Under Johnson’s Presidential Reconstruction Plan, former Confederate states elected new governments which soon enacted measures designed to control and repress the freed slave population including denial of voting rights. These actions were inconsistent with the spirit of Lincoln’s proclamation regarding freedmen. When the Congress convened in December 1865, it refused to seat the newly elected Southern members and Amendment XIII, abolishing slavery, was ratified. In response to southern treatment of freedmen, Radical Republican abolitionists won control of the House of Representative and Senate in the 1866 elections and passed the 1866 Civil Rights Act which was the first major bill to become law over presidential veto.

While President Johnson and the Radical Republicans were arguing over Reconstruction plans, one of the first issues that would cause postwar controversy was treatment of the hastily buried bodies of dead soldiers from both sides on battlefields throughout the South. Most, 28 percent, of the Confederacy’s dead were buried on Virginia battlefields. With Union garrisons throughout the South to ensure peace, proper interment and honor for Confederate soldiers fell upon the white women of the South. Women, who had formed wartime aid societies and served as hospital volunteers and military camp workers, uniform and battle flag seamstresses, snubbed Yankees, and maintained the home front while the men were on the battlefront, united to move their dead to national Confederate cemeteries.

A year after the end of the Civil War, women throughout the South formed at least 70 Ladies Memorial Associations to bury and honor the memory of the Confederacy’s fallen soldiers. Most of the Ladies Memorial Associations’ leaders were not widows and orphans of the war who had lost their fathers, sons and brothers. They were the wives and daughters of lawyers, doctors, manufacturers, merchants, agriculturalists, and other leaders of the Confederacy who had supported the war effort on the home front. In reality, these groups mourned the loss of the Confederacy, the death of their cause. Virginia Ladies Memorial Associations successfully solicited funds for their activities from all the former Confederate states since a large proportion of the war battles were fought in Virginia. Memorial ceremonies for the fallen hers of the Confederacy soon became annual Southern events. They were allowed to hold annual memorial services since women were not considered to be political in the mid-1800’s. Although the annual memorial ceremonies of Ladies Memorial Associations were viewed with skepticism in the North, their activities were not considered a major threat to the fragile union. In reality, the annual memorials served to expound the virtues of the Confederacy, southern solidarity, sectional animosity, covert hate, and resistance to Reconstruction.

Almost immediately, rumors that the southern recovery and burial crews of the Ladies Memorial Associations were desecrating the bodies of Union soldiers began to spread in the North. In response, the union Army expeditiously dispatched large contingents of the United States Burial Corp to Virginia and other large battlefields and prisoner of war camps in the South. Soon, Southerners started complaining that “Yankee” Burial Corp crews were desecrating the bodies of Confederate dead. This controversy plagued the early stages of Reconstruction and resulted in lasting regional animosity and hate between the North and South.

During the period of Presidential Reconstruction, 1865 to 1866, the South remained defiant in adapting to social changes. Violent insurgencies against free blacks and Union supporters emerged in many regions of the South. As retribution, Congress passed the 1867 Reconstruction Act which grouped ten former Confederate states under military control and placed them into five military districts, Military Reconstruction. These state governments were re-constituted under a state of martial law and the direct control of the United States Army. The military closely supervised local government, elections, and protected office holders from violence. An estimated 10,000 or 15,000 white men, former Confederate leaders and officers, were not allowed to vote. Some whites also refused to register.

Radical Republican leaders were initially hesitant to enfranchise the largely illiterate ex-slave population; but they finally decided it was necessary to allow blacks to vote as protection for themselves, scalawags, carpetbaggers, and peace in the country. Although the South’s postwar white leaders renounced secession and slavery, by 1867 they were angered when their state governments were ousted by former Union military forces and replaced by Republican lawmakers elected by blacks, scalawags, and carpetbaggers.

In 1868, Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, a leading Civil War Radical and abolitionist, expressed concerns about the military aspects of Radical Reconstruction:

Congress was wrong in the establishment of despotic military governments for the States and in authorizing military commissions for the trial of civilians in time of peace. There should have been as little military government as possible; no military commissions; no classes excluded from suffrage; and no oath except one of faithful obedience and support to the Constitution and laws, and of sincere attachment to the constitutional Government of the United States.

Based on his statement, it is quite reasonable to conclude that Chief Justice Chase had legitimate concerns about imposition of Martial Law and disenfranchisement of large numbers former Confederates. Unfortunately, white southern retaliation and hate related to northern retribution would have a long lasting impact on African-American civil rights and race relations.

