What do you think?
Rate this book
The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The "Great Truth" About the “Lost Cause"
Most Americans hold basic misconceptions about the Confederacy, the Civil War, and the actions of subsequent neo-Confederates. For example, two thirds of Americans--including most history teachers--think the Confederate States seceded for -states' rights.- This error persists because most have never read the key documents about the Confederacy.
These documents have always been there. When South Carolina seceded, it published -Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.- The document actually opposes states' rights. Its authors argue that Northern states were ignoring the rights of slave owners as identified by Congress and in the Constitution. Similarly, Mississippi's -Declaration of the Immediate Causes ...- says, -Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--the greatest material interest of the world.-
Later documents in this collection show how neo-Confederates obfuscated this truth, starting around 1890. The evidence also points to the centrality of race in neo-Confederate thought even today and to the continuing importance of neo-Confederate ideas in American political life. The 150th anniversary of secession and civil war provides a moment for all Americans to read these documents, properly set in context by award-winning sociologist and historian James W. Loewen and co-editor, Edward H. Sebesta, to put in perspective the mythology of the Old South.
These documents have always been there. When South Carolina seceded, it published -Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.- The document actually opposes states' rights. Its authors argue that Northern states were ignoring the rights of slave owners as identified by Congress and in the Constitution. Similarly, Mississippi's -Declaration of the Immediate Causes ...- says, -Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--the greatest material interest of the world.-
Later documents in this collection show how neo-Confederates obfuscated this truth, starting around 1890. The evidence also points to the centrality of race in neo-Confederate thought even today and to the continuing importance of neo-Confederate ideas in American political life. The 150th anniversary of secession and civil war provides a moment for all Americans to read these documents, properly set in context by award-winning sociologist and historian James W. Loewen and co-editor, Edward H. Sebesta, to put in perspective the mythology of the Old South.
424 pages, Paperback
First published July 28, 2010
88 people are currently reading
1236 people want to read
About the author
James W. Loewen
32 books1,101 followersA professor of sociology, James W. Loewen earned his bachelor's degree at Carleton College in 1964, and his master's (1967) and doctorate (1968) degrees from Harvard University. Loewen taught at Touglaloo College from 1968 until 1975, and at the University of Vermont from 1975 until his retirement as professor emeritus in 1995.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
August 30, 2013
This is a really excellent collection of primary sources. The sources from about 1840 to 1880 show that if you could ask the actual people who supported secession what their reasons were for doing so, they wouldn't say states' rights or tariffs. But they would say slavery and white supremacy. They were actually AGAINST states' rights, because in the secession documents themselves they list their reasons as: other states don't allow slavery, other states refuse to return runaway slaves, territories are being allowed to prohibit slavery, other states allow their citizens to criticize the practice or slavery, etc. The Confederate government was about states rights about as much as the Puritan settlements in 1640s New England were about freedom of religion.
The next batch of sources extends all the way to the modern day, and provides examples of how the generations of historians after the Civil War began to now describe the South's motivations as being for tariffs and states' rights. In the introduction to each document, the editors take pains to point out all the inaccuracies that it contains. I actually didn't read much past 1880 just I had to get the book back to the library, but I hope to check it out again later.
The next batch of sources extends all the way to the modern day, and provides examples of how the generations of historians after the Civil War began to now describe the South's motivations as being for tariffs and states' rights. In the introduction to each document, the editors take pains to point out all the inaccuracies that it contains. I actually didn't read much past 1880 just I had to get the book back to the library, but I hope to check it out again later.
July 8, 2015
This is a book with a clear agenda (and how nice to read a book intended for use in school that states its agenda clearly and simply from the start!), and that, in large part, is to disprove the increasingly pervasive myth that the South seceded from the union to protect states' rights, and not to defend slavery and white supremacy. To support the slavery thesis, Loewen and Sebesta provide dozens upon dozens of devastating primary sources which, taken together, make it abundantly clear that slavery was, in fact, the main factor behind the southern departure. What follows in the book are chapters of documents illuminating the development of the myth of the pure, anti-slavery Confederacy, and how that myth survives -- and is used -- today. It's an immensely powerful, informative volume no matter one's occupation but, for teachers, it's a hugely valuable resource.
September 14, 2018
Why did it take so long for someone to write this book?? Edward Sebesta and James Loewen (writer of the excellent Lies My Teacher Told Me) present a much needed antidote to what has become mainstream thinking on the American Civil War.
Have you ever heard someone say that the Civil War wasn't about slavery? Have you ever heard that the "War Between the States" was actually about "states rights" or even tariffs? Did you grow up hearing this conflict being called the "War of Northern Aggression"? To this day enough mud has been churned up to confuse even well-educated people about whether the Civil War had anything to do with slavery at all.
To this the authors have a simple and incontrovertible answer: Let's look at what primary sources from that period have to say. On the slavery question the articles of secession for South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and others cannot be more clear: Slavery, slavery, slavery.
This book is an eye-opening timeline of antebellum, Civil War, and postwar documents chronicling not just the causes of the war, but the moving target of postwar justifications. Southerners in mid-19th century America were clear-eyed about why they felt they needed to leave the union. Slavery was the foundation of their entire economy. With the election of Lincoln, a member of the abolitionist Republican Party, the south could see the political winds shifting and the eventual end of slavery looming. Further, freeing the slaves and treating former slaves as human beings and citizens would eventually mean giving them political rights (this was recognized by southerners even then), a threat to the existing racial hierarchy (white supremacy) in the south (owing to the fact that in some states black folks outnumbered white folks). Since they could not envision how they could possibly go on without their peculiar institution they decided to quit the United States and form their own slaveholding republic.
After the war the majority of the population came to view slavery as morally repugnant, which made honoring southern veterans problematic. To this end people began to elide slavery as a factor and emphasize white supremacy, a phenomenon that began as early as the 1870s. Eventually white supremacy too was viewed as impolitic, so that factor was displaced by "states rahts." This book carries the reader through these rhetorical changes over time, through Reconstruction, the Nadir of Race Relations, the Civil Rights era, into the new millennium. It's all there in black and white.
The myth-making and mystification of the whys and wherefores of the Civil War have been intentional and have a negative impact that resonates more than 150 years later. There is nothing wrong with learning the truth about our nation's racist past. Being honest about what happened back then is the first step towards making things right today. Let's stop lying to ourselves so that we can move forward in a positive new direction. Read this book and see for yourself.
Have you ever heard someone say that the Civil War wasn't about slavery? Have you ever heard that the "War Between the States" was actually about "states rights" or even tariffs? Did you grow up hearing this conflict being called the "War of Northern Aggression"? To this day enough mud has been churned up to confuse even well-educated people about whether the Civil War had anything to do with slavery at all.
To this the authors have a simple and incontrovertible answer: Let's look at what primary sources from that period have to say. On the slavery question the articles of secession for South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and others cannot be more clear: Slavery, slavery, slavery.
This book is an eye-opening timeline of antebellum, Civil War, and postwar documents chronicling not just the causes of the war, but the moving target of postwar justifications. Southerners in mid-19th century America were clear-eyed about why they felt they needed to leave the union. Slavery was the foundation of their entire economy. With the election of Lincoln, a member of the abolitionist Republican Party, the south could see the political winds shifting and the eventual end of slavery looming. Further, freeing the slaves and treating former slaves as human beings and citizens would eventually mean giving them political rights (this was recognized by southerners even then), a threat to the existing racial hierarchy (white supremacy) in the south (owing to the fact that in some states black folks outnumbered white folks). Since they could not envision how they could possibly go on without their peculiar institution they decided to quit the United States and form their own slaveholding republic.
After the war the majority of the population came to view slavery as morally repugnant, which made honoring southern veterans problematic. To this end people began to elide slavery as a factor and emphasize white supremacy, a phenomenon that began as early as the 1870s. Eventually white supremacy too was viewed as impolitic, so that factor was displaced by "states rahts." This book carries the reader through these rhetorical changes over time, through Reconstruction, the Nadir of Race Relations, the Civil Rights era, into the new millennium. It's all there in black and white.