A similar statement by Congressman John R. Lynch also sheds some light on the resentment of southern white men toward the Union, Radical Military Reconstruction, Republicans, civil rights, and race relations. Congressman Lynch, a Republican freedman from Mississippi born in slavery, was elected to the House of Representatives three times. He won his last term in 1880 after Reconstruction. Lynch remained active in the Republican Party as a delegate to national Republican conventions from 1872 to 1900 serving as temporary convention chairman in 1884. He was the first black to preside over a national convention of a major United States political party.

Congressman Lynch explained that,

While the colored men did not look with favor upon a political alliance with the poor whites, it must be admitted that, with very few exceptions, that class of whites did not seek, and did not seem to desire such an alliance.

Lynch explains that poor whites resented the job competition from Freedmen. Furthermore, the poor whites

with a few exceptions, were less efficient, less capable, and knew less about matters of state and governmental administration than many of the ex-slaves. As a rule, therefore, the whites that came into the leadership of the Republican party between 1872 and 1875 were representatives of the most substantial families of the land.

Thus, the poor whites became Democrats and bitterly opposed the black Republicans.

Congressman Lynch understood the repercussions of white southern resistance to the place of freedmen in their society and white southern anger and hate over the punitive nature of Radical Reconstruction; both impacted civil rights and race relations for generations.

As soon as a Radical Republican legislature convened in 1867, they started work on the legislative or Radical Reconstruction plan for the former Confederate states. In 1867, the Reconstruction Act divided the South into five military districts, required universal (male) suffrage and specific forms of governmental organization. Before they could rejoin the Union, the law also required southern states to ratify Amendment XIV, granting citizenship to former slaves and others persons born in the United States. This Amendment was ratified in 1868. In February 1868, Johnson was impeached by the House of Representatives. That May, the Senate acquitted Johnson by one vote; and he did not run for reelection in 1868. By 1870, all of the former Confederate states had approved new constitutions and rejoined the Union. Amendment XV, ratified in 1870, granted the right to vote regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Amendments XIII, XIV, and XV, the civil rights amendments, were ratified to insure that the provisions enacted in the 1866 Civil Rights Act could not be overturned by future legislatures. Following the election of 1866, Republicans took control of all Southern state governorships and state legislatures, leading to the election of numerous African-Americans to state and national offices, as well as to the installation of African-Americans into other positions of power. Reconstruction also resulted in the South’s first state-funded public school systems, more equitable taxation, and laws against racial discrimination in public transport and accommodations.

Under Radical Reconstruction, the Republican Party in the South gained control of southern governments as a coalition of blacks (who made up the overwhelming majority of Republican voters in the South) along with carpetbaggers,” and “scalawags.” Most Reconstruction-era carpetbaggers were well-educated northern middle class teachers, merchants, journalists or other types of businessmen who moved to the South after the war. Many were motivated by a genuine desire for reform and concern for the civil and political rights of freed blacks. They wanted to rebuild and reshape the postwar South in the image of the North, which they considered to be a more advanced society. Carpetbaggers purchased land, leased plantations, partnered with down-and-out cotton planters, and invested in business and industry. Initially, they were welcomed since northern capital and investment was needed to get the devastated region back on its feet. They later became an object of hate and scorn, as many southerners saw them as low-class and opportunistic newcomers seeking to get rich on their misfortune.

Scalawags, white southern Republicans, made up roughly 20 percent of the white electorate and wielded a considerable influence as the biggest group of white delegates to the Radical Reconstruction-era legislatures. Many had pre-war political experience as members of congress, local officials, or judges. The majority were non-slave holding small farmers as well as merchants, artisans and other professionals who had remained loyal to the Union during the Civil War. Most scalawags shared the belief that the South could achieve greater advancement in a Republican South than they could by opposing Reconstruction. They sought to develop the region’s economy and ensure the survival of its debt-ridden small farms. Many had strong anti-black attitudes. However, they thought that whites should recognize blacks’ civil and political rights while still retaining control of political and economic life. They also wanted to keep rebels from regaining power in the postwar South. For former Confederates and opponents of Reconstruction, scalawags were even lower on the scale of humanity than carpetbaggers. To most southerners, Scalawags were traitors to the South. By the end of Reconstruction, Republican African-Americans, carpetbaggers, and scalawags were viewed with hate and disdain by most southerners.

After 1867, many southern whites began to increase the level violence in response to the revolutionary societal changes of Radical Reconstruction and what they considered a military occupation and imposition of Radical Republican Party rule. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and other hate filled white supremacist organizations targeted local Republican leaders, white and black, and other African-Americans who challenged white authority. Federal legislation passed during the Grant administration in 1871 allowed military suppression of the KKK and others who attempted to interfere with black suffrage and other political rights.