The myth-making and mystification of the whys and wherefores of the Civil War have been intentional and have a negative impact that resonates more than 150 years later. There is nothing wrong with learning the truth about our nation's racist past. Being honest about what happened back then is the first step towards making things right today. Let's stop lying to ourselves so that we can move forward in a positive new direction. Read this book and see for yourself.
January 23, 2024
Back in July I said that whichever year I finished this book, it would be the most important book I read that year. Well, that year is this year.
The book immediately distinguishes between history and historiography.
That alone is worth taking time to discuss. But Loewen and Sebesta waste no time getting to the crux of this book. The quote continues without a break:
What does all this mean, and why is it important?
We're living in a time when racists claim, "everything is racist" as a way to excuse their racism. It's tough, because if you call someone who isn't a racist a racist, the reaction is the same as when you call out a racist for their racism.
The introduction to the book is, "Unknown Well-Known Documents." It's a collection of writings that are out there in the open. Articles of Secession. Speeches given in front of the Senate. Speeches by Jefferson Davis, and sermons given by Pastors in the South. Most of this isn't stuff that's hidden away, it's just stuff that people don't generally take the time to read on their own. I mean, we don't read our own Constitution... let alone the Articles of Confederation. Why would we or should we read the Articles of Secession?
Here's why: it's up to all of us to put down the casually and/or intentionally racist myths as they gain new footholds - and I'm not necessarily talking about Trump's courting of white nationalists - this book came out in 2010. (In fact, this gets brought up in the introduction to the last section, "The Civil Rights Era, 1940-" "As of this writing (2010), it is too early to tell if having an African American in the White House will lead to a new era of race relations that will further marginalize neo-Confederates, or if it will prompt some of the almost 90% of whites in the Deep South who voted against Obama to coalesce, thus breathing new life into the neo-Confederate movement."
If feel like there are two answers to that question. One given in 2012, and one given in 2016... but that's just me...
Another reason is understanding how these Confederate and neo-Confederate myths promote racism. Sometimes it's evident. Other times it's less apparent. Like, does it really matter if I believe the Civil War was fought over slavery, state's rights, or tariffs?
First off, here are some of the myths the book addresses:
Claim: The South seceded over state's rights.
Truth: The South seceded over slavery. (And white supremacy.)
Claim: Slaves were treated well, and liked being slaves.
Truth: ...? Come on. Again, sometimes it's self-evident. Slaves did not like being slaves.
Claim: Confederate monuments were put up to celebrate history.
Truth: I mean... a bad reading of history, sure. But mostly to extend the legacy of white supremacy, and to send a message to the African-Americans in the cities and towns where they went up.
Claim: The "Confederate Flag" isn't even the Confederate Flag... it was a battle flag of the army of Northern...
Truth: That's true. But we all know why you have The Battle Flag of Northern Virginia as a license plate on the front of your car here in Northern Indiana. Both of your parents were born in Indiana. (I wasn't going to include quotes yet, but here's the reason they moved away from The Stars and Bars and onto The Stainless Banner, "As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause..." ...State's Rights indeed...)
Claim: Lincoln was a Republican.
Truth: Yeah. But the parties flipped (mainly over race) in the 1960s.
Claim: The parties didn't actually flip in the 1960s.
Truth: Yes, they did. Look at the maps. Did all the Republicans and Democrats just like... migrate and switch spots? Where did all the people go?
There is SO much in this book worth reading. It's all primary source, and commentary.
For instance: Mississippi gives the reason they're seceding... the first paragraph basically says, "we're seceding." The second paragraph says, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery the greatest material interest in the world." Not really a "State's Rights" argument.
In fact, the South was against State's Rights. They pushed for the Fugitive Slave Law - which allowed Southerners to pursue slaves into free states. But if they were really in favor of State's Rights, as soon as that person set foot in a free state, the South should abide by the laws of THAT state. Same with Dred Scott.
This goes back to historiography. WHY do people tell these false histories - that the South wasn't really fighting over slavery. Ask yourself what purpose that serves? What does it mean if slavery was a non-issue? Who does that serve? Who does that false narrative serve today?
I had the privilege to hear Professor Loewen speak. He was here for a few days, and I caught him 3 times. Our town has a fairly racist past, of which I was unaware. Oppressed people recognize their oppression. Others may not. Liz and I moved in, oblivious, just trying to find our place in the world. Now we're tasked with helping right the wrongs (intentional or unintentional) of the people who were here before us. I'd like to be able to say I stepped up in some way.
One of the things he said (back in 2015 when he was here) was that a lot of people start off with, "I'm not racist, but..." And of course they're racist. But a step away from that are people actually, just are not racist. ...But... even that is not enough. It's not enough to not be racist. We have to be intentionally anti-racist. Doing nothing benefits the power-structures, and the power structure is white supremacy.
*End of review*
Extra thoughts: the sermons were the most difficult to read for me. That from the pulpit someone said, "...Finding it impossible to deny that slavery, as an existing element of society, is actually sanctioned by Christ and His Apostles, those who would preserve some show off consistency in their veneration of the Scriptures, and their condemnation of us..." The whole sermon (The Rights and Duties of the Masters, by James H. Thornwell) is really, really painful to read. I had a Pastor - a few years ago... maybe 10 years - in a Conservative Baptist Sunday School class tell us, "The Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it." And all I could think of was... ...? ...? That's exactly what Thornwell would have said. And how wrong he was. What are we wrong about today?
I'm most critical towards the Christians in these primary sources. God forgive me.
I took some awkward pictures with Dr. Loewen. You're welcome.
The book immediately distinguishes between history and historiography.
...historiography means "the study of history," but not just "studying history." Historiography asks us to scrutinize how a given piece of history came to be written. Who wrote it? When? With whom were they in debate? What were they trying to prove? Who didn't write it? What points of view were omitted?
That alone is worth taking time to discuss. But Loewen and Sebesta waste no time getting to the crux of this book. The quote continues without a break:
Especially on the subjects of slavery, secession, and race - the core of this volume- Confederate and neo-Confederate statements change depending upon where people wrote or spoke, and when and why. Why did Confederates say they seceded for slavery in 1861 but not in 1891? Why did neo-Confederates claim in 1999, but not in 1869, that thousands of African Americans served in the Confederate armed forces?...
What does all this mean, and why is it important?
We're living in a time when racists claim, "everything is racist" as a way to excuse their racism. It's tough, because if you call someone who isn't a racist a racist, the reaction is the same as when you call out a racist for their racism.
The introduction to the book is, "Unknown Well-Known Documents." It's a collection of writings that are out there in the open. Articles of Secession. Speeches given in front of the Senate. Speeches by Jefferson Davis, and sermons given by Pastors in the South. Most of this isn't stuff that's hidden away, it's just stuff that people don't generally take the time to read on their own. I mean, we don't read our own Constitution... let alone the Articles of Confederation. Why would we or should we read the Articles of Secession?
Here's why: it's up to all of us to put down the casually and/or intentionally racist myths as they gain new footholds - and I'm not necessarily talking about Trump's courting of white nationalists - this book came out in 2010. (In fact, this gets brought up in the introduction to the last section, "The Civil Rights Era, 1940-" "As of this writing (2010), it is too early to tell if having an African American in the White House will lead to a new era of race relations that will further marginalize neo-Confederates, or if it will prompt some of the almost 90% of whites in the Deep South who voted against Obama to coalesce, thus breathing new life into the neo-Confederate movement."
If feel like there are two answers to that question. One given in 2012, and one given in 2016... but that's just me...