Unfortunately, white supremacy and racism gradually reasserted its hold on the South after the mid-1870s as support for Reconstruction waned. Republicans also became more conservative and less concerned about the plight of former slaves as the decade continued. The Amnesty Act, signed by President Grant in 1872, pardoned all but the top 500 Confederate leaders. In 1874, after an economic depression plunged much of the nation especially the South into poverty, the Democrat Party won control of the United States House of Representatives for the first time since the Civil War. In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won a disputed election for President. In 1877, he reached a compromise in which the white South agreed to accept his victory if he withdrew the last Federal troops occupying the South effectively ending Reconstruction. The struggle to deal with the revolution ushered in by slavery’s eradication would continue in the South and elsewhere in the nation for generations.

A steady reduction of many civil and political rights for African-Americans started when Reconstruction ended. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of twentieth century, rulings by the United States Supreme Court restricted or overturned many of the civil rights granted to freedmen by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Reconstruction Act of 1867, and Constitutional Amendments XIII, XIV, and XV. The court of Chief Justice Waite, 1874-1888, started this trend. Although he had opposed slavery and secession of southern states, Waite court rulings tended to restrict extension Federal government powers ruling that, “Sovereignty rests alone with the States.” As a result of the unrest and strife in the South caused by Reconstruction, both the court and the people of the United States had grown weary of constant civil unrest. Most considered southern white moderates, many were scalawags, the best group to set rules for race relations in the South. The thought was that freedmen and carpetbaggers still sought retribution against southern whites while moderates would be fair to both southern whites and emancipated blacks. Unfortunately, the Waite Court rulings allowed southern state segregationist to regain power and enact racist Jim Crow Laws and institutions.

Continuing the culture centered tenor of the Waite Court and Jim Crow Laws, in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), a later court ruled that state-mandated segregation was legal when laws provided for “separate but equal” facilities. The fallacy of the living constitution concept where the law evolves with social mores is clear in the decision of the court. Justice Brown wrote,

“We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.”

This opinion totally ignores the original intent and clear meaning of the words of Amendment XIV, Section 1 which states. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life liberty or property. History, economics, and quality demonstrated that separate was totally unrelated to equal where segregated facilities and services were involved. The opinion totally disregarded the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definitions of abridge, to reduce in scope: diminish, and liberty, the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges. The dissent of Justice Harlan noted that the Court’s majority decision would be as infamous as the Dred Scott decision since there is no superior, dominant, or ruling class of citizens in the United States. He also observed that the Constitution is color-blind.

Jim Crow laws disenfranchised and marginalized African-Americans in the South. The process varied throughout the south. In Black precincts, boundaries were gerrymandered to minimize Republican seats; polling places were reduced; local officials were appointed by state legislatures; and felons and people who failed to pay their annual poll tax or pass literacy tests were not allowed the vote. One example of the impact of Jim Crow Laws on the African-American vote will suffice. In 1900 Alabama, only 3,000 of an estimated 181,000 eligible Black males, 1.7%, were registered to vote. Jim Crow Laws were culturally all inclusive. These laws which required separate but equal facilities and services where the white and back races could not intermingle included, no black nurse treatment of white males, separate waiting rooms in bus and train terminals, separate train cars or separation within train cars and buses, separate restaurant rooms and entrances or rooms with high wall dividers preventing cross room viewing, separate public restrooms and water fountains, no intermarriage between whites and fourth generation blacks, no interracial cohabitation, and school segregation including prohibition of sharing textbooks between races. Jim Crow Laws plagued African-Americans in the South and parts of the North though the middle of the twentieth century. African-American hopes and dreams of freedom started to be a reality with The Emancipation Proclamation, the defeat of the Confederacy, and Radical Reconstruction in the South. Unfortunately, those hopes and dreams were shattered by the Jim Crow era. Freedom for African-Americans became Democrat sponsored white supremacist illusion that lasted 90 years. The anger and suppressed hate of African-Americans is understandable.

Changes in Jim Crow Laws started early in the twentieth century. Since the United States Congress was not interested in undermining state rights, over the next 50 years, the Supreme Court ruled that many of these oppressive laws were unconstitutional. In 1915, laws that denied the vote to black citizens were over ruled. In 1917, residential segregation was over ruled. In 1946, white only primary elections were over ruled. In 1944 and 1946, segregation in interstate transportation was over ruled. In 1948, “restrictive covenants” that barred the sale of homes to blacks, Jews, or Asians in neighborhoods and other forms of privately created Jim Crow arrangements were over ruled. In 1954, Brown v. Board of Education ruled that separate public schools were inherently unequal. This case overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and other Jim Crow Laws. In 1967, restrictions on interracial marriage in the United States were over ruled.

From 1915 to 1964, African-Americans throughout the United States, particularly the South, sought to peacefully act on favorable Supreme Court decisions reversing Jim Crow Laws. In the South, under Democrat governance, these court decisions were purposely ignored; and African-Americans started to peacefully demonstrate to secure their civil rights granted by the courts. Their actions were met with resurgence of the KKK and violence at the hands of law enforcement ordered by Democrat mayors and governors in disobedience of court orders. Consequently, the United States Congress and Presidents Kennedy and Johnson started work on national civil rights legislation.

As with Radical Reconstruction legislation about 100 years earlier giving African-Americans their first civil rights experience, Republican legislator’s votes ensured passage civil rights legislation of the 1960’s over solid southern Democrat objections. On July 2, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which passed the Senate by a 73-27 vote and the House of Representatives by a 290-130 vote. The Act banned segregation on the grounds of race, religion or national origin at all public accommodations, including courthouses, parks, restaurants, theaters, sports arenas, and hotels. The Act also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and gave the US Attorney General the power to file lawsuits on behalf of aggrieved workers related to employer and union discrimination based on race, religious, national origin and gender. On August 6, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which passed the Senate by a 77-19 vote and the House of Representatives by a 333- 85 vote. The act banned literacy tests, provided for federal oversight of voter registration where non-white voter registration was less than 50 percent, and authorized investigation of poll taxes in state and local elections. In 1964, Amendment XXIV, made poll taxes illegal in federal elections. Poll taxes in state elections were banned in 1966 by the U.S. Supreme Court. On April 11, President Johnson signed the Fair Housing Act of 1968 which was actually titled the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The act received its popular name from Title VIII of the 1968 Civil Rights Act. The bill passed the Senate, by a slim margin, thanks to the support of the Senate Republican leader, Everett Dirksen, who defeated a southern Democrat filibuster. Shortly after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the House passed the Act; and President Johnson signed it into law the next day. The Fair Housing Act prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, and sex.

Although the act stands as the final great legislative achievement of the 1960’s civil rights era, housing, unfortunately, remained segregated in many areas of the United States for years. From 1950 to 1980, the black population in American urban centers increased more than two fold to 15.3 million. Simultaneously, white Americans steadily moved to the suburbs, which were too expensive for most African-Americans, taking many employment opportunities for blacks with them. This trend led to urban American ghettos, inner city communities with high minority populations plagued by high unemployment, crime, and other social ills.

Since the 1960s, the United States has made great strides in civil rights. Our public schools, universities, and housing are integrated from the viewpoint of law. Minorities, including African-Americans, are now employed in every segment of our economy. Minority politicians attain elected office at every level from local communities to state governments, the United States Congress, and after the election of Barack Obama as President, the highest office in the land. Unfortunately, most minorities, especially African-Americans, still experience what amounts to economic segregation. Large minority populations still live in inner-city communities with high drug and gang related crime and unemployment. The high public school dropout rates and extraordinarily high rates of single parenthood with absentee fathers are significant contributors to the lack of economic opportunity, unemployment, and crime. As a result, it is not hard to understand the feeling of many African-Americans that the hopes and dreams that began with the Emancipation Proclamation, the revolutionary changes promised during the Radical Reconstruction following the Civil War, and the civil rights progress of the 1960’s still remain mostly unrealized.

DIALOGUE

With the insights provided by the preceding historical review in mind, the purpose of the following dialog is to raise questions about the validity of many of the assumptions and presumptions of progressives. Most of my questions revolve around the statement, some hate is not as evil as other hate. Stated another way, some opinions are more important than other opinions or the injustices you faced are insignificant and irrelevant in this discussion when compared to the injustices we faced. This dialog will not provide answers but it will pose questions that, in my opinion, must be answered to resolve significant issues related to race relations, civil rights, and the place of history, historical memorials, and statues for the future of our country. It is my hope that this dialog will be a start toward meaningful solution to our current dilemma.

Nearly 400 years after that Dutch slave trader unloaded the first cargo of black African slaves in Jamestown Virginia in 1619, the difficulties traced to that load of slaves still tare at the heart of our culture and society. Contrary to the insinuation of the left, slavery existed for millennia prior to the first sale of slaves in Virginia. Slavery existed throughout the world and did not originate in the Americas, southern colonies, southern states, or with the Republican Party. Before slave importation became illegal in the United States, in 1808, black African slaves were primarily the vanquished victims of African tribal wars sold to slave traders by their black African conquers. Black African tribal warfare victors killed almost all of their vanquished black African enemies after legal slavery ended in most of the world. The victors enslaved, for their own purposes, defeated enemies who they did not kill or sold them into slavery on the black market.