Another reason is understanding how these Confederate and neo-Confederate myths promote racism. Sometimes it's evident. Other times it's less apparent. Like, does it really matter if I believe the Civil War was fought over slavery, state's rights, or tariffs?
First off, here are some of the myths the book addresses:
Claim: The South seceded over state's rights.
Truth: The South seceded over slavery. (And white supremacy.)
Claim: Slaves were treated well, and liked being slaves.
Truth: ...? Come on. Again, sometimes it's self-evident. Slaves did not like being slaves.
Claim: Confederate monuments were put up to celebrate history.
Truth: I mean... a bad reading of history, sure. But mostly to extend the legacy of white supremacy, and to send a message to the African-Americans in the cities and towns where they went up.
Claim: The "Confederate Flag" isn't even the Confederate Flag... it was a battle flag of the army of Northern...
Truth: That's true. But we all know why you have The Battle Flag of Northern Virginia as a license plate on the front of your car here in Northern Indiana. Both of your parents were born in Indiana. (I wasn't going to include quotes yet, but here's the reason they moved away from The Stars and Bars and onto The Stainless Banner, "As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause..." ...State's Rights indeed...)
Claim: Lincoln was a Republican.
Truth: Yeah. But the parties flipped (mainly over race) in the 1960s.
Claim: The parties didn't actually flip in the 1960s.
Truth: Yes, they did. Look at the maps. Did all the Republicans and Democrats just like... migrate and switch spots? Where did all the people go?
There is SO much in this book worth reading. It's all primary source, and commentary.
For instance: Mississippi gives the reason they're seceding... the first paragraph basically says, "we're seceding." The second paragraph says, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery the greatest material interest in the world." Not really a "State's Rights" argument.
In fact, the South was against State's Rights. They pushed for the Fugitive Slave Law - which allowed Southerners to pursue slaves into free states. But if they were really in favor of State's Rights, as soon as that person set foot in a free state, the South should abide by the laws of THAT state. Same with Dred Scott.
This goes back to historiography. WHY do people tell these false histories - that the South wasn't really fighting over slavery. Ask yourself what purpose that serves? What does it mean if slavery was a non-issue? Who does that serve? Who does that false narrative serve today?
I had the privilege to hear Professor Loewen speak. He was here for a few days, and I caught him 3 times. Our town has a fairly racist past, of which I was unaware. Oppressed people recognize their oppression. Others may not. Liz and I moved in, oblivious, just trying to find our place in the world. Now we're tasked with helping right the wrongs (intentional or unintentional) of the people who were here before us. I'd like to be able to say I stepped up in some way.
One of the things he said (back in 2015 when he was here) was that a lot of people start off with, "I'm not racist, but..." And of course they're racist. But a step away from that are people actually, just are not racist. ...But... even that is not enough. It's not enough to not be racist. We have to be intentionally anti-racist. Doing nothing benefits the power-structures, and the power structure is white supremacy.
*End of review*
Extra thoughts: the sermons were the most difficult to read for me. That from the pulpit someone said, "...Finding it impossible to deny that slavery, as an existing element of society, is actually sanctioned by Christ and His Apostles, those who would preserve some show off consistency in their veneration of the Scriptures, and their condemnation of us..." The whole sermon (The Rights and Duties of the Masters, by James H. Thornwell) is really, really painful to read. I had a Pastor - a few years ago... maybe 10 years - in a Conservative Baptist Sunday School class tell us, "The Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it." And all I could think of was... ...? ...? That's exactly what Thornwell would have said. And how wrong he was. What are we wrong about today?
I'm most critical towards the Christians in these primary sources. God forgive me.
I took some awkward pictures with Dr. Loewen. You're welcome.
September 9, 2011
An important collection of primary documents, ranging from the 1820s to the 1990s, detailing the facts behind secession (I'll give you a hint: it was 99 and 44/100% purely about slavery) and the post war morphing of the cause to that of white supremacy and "states rights" (which is funny because an oft-cited reason for secession at the time was the Northern states' foot-dragging when it came to the Fugitive Slave Act).
Loewen doesn't write nearly enough for my taste, his works are eminently readable.
Loewen doesn't write nearly enough for my taste, his works are eminently readable.
January 14, 2015
An excellent collection of documents for anyone interested in the history of obfuscation by white supremacists and Confederate apologists regarding the Civil War, Reconstruction, and Fusion. The declarations of secession are easy enough to find with a Google search, but there are many other documents in here that make it a worthy addition to any library.
April 6, 2025
Should probably be mandatory reading in every American school. There's no better argument against neo-confederate revisionist history than to read the ugly words, the avowed white supremacy of the actual confederates. Excellently curated collections, forces the reader to sit with the disgusting face of white supremacy while also documenting how our understanding of the Civil War has continuously been bastardized since Reconstruction. Also horrifying to see how many rhetorical strategies & buzzwords used by the American right today are, verbatim, the same things used in the 1850s.
September 5, 2020
This should be mandatory reading for all US History majors and teachers. Although very long, it is a thorough collection of primary sources (mainly speeches and letters) that illustrate that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War and debunks the other causes (tariffs and states' rights) that have been spread by Neo-Confederates since then. It then traces the rhetoric used to justify slavery through Reconstruction and Jim Crow period to demonstrate how Neo-Confederates continue to argue and fight for white supremacy. At times it was hard to read how openly racist they were but it is critical for an accurate understanding of US History.
December 31, 2023
The best history and source documents I read this year. Shows clearly how the CAUSE of the American Civil War (1861-1865) was slavery, and that the maintenance of white supremacy was the South’s chief aim during Reconstruction (1865-1877) and up to the Civil Rights era (1955-1969), based on source documents written during the time these events took place.
November 18, 2021
Summary
Loewen and Sebesta did a fantastic job of assembling a series of documents over most of the history of America, from 1787 to 2008, to illustrate what the Confederacy was all about, the reason for the Civil War, the truth about the era of Reconstruction, and the ugliness of white supremacy in the country that persists to the present day. The documents are in the form of speeches, official resolutions, and publications, and while at times these can be a little dry and at others absolutely infuriating, they have great power in that they are provided verbatim, with full context, and the authors essentially condemn themselves. It debunks the myths that revisionist, neo-confederate historians have successfully implanted into American consciousness, and for that, excerpts should be required reading in high school history courses.
What is often taught instead reveals a rare case where it was the defeated, not the conquerors, who wrote the history which dominated for over a century later, and this book explains how that played out. To be clear, the South seceded for no other reason than slavery and the fear that it would be abolished, and Lincoln’s response, to go to war, was motivated by keeping the Union together, because he believed the entire American experiment with democracy to be at risk. The book is very successful in supporting this statement, and I provide an excerpt in the lengthy detail section below.
The strongest argument in support of secession is perhaps that the Southern states had the sovereign right to withdraw from the Union, even if neo-Confederates were to admit today that the reason for doing so was slavery. However, the text points out that even this isn’t truly legal per the Constitution, for the clause that allowed it in the earlier Articles of Confederation was removed, as Lincoln put it, because no government provides for its own dissolution. Notably, Southern states agreed that secession was not a right in 1814, when New Englanders talked about doing so because of the War of 1812, and Andrew Jackson opposed South Carolina’s threatened secession in 1832.
After the war, Southern Democrats recognized that the war had resolved the question of slavery, but shifted to actively fighting for the cause of white supremacy – and one could argue that in this regard, the Confederates won the war, at least by 1890, because they were successful until the Civil Rights Movement. African-Americans were denied political or economic power through racist legislation and campaigns of terror. History was revised to obscure the cause for the war and to demonize the era of Reconstruction that followed, and the book is successful in providing examples of all of this.
All of this was also reflected in literature; Loewen points out that “The novel dominating the nineteenth century – Uncle Tom’s Cabin – depicts the pathos of slavery and helped end it, while the twentieth-century blockbuster, a product of the Nadir of race relations, laments slavery’s passing as Gone With the Wind.” He also includes passages from GWTW that not reflect white supremacy and stoke fears of black men raping white women, but also get the truth about the war and Reconstruction dead wrong.