Democrats have been largely successful in separating themselves from their white supremacist, KKK, segregationist, Jim Crow past. This phenomenon is a total suspension of the reality of history. It was the Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln, that ended the evil of slavery in the United States and enacted the original Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Reconstruction Act of 1867, and Constitutional Amendments XIII, XIV, and XV. These Constitutional Amendments made the end of slavery, citizenship, and the right to vote for former slaves a matter of Constitutional Law. If these laws and Amendments had not been subverted by later Democrat sponsored legislation and federal judicial activism, the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960’s would not have been necessary. In addition, the Republican Party ended Jim Crow segregation, and legalized the African-American vote since Republican Party votes were responsible for passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and the 1968 Fair Housing Act. Most southern Democrats opposed these three Acts.

In retrospect, it is not difficult to see the shortsighted nature of many decisions made in the United States related to African-Americans and slavery prior to the 1960’s as well as relationships between the United States and Native Americans. It is  not difficult to place blame with one group or another; but ascribing blame only inflames our hate and exacerbates our current problems. Until we attempt to understand how the impact of historical events has informed our culture and contributed to our attitudes toward each other, we will not be able to solve our social and cultural problems. If we do not seek understanding, “We the People” of the United States of America will continue to struggle with hate, race relations, and civil rights issues.

It seems reasonable to begin this discussion with a couple of Merriam-Webster On-Line definitions. Blame is defined as, to find fault, to hold responsible, a state of being blameworthy, culpable; and culpable is defined as meriting condemnation or blame especially as wrong or harmful. The impact of the current statuary, civil rights, and race relations dialogue on me personally seems an appropriate starting point. Hopefully, explanation of my prejudices will help open minds and hearts to a discussion of the other prejudices involved in the current statuary, civil rights, and race relations dilemma facing our country.

Three factors impact my attitude about these areas of current controversy in our culture. First, in my opinion, the concept of White Privilege, taken at face value, seems to indicate that, as a young white geezer (70 year old), my family and I am culpable and should be blamed for the current cultural, socio-economic plight of minorities, especially African-Americans. The manner in which the term White Privilege is used also indicates that my white family should be punished for the decades and generations of benefits we have derived from our White Privilege and apologize for our whiteness. We are viewed as evil based on the attitude shown on the vitriolic angry faces of our hate filled accusers. Ds this vitriol demonstrate the validity of the statement, Our hate is not as evil as your hate? Is the implication of the term White Privilege racist in its description of white people? When the nature of the dialogue, on either side, denigrates those on the other side, is there any hope of progress, understanding, reconciliation, or compromise? Ds the term White Privilege promote civil rights and race relations or alienate deplorable white citizens like me? Ds the term “White Privilege” improve race relations and understanding; or ds the term serve “white supremacists” as a recruiting tool for their hate groups? One final personal question regarding White Privilege seems relevant. As a white man with a PhD, who never worked in my field and retired as an 18 wheel truck driver; How have I benefited from my ‘White Privilege’?

Second, my parents raised me to understand that racism and prejudice in all its forms are not only wrong but evil. They were part of the Greatest Generation and late 1940’s graduates of what was then Indiana Central University or College, now Indianapolis University. At the time, it was an Evangelical United Brethren college. From its founding in 1903, the college was cducational and totally integrated when classes began in 1905. One of my mother’s best friends was an African-American woman from Indianapolis. My father was an athletic trainer. He shared fond memories of his personal experiences with an African-American athlete, George Crow who later became the first African-American first baseman to play for the St. Louis Cardinals. As a child, our next door neighbors were Hispanic. Their oldest boy was one of my best friends. Racism is foreign to my nature and upbringing. As an Army officer, I was trained and served as the Race Relations and Drug Education counselor in my company. My relationships with the entire training company cadre including the African-American Non-Commissioned Officers and trainees were a truly enjoyable experience in my military career. Recently, an attempt to form a business partnership with a fellow rental condominium owner, an African-American, was a rewarding experience. He moved to another state and needed a local property manager. After learning that a license was required to function as a legal property manager, my friend decided to sell his condominium because his level of trust in property management firms was low in comparison to working with me. On an individual basis, working and socializing with African-Americans and other minorities has never been a problem for me.

However, the actions and behavior of the greater African-American community, including most national civil rights leaders, in the United States, has turned me against the direction and goals of the majority of the civil rights groups and organizations in our country. On the other hand, if African-American Evangelicals were not marginalized by progressives and civil rights movement leaders, the community would be much better off. Admittedly, my attitude has become that of a prejudiced white man. A comparison of the reaction of African-Americans and whites to similar situations will explain the beginning of the evolution of my growing prejudice. Simply compare the reaction of the black community to the Rodney King jury verdict and the white community’s reaction to the O.J. Simpson jury verdict; and you will start to understand my prejudice against the greater African-American community and its civil rights leaders. African-Americans rioted, viciously targeted and beat unfortunate white people who came into the area, and burned neighborhoods and business districts. There was no such reaction by “whites.” Nationally acclaimed civil rights leaders blamed what is now considered white privilege for the very violent reaction of the African-American community following the Rodney King verdict. Watts, Detroit, Ferguson, Baltimore etc., and the vitriolic chants, led by national civil rights leaders, during Black Lives Matter rallies followed by the same justifications and excuses adds to my prejudice. When you add to this toxic mix, Bloods and Crips, MS-13, other minority gangs, black on black violence of all types, and the high rate of illegal drug use and unwed motherhood in the African-American community, it is not difficult to understand my reluctance to accept my white privilege as the cause of the problems in the African-American and other minority communities. Of course, to my accusers, my failure to understand is evidence of my hate, white privilege, and racism.

Third, in my opinion, both the concept of white privilege and especially the growth of the historically guilty like Christopher Columbus, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson in the statuary controversy are critical components of Marxist, progressive, efforts to undermine the concepts of patriotism, American exceptionalism, the general virtue of American citizens, and belief in the general virtue of the United States as a force for good in the world. Joseph Stalin purportedly said,

America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.

Consequently, to understand how the left seeks to achieve this goal and undermine our society, a discussion of truth and lies seems appropriate.

In The Ten Commandments we read this, You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor (EX 20:16, NIV), or do not lie. The Merriam Webster On-Line Dictionary definition of lie is to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive. Adding misrepresent to the concept of lies seems appropriate. Conversely, the same dictionary defines truth as, the body of real things, events, and facts, actuality, the state of being the case, fact. For We the People in the Deplorable Class, these concepts appear to be quite clear. In contrast, the 1983 Harvard University Press publication, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought essay on truth sheds a very different light on truth. A concise summary of this essay definition of truth describes truth as the practical expression of a subject totality achieved in the realized identity of subject and object in history and this-worldly manifestations of class-related needs and interests. Consequently, for Marxist progressives, truth must be refined to support their class related needs and interests. In this publication’s essay defining historiography, the study of history as a discipline, the definition of truth in the context of history is further refined. This refinement of the concept of truth is summarized as an ideal chosen from an infinite number of similar, potential ideals determined by history and finally realized under communism once a consensus regarding the new truth of history is achieved. This essay describes the process by which obscure and often discredited depictions of history are presented as historical facts to incrementally alter the existing historical paradigm and promote the progressive, Marxist agenda, historic misrepresentations or academic lies. With these thoughts regarding truth and history in mind and the current atmosphere on our college campuses, all levels of academia, and the media, it may be well for readers to consider the roll of the left’s educational dictatorship in today’s society to accomplish the Marxist, progressive plan for America described by Stalin.

It seems reasonable to frame most of the dialog regarding the current statuary, civil rights, and race relations debates in relation to the background, perceptions, and prejudices of white Americans and African-Americans. The impact of these issues on Native-Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities also has relevance. From the perspective of white Americans, the post-Civil War evolution of racism was different for the northern or Union states involved in the Civil War and the states of the Confederacy. For states joining the United States in the early generations after the Civil War, the degree of racism exhibited was somewhat related to the north-south composition of the population of each new state. From the end of Reconstruction until the civil rights legislation of the 1960’s was generally accepted by citizens of the United States, segregation prevailed.

Since slavery was the exception in most northern and all other post-Civil War states, white racism evolved along a different path than in the former Confederate states. In the northern states involved in the Civil War, most cheap labor was provided by white European immigrants. Many of these immigrants were originally indentured servants who contracted to work for their employers for at least seven years in exchange for their passage to America and living expenses. Debt to employers often extended the period of indenture. Consequently, northern whites had relatively little interaction with African-Americans either slave or free. Black freemen fought in the Revolutionary War, and slaves earned their freedom for service in the war. Free blacks, men and women, were paid household employees, other service workers, small business owners and artisans, other professionals, and politicians who made meaningful contributions to their communities. Many were well educated. The abolitionist movement and Underground Railroad brought more African-Americans to the north, but many went to Canada where they could not be returned to their southern owners if captured. The northern experience with African-Americans was generally positive.

After the Emancipation Proclamation freed all African-American slaves and the Reconstruction Era ended, southern racism, Jim Crow Laws, and segregation resulted in steadily increasing migration of African-Americans out of the former Confederate states. As African-Americans moved out of the South, the natural desire of people to live in communities that share common values, culture, and experiences prevailed. It did not take long for this self-segregation to become institutionalized and legalized. Most new immigrant populations to the United States settle in this manner throughout our history as well. Unfortunately, such segregation, whether forced or voluntary, reduces human interactions and leads to uncertainty, distrust, and eventually discrimination and racism. As African-American numbers increased outside the old Confederacy, competition for employment increased. Increases in the size of the labor force also resulted in lower wages. As a result, African-Americans also experienced increased discrimination, segregation, and racism, especially in Northern industrialized urban areas. Economic concerns grew into racism and, in some instances, issues related to white supremacy.