In terms of constructive criticism, I think that the editors probably should have pared down content in some places, such as the complete texts of all of the states resolutions for joining the confederacy, and amped it up in others. It has some content on terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and the lynchings and massacres they perpetrated, e.g. at Wilmington, North Carolina in November, 1898, but this should have been expanded on. Similarly, voter suppression is broached, but the degree to which it was practiced – and effective – probably should have been discussed further. I also think the national outrage that followed after serviceman Isaac Woodard Jr. was blinded in a racist attack when he returned home after fighting in WWII, something which helped moved Truman to supporting Civil Rights for blacks and led to the Dixiecrats splintering in 1948, should have gotten a few pages. With all that said, I’m glad the book exists! The truth is painful, but incredibly important to acknowledge, particular as the dots connect to the present day.
The book leaves off in 2010, wondering “if having an African-American in the White House will lead to a new era of race relations that will further marginalize neo-Confederates, or if it will prompt some of the almost 90% of whites in the Deep South who voted against Obama to coalesce, thus breathing new life into the neo-Confederate movement.” Obviously, it was the latter – and it would be nice if Loewen continued to published new, updated editions of this book.
Details
It’s a bit tough to extract and summarize everything this book covers, but a sampler:
John C. Calhoun addresses to the U.S. Senate in 1837 and 1849, stating the inferiority of the black race, and whipping up fears that emancipating blacks would ultimately lead to them ruling over whites. It’s quite similar to the same fears being stoked today, that when whites are in the minority, somehow great chaos and evil will rule over the country.
Alexander Stephens, soon to be Vice President of the Confederacy, addressing the House of Representatives in 1856, stating his views of white supremacy, and finding justification for slavery in the Bible.
The various southern state secession conventions in 1861, which clearly state that preserving slavery was the reason to rebel. Examples: Mississippi’s saying “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery the greatest material interest of the world”, Alabama that “the Black Republican Party” won the recent election, and aimed to “prevent [slavery’s] extension into the common Territories of the United States, and that the power of the Government should be so exercised that slavery in time, should be exterminated”, Texas that “We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment,” that “the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free,” George Williamson, the Louisiana Secession Commissioner, that “Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern Confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery.” There are many others.
The Constitution of the Confederate States of America from 1861, which among other things states that citizens of each State “…shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired,” and then later “In all such [new] territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress.” In other words, it did not allow existing or new potential Confederate states to abolish slavery, which, along with the incredibly strong Federal government that the Confederacy instituted, was completely at odds with the idea of “States’ rights”
Alexander Stephens in his speech, “African Slavery: The Corner-Stone of the Southern Confederacy” in 1861: “Our new government is founded upon…the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery – subordination to the superior race – is his natural and moral condition.”
The three national flags used by the Confederacy over the course of its existence are not actually the one now commonly associated with it; that happened when Strom Thurmond made a point of displaying the battle flag of the Army of North Virginia in 1948, nearly a hundred years after the war. As newspaper editor William T. Thompson put it, the 2nd National Confederate flag was mostly white on purpose, because, as he put it, “As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.”
In terms of African-Americans fighting in the war, the Confederate Congress passing an act in response to the Emancipation Proclamation that sentenced Union black soldiers and any white officers commanding them to death if they were captured. The cruelty officers like Nathan Bedford Forrest were guilty of would be considered crimes against humanity – and he was lionized with statues over a century later, e.g. near Nashville in 1998 and countless others. Of the Fort Pillow Massacre in 1864, Loewen writes that “Soldiers testified before the resulting congressional inquiry that Confederates buried some wounded soldiers alive and crucified other by nailing them onto tent frames and then setting the tents afire.” One Confederate sergeant wrote this a week afterwards: “The slaughter was awful – words cannot describe the scene. The poor deluded Negroes would run up to our men, fall upon their knees, and with uplifted hands scream for mercy, but they were ordered to their feet and then shot down.”
As for slaves fighting for the South, it was invented as part of the whole “lost cause” mythology. General Patrick Cleburne floated a proposal for this in Jan. 1864, and it was rejected as “revolting,” “incendiary,” and “treasonous.” A year later, Robert E. Lee was desperate, and made a more formal request, which met with similar stiff resistance. Here’s a quote from a Macon Telegraph editorial in reply, which also reinforces the reason for the war: “It would be constantly kept in view, though all the bloody phases and terrible epochs of this relentless war, that slavery was the casus belli – that the principle of State Sovereignty, and its sequence, the right of secession, were important to the South principally, or solely as the armor that encased her particular institution – and that every life that has been lost in this struggle was an offering on the altar of African Slavery. In light of this great and solemn truth, is it not a matter of wonder and astonishment, that Southern men should gravely propose to arm, and as a necessary consequence, emancipate all the able-bodied slaves in the Confederacy … The adoption of this policy would be a foul wrong to our departed heroes who have fallen in its defense.” Howell Cobb and J.H. Stringfellow were similar voices against it, the former writing “You can’t keep white and black troops together, and you can’t trust negroes by themselves.” In March, 1865 an act was passed to use slaves as troops without emancipating them (for that would have been against the CSA Constitution) and two companies were recruited in Richmond, but they never saw action, because the war was over just two months later, in May.
Here’s what secessionist Edward A. Pollard wrote in his 1868 book about the lost cause: “the true question which the war involved, and which it merely liberated for greater breadth of controversy, was the supremacy of the White race, and along with it the preservation of the political traditions of the country.” The Mississippi Black Codes similarly restricted land ownership, interracial marriage, and allowed whites to use former slave children as indentured servants, the language of which reminded me of similar acts passed in California in this period relative to Native-Americans. Rushmore G. Horton in his oft-quoted 1867 history book made it clear the war was fought because the Republicans would have ended slavery, and that it was vitally important to prevent white blood from being mongrelized through intermarriage, and to prevent black equality at all costs. Really ugly stuff, and yet his book was being republished by the Daughters of the Confederacy in the 1920’s.
Robert E. Lee, in “The White Sulphur Manifesto” in 1868: “It is true that the people of the South, in common with a large majority of the people of the North and West, are, for obvious reasons, inflexibly opposed to any system of laws that would place the political power of the country in the hands of the negro race.”
Many who wrote about the “negro problem,” espousing white supremacy, excusing lynching, and stoking fears of black men – including Stephen D. Lee in 1899, S.A. Cunningham in 1903 and 1907, John Sharp Williams in 1904, and E.H. Hinton in 1907.
John Rankin, who won 16 terms in congress, in 1925, revising the cause for the war but correctly assessing the victory the South had achieved in its aftermath: “We are all glad that human slavery has disappeared; but the dread of the horrible alternative which some of our opponents would have imposed – that of placing the negro upon terms of social and political equality with the white man – aroused the latent indignation of the Anglo-Saxon South…” and later: “A lost cause! You have won the great cause of white supremacy, by which alone our civilization can hope to endure!”
Strom Thurmond’s address to the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1957, in which he blames northern agitation for stirring up African-Americans, similar to the smears used against carpetbaggers during Reconstruction. “We of the South, and we alone, have cared and provided for the Negroes in our midst. The progress which has been made by that race is a tribute to the efforts of Southerners, and of Southerners alone.” Ha!
Sumter Lowry, stoking fears of the mixing of the races that would result from desegregating schools, particularly as it applies to black men and white women, in 1958: “…if you infuse the blood of fourteen million negroes into the bloodstream of the white American, you breed a mongrel race, neither white nor black, and the history of the world shows that wen a nation becomes mongrelized it dies.”
The summary of the Republican party’s “southern strategy” following the Civils Rights Act, courting white supremacists, which reversed the party’s fortunes in the South to the present day. “As Republican strategist Lee Atwater put it, ‘By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’ – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff.’ It worked. Gradually, the party of Lincoln became the party of Jefferson Davis.” Indeed – and it still is.
Loewen and Sebesta did a fantastic job of assembling a series of documents over most of the history of America, from 1787 to 2008, to illustrate what the Confederacy was all about, the reason for the Civil War, the truth about the era of Reconstruction, and the ugliness of white supremacy in the country that persists to the present day. The documents are in the form of speeches, official resolutions, and publications, and while at times these can be a little dry and at others absolutely infuriating, they have great power in that they are provided verbatim, with full context, and the authors essentially condemn themselves. It debunks the myths that revisionist, neo-confederate historians have successfully implanted into American consciousness, and for that, excerpts should be required reading in high school history courses.
What is often taught instead reveals a rare case where it was the defeated, not the conquerors, who wrote the history which dominated for over a century later, and this book explains how that played out. To be clear, the South seceded for no other reason than slavery and the fear that it would be abolished, and Lincoln’s response, to go to war, was motivated by keeping the Union together, because he believed the entire American experiment with democracy to be at risk. The book is very successful in supporting this statement, and I provide an excerpt in the lengthy detail section below.
The strongest argument in support of secession is perhaps that the Southern states had the sovereign right to withdraw from the Union, even if neo-Confederates were to admit today that the reason for doing so was slavery. However, the text points out that even this isn’t truly legal per the Constitution, for the clause that allowed it in the earlier Articles of Confederation was removed, as Lincoln put it, because no government provides for its own dissolution. Notably, Southern states agreed that secession was not a right in 1814, when New Englanders talked about doing so because of the War of 1812, and Andrew Jackson opposed South Carolina’s threatened secession in 1832.
After the war, Southern Democrats recognized that the war had resolved the question of slavery, but shifted to actively fighting for the cause of white supremacy – and one could argue that in this regard, the Confederates won the war, at least by 1890, because they were successful until the Civil Rights Movement. African-Americans were denied political or economic power through racist legislation and campaigns of terror. History was revised to obscure the cause for the war and to demonize the era of Reconstruction that followed, and the book is successful in providing examples of all of this.
All of this was also reflected in literature; Loewen points out that “The novel dominating the nineteenth century – Uncle Tom’s Cabin – depicts the pathos of slavery and helped end it, while the twentieth-century blockbuster, a product of the Nadir of race relations, laments slavery’s passing as Gone With the Wind.” He also includes passages from GWTW that not reflect white supremacy and stoke fears of black men raping white women, but also get the truth about the war and Reconstruction dead wrong.
In terms of constructive criticism, I think that the editors probably should have pared down content in some places, such as the complete texts of all of the states resolutions for joining the confederacy, and amped it up in others. It has some content on terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and the lynchings and massacres they perpetrated, e.g. at Wilmington, North Carolina in November, 1898, but this should have been expanded on. Similarly, voter suppression is broached, but the degree to which it was practiced – and effective – probably should have been discussed further. I also think the national outrage that followed after serviceman Isaac Woodard Jr. was blinded in a racist attack when he returned home after fighting in WWII, something which helped moved Truman to supporting Civil Rights for blacks and led to the Dixiecrats splintering in 1948, should have gotten a few pages. With all that said, I’m glad the book exists! The truth is painful, but incredibly important to acknowledge, particular as the dots connect to the present day.
The book leaves off in 2010, wondering “if having an African-American in the White House will lead to a new era of race relations that will further marginalize neo-Confederates, or if it will prompt some of the almost 90% of whites in the Deep South who voted against Obama to coalesce, thus breathing new life into the neo-Confederate movement.” Obviously, it was the latter – and it would be nice if Loewen continued to published new, updated editions of this book.
Details
It’s a bit tough to extract and summarize everything this book covers, but a sampler:
John C. Calhoun addresses to the U.S. Senate in 1837 and 1849, stating the inferiority of the black race, and whipping up fears that emancipating blacks would ultimately lead to them ruling over whites. It’s quite similar to the same fears being stoked today, that when whites are in the minority, somehow great chaos and evil will rule over the country.
Alexander Stephens, soon to be Vice President of the Confederacy, addressing the House of Representatives in 1856, stating his views of white supremacy, and finding justification for slavery in the Bible.
The various southern state secession conventions in 1861, which clearly state that preserving slavery was the reason to rebel. Examples: Mississippi’s saying “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery the greatest material interest of the world”, Alabama that “the Black Republican Party” won the recent election, and aimed to “prevent [slavery’s] extension into the common Territories of the United States, and that the power of the Government should be so exercised that slavery in time, should be exterminated”, Texas that “We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment,” that “the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free,” George Williamson, the Louisiana Secession Commissioner, that “Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern Confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery.” There are many others.
The Constitution of the Confederate States of America from 1861, which among other things states that citizens of each State “…shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired,” and then later “In all such [new] territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress.” In other words, it did not allow existing or new potential Confederate states to abolish slavery, which, along with the incredibly strong Federal government that the Confederacy instituted, was completely at odds with the idea of “States’ rights”
Alexander Stephens in his speech, “African Slavery: The Corner-Stone of the Southern Confederacy” in 1861: “Our new government is founded upon…the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery – subordination to the superior race – is his natural and moral condition.”
The three national flags used by the Confederacy over the course of its existence are not actually the one now commonly associated with it; that happened when Strom Thurmond made a point of displaying the battle flag of the Army of North Virginia in 1948, nearly a hundred years after the war. As newspaper editor William T. Thompson put it, the 2nd National Confederate flag was mostly white on purpose, because, as he put it, “As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.”
In terms of African-Americans fighting in the war, the Confederate Congress passing an act in response to the Emancipation Proclamation that sentenced Union black soldiers and any white officers commanding them to death if they were captured. The cruelty officers like Nathan Bedford Forrest were guilty of would be considered crimes against humanity – and he was lionized with statues over a century later, e.g. near Nashville in 1998 and countless others. Of the Fort Pillow Massacre in 1864, Loewen writes that “Soldiers testified before the resulting congressional inquiry that Confederates buried some wounded soldiers alive and crucified other by nailing them onto tent frames and then setting the tents afire.” One Confederate sergeant wrote this a week afterwards: “The slaughter was awful – words cannot describe the scene. The poor deluded Negroes would run up to our men, fall upon their knees, and with uplifted hands scream for mercy, but they were ordered to their feet and then shot down.”
As for slaves fighting for the South, it was invented as part of the whole “lost cause” mythology. General Patrick Cleburne floated a proposal for this in Jan. 1864, and it was rejected as “revolting,” “incendiary,” and “treasonous.” A year later, Robert E. Lee was desperate, and made a more formal request, which met with similar stiff resistance. Here’s a quote from a Macon Telegraph editorial in reply, which also reinforces the reason for the war: “It would be constantly kept in view, though all the bloody phases and terrible epochs of this relentless war, that slavery was the casus belli – that the principle of State Sovereignty, and its sequence, the right of secession, were important to the South principally, or solely as the armor that encased her particular institution – and that every life that has been lost in this struggle was an offering on the altar of African Slavery. In light of this great and solemn truth, is it not a matter of wonder and astonishment, that Southern men should gravely propose to arm, and as a necessary consequence, emancipate all the able-bodied slaves in the Confederacy … The adoption of this policy would be a foul wrong to our departed heroes who have fallen in its defense.” Howell Cobb and J.H. Stringfellow were similar voices against it, the former writing “You can’t keep white and black troops together, and you can’t trust negroes by themselves.” In March, 1865 an act was passed to use slaves as troops without emancipating them (for that would have been against the CSA Constitution) and two companies were recruited in Richmond, but they never saw action, because the war was over just two months later, in May.