The evolution of white racism in the old Confederate South had a long, complicated history. Old Confederacy racism is rooted in economics, the long standing institution of slavery,  animosity toward the North which started in early colonial times, the impact of the Civil War which caused a total cultural disruption, radical and military reconstruction which suddenly inserted African-Americans into elected offices and other positions of authority, and the depression that ended reconstruction.

In retrospect, human nature indicates that it is hard to expect that white Southerners would not react to such sudden radical cultural, societal, and political change in a culture that had evolved over a period of 250 years prior to formation of the Confederacy. The reactions took two very different, but related, forms. First, shortly after the end of the Civil War, Ladies Memorial Associations organized throughout the South. These ladies’ groups evolved into the current state and national groups known as The Daughters of the Confederacy. The post-Civil War veneration of Confederate leaders and war hers was as much an idyllic effort to honor and memorialize the southern lifestyle and culture that had been lost by the outcome of the Civil War. Over time the venerated virtues of the old South have evolved into patriotism for the United States, personal honor, courage and valor, and respect for military service.

Second and not surprisingly, the southern response also included violence and formation of the first white supremacy groups.  Unfortunately, after the Democrat Party regained control of former Confederate states, African-Americans became scapegoats for the Confederate loss of their way of life. African-Americans endured approximately 100 years of Jim Crow racial discrimination, often quite violent, that was worst in the former Confederate southern states; but, unfortunately, racial discrimination occurred throughout the rest of the United States. Failure to acknowledge the legitimate reality of the personal, emotional, and cultural impact of these issues, makes progress on the critical civil rights and race relations issues of today far more difficult.

From the African-American perspective, no one can deny that slavery was and will always be evil, demeaning, and an affront to their humanity. Similarly, no one can deny that African-Americans suffered oppressive, often violent, repression, segregation, racial discrimination, and endemic civil rights violations during the century between the Emancipation Proclamation and passage the civil rights laws of the 1960’s. No one can deny the adverse emotional impact that denial of true freedom had on African-Americans during this period in our history. No one can deny that the peaceful African-American desegregation demonstrations of the 1950’s through the 1970’s were met by violent law enforcement opposition sanctioned by Democrat civil authorities including mayors and governors and incarceration of demonstrators and civil rights leaders. Oppression has an adverse and debilitating effect on both the individual and collective psyche of every oppressed group of people, including African-Americans.

Additionally, no one can deny that the United States have made great strides in race relations and civil rights during the last three to four decades, especially where African-Americans are concerned. After all, an African-American was elected President of the United States in 2008 and re-elected in 2012. Individual African“Americans, both male and female, have served in the Cabinets of Republican and Democrat administrations, the US Congress, and every level of state and local governments for decades. Individual African-Americans have also excelled in business, non-elected government service at all levels, military service, law enforcement, education, medicine, science and engineering, tele-communications, all forms of entertainment and sports, the print and news media, and all other fields of endeavor. Individuals, African-Americans and other minorities, succeed and prosper throughout our society, in spite of the white privilege that should, according conventional progressive wisdom, prevent them from succeeding.

On the other hand, no one can deny that the greater African-American community and other minority communities, especially in large urban areas, are plagued by a multitude of problems. These issues revolve around high poverty rates associated with the breakdown of the traditional family and absentee fathers, high school dropout rates, high unemployment, gang violence usually associated with illegal drug distribution and use, and a general disrespect for any form of authority as seen on most videos related to classroom teacher interactions with minorities, police interactions, and perceived white privilege in these communities. Admittedly, disrespect for law enforcement and authority in general, including violent rioting, is also endemic to progressive activists, ANTIFA, Occupy Wall Street, and Black Lives Matter and not restricted to minority groups.

From my prejudicial point of view, answers to some specific questions should be at least considered in relation to the impact of white privilege on minority communities including African-Americans. What is the precise definition and specific characteristics of white privilege? How and to what extent ds each specific aspect of white privilege adversely impact minorities including African-Americans? What are the common characteristics and personal traits allowing so many minority individuals to overcome white privilege and succeed in the United States of America? Do successful whites and successful minorities share common characteristics and personal traits? Are the characteristics and personal traits of virtually all successful people advanced by civil rights leaders and educators as methods for all individuals in minority communities to overcome white privilege and succeed? Do civil rights leaders and educators believe and teach members of their communities that each person is responsible to work and train for their personal success?