Here’s what secessionist Edward A. Pollard wrote in his 1868 book about the lost cause: “the true question which the war involved, and which it merely liberated for greater breadth of controversy, was the supremacy of the White race, and along with it the preservation of the political traditions of the country.” The Mississippi Black Codes similarly restricted land ownership, interracial marriage, and allowed whites to use former slave children as indentured servants, the language of which reminded me of similar acts passed in California in this period relative to Native-Americans. Rushmore G. Horton in his oft-quoted 1867 history book made it clear the war was fought because the Republicans would have ended slavery, and that it was vitally important to prevent white blood from being mongrelized through intermarriage, and to prevent black equality at all costs. Really ugly stuff, and yet his book was being republished by the Daughters of the Confederacy in the 1920’s.
Robert E. Lee, in “The White Sulphur Manifesto” in 1868: “It is true that the people of the South, in common with a large majority of the people of the North and West, are, for obvious reasons, inflexibly opposed to any system of laws that would place the political power of the country in the hands of the negro race.”
Many who wrote about the “negro problem,” espousing white supremacy, excusing lynching, and stoking fears of black men – including Stephen D. Lee in 1899, S.A. Cunningham in 1903 and 1907, John Sharp Williams in 1904, and E.H. Hinton in 1907.
John Rankin, who won 16 terms in congress, in 1925, revising the cause for the war but correctly assessing the victory the South had achieved in its aftermath: “We are all glad that human slavery has disappeared; but the dread of the horrible alternative which some of our opponents would have imposed – that of placing the negro upon terms of social and political equality with the white man – aroused the latent indignation of the Anglo-Saxon South…” and later: “A lost cause! You have won the great cause of white supremacy, by which alone our civilization can hope to endure!”
Strom Thurmond’s address to the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1957, in which he blames northern agitation for stirring up African-Americans, similar to the smears used against carpetbaggers during Reconstruction. “We of the South, and we alone, have cared and provided for the Negroes in our midst. The progress which has been made by that race is a tribute to the efforts of Southerners, and of Southerners alone.” Ha!
Sumter Lowry, stoking fears of the mixing of the races that would result from desegregating schools, particularly as it applies to black men and white women, in 1958: “…if you infuse the blood of fourteen million negroes into the bloodstream of the white American, you breed a mongrel race, neither white nor black, and the history of the world shows that wen a nation becomes mongrelized it dies.”
The summary of the Republican party’s “southern strategy” following the Civils Rights Act, courting white supremacists, which reversed the party’s fortunes in the South to the present day. “As Republican strategist Lee Atwater put it, ‘By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’ – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff.’ It worked. Gradually, the party of Lincoln became the party of Jefferson Davis.” Indeed – and it still is.
July 8, 2020
I've learned a lot in the past few weeks. I've learned that Twitter can actually be a real source for useful information[1]. I've learned that police across the country appear to have been largely oblivious to the idea that if police brutalize protestors protesting against police brutality, this will not help the police's case [2]. I've noticed a lot of things I don't know.
Amid the wave of pressure for governments and organizations to respond to the protests calling for society to address systemic racism, my Florida hometown announced that it would no longer allow Confederate flags to be displayed (on clothes, cars, any form of decoration, etc.) within the district's public schools. This provoked outrage among some factions and a fair amount of discussion in the local paper. While I believed that the flag was a racist symbol, I realized I didn't have a very deep understanding of its history.
Here's what I remember learning about the Civil War in school: the South seceded because Lincoln wanted to end slavery, they fought some battles, Lincoln signed the Emancipation proclamation to keep England from siding with the South, the North wins, slavery is outlawed, President Andrew Johnson wanted to take a gradual approach to the changes in the South, he was impeached, the end. Now a pit stop on Teddy Roosevelt before moving on to World War I. Maybe we’ll mention that weird president who was elected twice but not in a row sometime in between there. Sounds like the whole story, right?
That's not far from where I started before reading this book. Then I spent two days completely absorbed. This is an incredible read, both for novices on this subject like me and for experienced students of history. Not only does it provide an expansive overview of the events preceding and following the Civil War, it develops some valuable conceptions of how ideas and beliefs evolve and spread.
It's a thorough history of the Confederacy, but it's also a history of *ideas* about the Confederacy. This is a selection of critical historical documents dating from 1787 to 2008, paired with clear interpretive analysis of the eras preceding and following the Civil War. Loewen's writing style combines authority with familiarity. He's very clear and direct in his interpretations. The ability to directly reference hard evidence in the form of the included documents sets this book apart.
I had two great history classes in high school. In both we spent time learning to evaluate both primary documents and different historians' interpretations of history. We learned for the first time that history wasn't just about knowing "what happened" but about figuring out how to make sense of what happened. How do people distill a message from the noise of the multitudes of events happening at any given time? How do you decide what stories mattered? And from which perspective? What’s missing?
Reading this book brought me back to those experiences.
Loewen is essentially focused on two main points: the South seceded in order to continue slavery, explicitly, full stop; and its heirs have been trying to cover it up ever since while explicitly promoting white supremacy (in their own words). "White supremacy" gets thrown around a little bit these days, but these guys were the OG white supremacy.
The documents recording states’ declarations of secession, changes made to the Confederate version of the Constitution (adding a right to slavery and actually using the word “slave”), and other communications make "state's rights" baloney.[3]
But where did the idea that the Civil War was about states' rights come from? This is arguably even more compelling. The historical documents trace both the strategizing and publication of evolving narratives [4] about the Confederacy directly to ex-Confederates who rebranded themselves as white supremacists (yes, this was actually a BETTER look immediately after the South lost the war). I recognized many of the claims I heard from flag defenders in my hometown ("hate not heritage", "Rebel flag") in documents showing they originated from propaganda campaigns by actively white supremacist organizations.
THE FLAG. About the flag.
1) It was never the flag of the Confederate States of America. It was a battle flag used by some of its armies.
2) Even so, the Confederacy only lasted 4 years and some change.
3) The second version of the Confederate flag used the battle flag as a corner square on a white background. The man who suggested the design explained, “As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.”
4) The flag re-emerged in the 20th century associated with intimidation, white supremacy, and anti-civil rights causes. In 1948 when the Dixiecrats nominated pro-segregation Strom Thurmond in response to Democrat Harry S Truman supporting civil rights, Confederate flags were flown prominently at his convention and afterward surged in popularity. In 1954 the White Citizens Councils formed in opposition to the Brown v. Board decision requiring schools to de-segregate; they used the Confederate flag in their logo along with the words "RACIAL INTEGRITY." They operated intimidation campaigns against black voters and black families who integrated schools. It was displayed prominently in so-called “Sundown Towns” where black people were not allowed to stay after dark.
5) It also showed up in completely unrelated contexts like international separatist movements. In 1999 during a conflict between white students and Mexican students in a former sundown town in Wisconsin, the white students chose Confederate flags to wear in response.
6) “Heritage not hate” emerged as a slogan in 1994. It originated with Charles Lunsford, a member of the white supremacist organization the Council of Conservative Citizens.[5]
I am increasingly of the impression that slavery, while deeply painful and barbaric, was not the worst or most damaging barrier put against black people in American society. Rather, it was what happened *after* slavery that was even more horrific. And critically, this is the part of the story that is so frequently left out! One of the broad themes that developed while reading these documents (and, separately, researching the history of the Democratic and Republican parties' political swing dancing [6]) is that ideas often spread by people attempting to make sense of what they have done or seen rather than by being convinced of a position before taking action. Another vector for idea spreading is through allies or in opposition to enemies -- groups frequently take on ideas by association rather than due to their own interests.
Several examples of cases like this emerge throughout the book. One was how African enslavement and white supremacy emerged as mutually reinforcing concepts [7]. Ironically, another of the most harmful was after slavery ended. During Reconstruction and the period after it, the collected documents show white supremacists intended to keep black people in a position “as near to the condition of slavery as possible" while simultaneously waging campaigns of terroristic intimidation [8] and nearly immediate historical re-narrating [9].