The current statuary, civil rights, race relations debate centers on issues of real and perceived wrongs. Slavery was wrong. In the case of white privilege, the wrongs are both real and perceived. In my opinion, progressives start these debates with a series of non-negotiable assertions which are rarely openly stated but become obvious from the tenor of their arguments and tone of their voices. These assertions could include the statement, some hate is not as evil as other hate, on a more personal note our/my hate is not as evil as your hate, or my vision of patriotism is better than your vision of patriotism. Several other progressive non-negotiable assertions, paraphrases, or variations of this theme appear to be part of the starting point in these discussions. Our or some group’s pain is more relevant to these discussions than your pain. Our progressive Marxist portrayal of historical truth is more relevant to the current discussions than your traditional portrayal of historical truth. Our evaluation of the impact of historical figures using modern cultural, sociological, ethical, and legal standards and the impact of decades or centuries of unintended consequences on current affairs is more relevant to current discussions than your citation of the words, goals, and intentions of the same historical figures in the context of the cultural, societal, ethical, legal standards, and mores of their time.

For progressives and those who seek to divide We the People into factions, slavery is the only relevant issue in discussions of the history of the formation of the Confederate States of America and current discussion of Confederate statues and memorials, civil rights, and race relations. The other economic, political, and cultural factors that led to the Civil War, the devastation of war in the South, and the retribution exacted on the South by Reconstruction were all the direct result of the institution of slavery; and the impact of these issues on white Southerners must be viewed as inconsequential and therefore, disregarded when compared to the impact of slavery on African-Americans in discussions of Confederate statues, memorials and all historically significant slave owners including George Washington, the Father of our Country.

As a final appeal for reason and fairness regarding the current discussions of race relations, civil rights, memorials to the Confederacy, and the place of our Founders who owned slaves when slavery was common place throughout the world, the request of one group despised by progressives, both white and African-Americans, might provoke thought, compromise, and reconciliation. August of 2017, Patricia Bryson, President General of the United Daughters of the Confederacy wrote the following:

We are saddened that some people find anything connected with the Confederacy to be offensive. Our Confederate ancestors were and are Americans. We as an Organization do not sit in judgment of them nor do we impose the standards of the 21st century on these Americans of the 19th century.

It is our sincere wish that our great nation and its citizens will continue to let its fellow Americans, the descendants of Confederate soldiers, honor the memory of their ancestors. Indeed, we urge all Americans to honor their ancestors’ contributions to our country as well. This diversity is what makes our nation stronger.

From the end of the Civil War and Reconstruction, southern women have honored and memorialized the Confederate soldiers who fought in the Civil War. Most of the statues erected as memorials portray the generals of the Confederacy who represent to soldiers they led and its highest civil leaders like Jefferson Davis. In the lead up to the Civil War, southerners did not believe that they were any different than the Founders of the United States. They considered themselves to be patriots seeking freedom from a government that no longer represented their best interests including the institution of slavery. Confederate soldiers considered themselves analogous to Continental Army soldiers of the Revolutionary War.

To most southerners, the statues and memorials have come to represent the selfless service, valor, honor, virtue, and devotion to a cause, patriotism, not blind devotion to the institution of slavery, racism, or white supremacy. These patriotic traits have translated into southern patriotism and military service at a rate that exceeds the rest of our nation. Compared to the other 34 states, between 40 and 44 percent of those entering military service, enlisted personnel and officers, for several decades are from the South, 16 states and the District of Columbia. The South accounts for about 35 percent of the nation’s relevant population. Southern patriotism, bravery, and valor in combat has been observed since the Civil War. In 1863, Union General William T. Sherman observed:

War suits them, and the rascals are brave, fine riders, bold to rashness and they are the most dangerous set of men that this war has turned loose upon the world. They must all be killed or employed by us before we can hope for peace.

The southern contribution to our nation’s defense since 9/11 has been significant. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice. To many, the statues and memorials to the Confederacy represent the heritage that translates into one specific form of patriotism, military service.

Should we as a nation disregard symbols of our history that contribute to this level of patriotism, selflessness, sacrifice, and military service? Are we a nation of over-comers; or are we a nation of victims? In my opinion, slavery and its legacy is over. Our nation has twice elected an African-American President. Is it time for African-Americans and all minority communities to view themselves as over-comers and conquers; or will they view themselves as victims? Are we a nation of over-comers and conquers or a nation of victims? In my opinion, the manner in which the statuary issue is resolved will provide the answer to these two questions.

One final question to consider, “Will we continue to allow progressives to divide We the People of the United States by  race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, age, religion, and political persuasion and foment hate among us, or will We the People commit to respectful dialogue and solve our problems and unite for the good of the United States of America. For the good of our nation, We the People must change hate into love.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.