Even under these conditions, black people voted more than white voters and were elected to interracial state and local governments--only to be terrorized out of these positions by the KKK and other white rioters.[10] When the North decided it would stop enforcing equality barely ten years after the Civil War ended, Loewen writes: “Now the white South was free to institutionalize white supremacy. Confederates (and neo-Confederates) had won the long struggle they had lost, briefly, during the Civil War and Reconstruction.” (The book doesn’t include anything about the New Deal, but it is well established that national social policies were discriminatory against black people as well [11].)
By not telling the details of this story--by making the story of slavery end simply with freedom, or with oppression turned on white people during Reconstruction--white supremacists successfully pushed a narrative that black people who were struggling to survive had failed on their own merits. White people in the North *and* South believed this explained what they could see (instead of what they intentionally were not shown) and contemporaries report racist sentiments increasing sharply[12].
This kind of thinking has persisted ever since. It is in the echoes of people who say "slavery was 150 years ago! It doesn't matter today!" which implies that the social, economic, educational, and health disparities that exist between black and white people in the United States in 2020 are NOT the result of the legacies of slavery. I am inclined to agree, but not for the same reasons. THEIR reasons would be biological inferiority, "black culture", or personal failings; I would suggest that the comprehensive and unrelenting attacks on black people have never allowed for the kind of meritocratic conditions this kind of thinking presumes. It continues today. Neighborhoods and schools are barely less segregated than they were under legally enforced segregation. Incarceration has been wielded as a tool of selective enforcement and punishment, with wide-reaching social consequences. The Voting Rights Act was gutted in 2013 and states immediately started restricting voting[13].
Actions are powerful, but the ideas for understanding those actions may be even more powerful. Ideas can shape the actions of the mass of people.
Minor complaint: I’d like him to compile another book documenting the actions and ideas opposing white supremacists and/or a selection documenting strains of racism in the north. From the Republican party getting founded to oppose slavery [6!] to Northern states deciding early to eliminate slavery, to Congressional discussions around the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, to speeches and texts by the black politicians elected during Reconstruction, to the Republican leadership deciding to abandon the cause of black equality, I want to read more of the story.
Footnotes
[1] https://twitter.com/michaelharriot
[2] https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/stat...
[3] SC, MS, FL, AL, TX, LA, AK, VA, TN secession declarations state that they are seceding because they believe slavery will not be allowed to continue. North Carolina’s statement blamed only Lincoln’s request for soldiers to support the Union army.
[4] Loewen takes particular interest in a line of historical revision that emerged in the mid-1990s. Neo-Confederate organizations began claiming that black soldiers fought for the Confederacy in large numbers, as support for the theory that the Confederacy wasn't about racism. This is contradicted by many Confederate officers reporting slaves escaped in droves to join the Union army. Ironically, one contributor to the South's losing the war may have been their *refusal* to conscript black soldiers. When Confederate generals including Robert E Lee suggested that they use black soldiers, the Confederacy's response was unequivocal: "The day you make soldiers of [negroes] is the beginning of the end of the revolution. If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong--but they won't make good soldiers." About three months before surrendering, Lee writes to the Confederate leadership that he believes the South will lose if it does not begin to conscript slaves, noting that much of the Northern advantage comes from the high number of black soldiers they have enlisted. Lee suggests that the only way for the South to win the war would be to end slavery and use black men in the army. About three weeks before Lee surrenders, the leadership gives in and announces that they will allow slave-owners to send their slaves to serve in the army, without ending their enslavement. One interpretation of this arithmetic is that the white supremacist country[14] was defeated by an army whose strategic advantage was its black soldiers. Nonetheless, this neo-Confederate theory has wormed its way into mainstream discussion, including being repeated by the Governor of Georgia in a 2008 speech opening the state's Confederacy History Month.[15]
[5] https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-ha...
[6] https://www.livescience.com/34241-dem...
While the story of the Democrats’ and Republicans’ histories is complex, one summary is that their rotating platforms reflected the evolving interests of their evolving constituencies.
[7] Loewen outlines that the practice of African enslavement led to beliefs of white superiority to the Africans, which itself justified that slavery was the African’s appropriate condition. He quotes Montesquieu saying in 1748: “It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures to be men, because, allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we are not Christian.”
[8] An 1865 letter shortly after the war discusses strategies to address "the negro discipline and negro labor questions," outlining that freed slaves "should be kept as near to the condition of slavery as possible." The writer believes that the Johnson administration will support their suggestions. The 1865 Mississippi laws known as the "Black Codes" work to those precise ends. Other documents show that this pattern of suppression was unrelenting including intimidation, voting restrictions, riots, lynchings, and written subterfuge.
[9] In 1867, two years after the end of the war, Southern history-tellers were already spinning a new story of the war that was not based on slavery. The originator of the Confederate "Lost Cause" legacy wrote that "the true question which the war involved, and which it merely liberated for breath of controversy, was the supremacy of the White race..."
[10] Wilmington riots, also: https://twitter.com/michaelharriot/st...
[11] New Deal/FHA/GI Bill discrimination
[12] Anti-immigrant, anti-Indian, and pro-imperial sentiments were on the rise, as well as anti-black sentiment among growing European immigrant communities in the North who Republicans wanted to win over, all of which were mutually reinforcing sentiments.
[13] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1...
[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corners...
[15] The U.S. Naturalization Test taken to obtain citizenship asks, “What problems led to the Civil War?” and allows the answers: slavery, economic problems, or states’ rights. Loewen provides this as an example of the degree to which neo-Confederate thought has gone mainstream.
Amid the wave of pressure for governments and organizations to respond to the protests calling for society to address systemic racism, my Florida hometown announced that it would no longer allow Confederate flags to be displayed (on clothes, cars, any form of decoration, etc.) within the district's public schools. This provoked outrage among some factions and a fair amount of discussion in the local paper. While I believed that the flag was a racist symbol, I realized I didn't have a very deep understanding of its history.
Here's what I remember learning about the Civil War in school: the South seceded because Lincoln wanted to end slavery, they fought some battles, Lincoln signed the Emancipation proclamation to keep England from siding with the South, the North wins, slavery is outlawed, President Andrew Johnson wanted to take a gradual approach to the changes in the South, he was impeached, the end. Now a pit stop on Teddy Roosevelt before moving on to World War I. Maybe we’ll mention that weird president who was elected twice but not in a row sometime in between there. Sounds like the whole story, right?
That's not far from where I started before reading this book. Then I spent two days completely absorbed. This is an incredible read, both for novices on this subject like me and for experienced students of history. Not only does it provide an expansive overview of the events preceding and following the Civil War, it develops some valuable conceptions of how ideas and beliefs evolve and spread.
It's a thorough history of the Confederacy, but it's also a history of *ideas* about the Confederacy. This is a selection of critical historical documents dating from 1787 to 2008, paired with clear interpretive analysis of the eras preceding and following the Civil War. Loewen's writing style combines authority with familiarity. He's very clear and direct in his interpretations. The ability to directly reference hard evidence in the form of the included documents sets this book apart.
I had two great history classes in high school. In both we spent time learning to evaluate both primary documents and different historians' interpretations of history. We learned for the first time that history wasn't just about knowing "what happened" but about figuring out how to make sense of what happened. How do people distill a message from the noise of the multitudes of events happening at any given time? How do you decide what stories mattered? And from which perspective? What’s missing?
Reading this book brought me back to those experiences.
Loewen is essentially focused on two main points: the South seceded in order to continue slavery, explicitly, full stop; and its heirs have been trying to cover it up ever since while explicitly promoting white supremacy (in their own words). "White supremacy" gets thrown around a little bit these days, but these guys were the OG white supremacy.
The documents recording states’ declarations of secession, changes made to the Confederate version of the Constitution (adding a right to slavery and actually using the word “slave”), and other communications make "state's rights" baloney.[3]
But where did the idea that the Civil War was about states' rights come from? This is arguably even more compelling. The historical documents trace both the strategizing and publication of evolving narratives [4] about the Confederacy directly to ex-Confederates who rebranded themselves as white supremacists (yes, this was actually a BETTER look immediately after the South lost the war). I recognized many of the claims I heard from flag defenders in my hometown ("hate not heritage", "Rebel flag") in documents showing they originated from propaganda campaigns by actively white supremacist organizations.
THE FLAG. About the flag.
1) It was never the flag of the Confederate States of America. It was a battle flag used by some of its armies.
2) Even so, the Confederacy only lasted 4 years and some change.
3) The second version of the Confederate flag used the battle flag as a corner square on a white background. The man who suggested the design explained, “As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.”
4) The flag re-emerged in the 20th century associated with intimidation, white supremacy, and anti-civil rights causes. In 1948 when the Dixiecrats nominated pro-segregation Strom Thurmond in response to Democrat Harry S Truman supporting civil rights, Confederate flags were flown prominently at his convention and afterward surged in popularity. In 1954 the White Citizens Councils formed in opposition to the Brown v. Board decision requiring schools to de-segregate; they used the Confederate flag in their logo along with the words "RACIAL INTEGRITY." They operated intimidation campaigns against black voters and black families who integrated schools. It was displayed prominently in so-called “Sundown Towns” where black people were not allowed to stay after dark.
5) It also showed up in completely unrelated contexts like international separatist movements. In 1999 during a conflict between white students and Mexican students in a former sundown town in Wisconsin, the white students chose Confederate flags to wear in response.
6) “Heritage not hate” emerged as a slogan in 1994. It originated with Charles Lunsford, a member of the white supremacist organization the Council of Conservative Citizens.[5]
I am increasingly of the impression that slavery, while deeply painful and barbaric, was not the worst or most damaging barrier put against black people in American society. Rather, it was what happened *after* slavery that was even more horrific. And critically, this is the part of the story that is so frequently left out! One of the broad themes that developed while reading these documents (and, separately, researching the history of the Democratic and Republican parties' political swing dancing [6]) is that ideas often spread by people attempting to make sense of what they have done or seen rather than by being convinced of a position before taking action. Another vector for idea spreading is through allies or in opposition to enemies -- groups frequently take on ideas by association rather than due to their own interests.
Several examples of cases like this emerge throughout the book. One was how African enslavement and white supremacy emerged as mutually reinforcing concepts [7]. Ironically, another of the most harmful was after slavery ended. During Reconstruction and the period after it, the collected documents show white supremacists intended to keep black people in a position “as near to the condition of slavery as possible" while simultaneously waging campaigns of terroristic intimidation [8] and nearly immediate historical re-narrating [9].
Even under these conditions, black people voted more than white voters and were elected to interracial state and local governments--only to be terrorized out of these positions by the KKK and other white rioters.[10] When the North decided it would stop enforcing equality barely ten years after the Civil War ended, Loewen writes: “Now the white South was free to institutionalize white supremacy. Confederates (and neo-Confederates) had won the long struggle they had lost, briefly, during the Civil War and Reconstruction.” (The book doesn’t include anything about the New Deal, but it is well established that national social policies were discriminatory against black people as well [11].)
By not telling the details of this story--by making the story of slavery end simply with freedom, or with oppression turned on white people during Reconstruction--white supremacists successfully pushed a narrative that black people who were struggling to survive had failed on their own merits. White people in the North *and* South believed this explained what they could see (instead of what they intentionally were not shown) and contemporaries report racist sentiments increasing sharply[12].
This kind of thinking has persisted ever since. It is in the echoes of people who say "slavery was 150 years ago! It doesn't matter today!" which implies that the social, economic, educational, and health disparities that exist between black and white people in the United States in 2020 are NOT the result of the legacies of slavery. I am inclined to agree, but not for the same reasons. THEIR reasons would be biological inferiority, "black culture", or personal failings; I would suggest that the comprehensive and unrelenting attacks on black people have never allowed for the kind of meritocratic conditions this kind of thinking presumes. It continues today. Neighborhoods and schools are barely less segregated than they were under legally enforced segregation. Incarceration has been wielded as a tool of selective enforcement and punishment, with wide-reaching social consequences. The Voting Rights Act was gutted in 2013 and states immediately started restricting voting[13].
Actions are powerful, but the ideas for understanding those actions may be even more powerful. Ideas can shape the actions of the mass of people.
Minor complaint: I’d like him to compile another book documenting the actions and ideas opposing white supremacists and/or a selection documenting strains of racism in the north. From the Republican party getting founded to oppose slavery [6!] to Northern states deciding early to eliminate slavery, to Congressional discussions around the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, to speeches and texts by the black politicians elected during Reconstruction, to the Republican leadership deciding to abandon the cause of black equality, I want to read more of the story.
Footnotes
[1] https://twitter.com/michaelharriot
[2] https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/stat...
[3] SC, MS, FL, AL, TX, LA, AK, VA, TN secession declarations state that they are seceding because they believe slavery will not be allowed to continue. North Carolina’s statement blamed only Lincoln’s request for soldiers to support the Union army.
[4] Loewen takes particular interest in a line of historical revision that emerged in the mid-1990s. Neo-Confederate organizations began claiming that black soldiers fought for the Confederacy in large numbers, as support for the theory that the Confederacy wasn't about racism. This is contradicted by many Confederate officers reporting slaves escaped in droves to join the Union army. Ironically, one contributor to the South's losing the war may have been their *refusal* to conscript black soldiers. When Confederate generals including Robert E Lee suggested that they use black soldiers, the Confederacy's response was unequivocal: "The day you make soldiers of [negroes] is the beginning of the end of the revolution. If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong--but they won't make good soldiers." About three months before surrendering, Lee writes to the Confederate leadership that he believes the South will lose if it does not begin to conscript slaves, noting that much of the Northern advantage comes from the high number of black soldiers they have enlisted. Lee suggests that the only way for the South to win the war would be to end slavery and use black men in the army. About three weeks before Lee surrenders, the leadership gives in and announces that they will allow slave-owners to send their slaves to serve in the army, without ending their enslavement. One interpretation of this arithmetic is that the white supremacist country[14] was defeated by an army whose strategic advantage was its black soldiers. Nonetheless, this neo-Confederate theory has wormed its way into mainstream discussion, including being repeated by the Governor of Georgia in a 2008 speech opening the state's Confederacy History Month.[15]
[5] https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-ha...
[6] https://www.livescience.com/34241-dem...
While the story of the Democrats’ and Republicans’ histories is complex, one summary is that their rotating platforms reflected the evolving interests of their evolving constituencies.
[7] Loewen outlines that the practice of African enslavement led to beliefs of white superiority to the Africans, which itself justified that slavery was the African’s appropriate condition. He quotes Montesquieu saying in 1748: “It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures to be men, because, allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we are not Christian.”
[8] An 1865 letter shortly after the war discusses strategies to address "the negro discipline and negro labor questions," outlining that freed slaves "should be kept as near to the condition of slavery as possible." The writer believes that the Johnson administration will support their suggestions. The 1865 Mississippi laws known as the "Black Codes" work to those precise ends. Other documents show that this pattern of suppression was unrelenting including intimidation, voting restrictions, riots, lynchings, and written subterfuge.
[9] In 1867, two years after the end of the war, Southern history-tellers were already spinning a new story of the war that was not based on slavery. The originator of the Confederate "Lost Cause" legacy wrote that "the true question which the war involved, and which it merely liberated for breath of controversy, was the supremacy of the White race..."
[10] Wilmington riots, also: https://twitter.com/michaelharriot/st...
[11] New Deal/FHA/GI Bill discrimination
[12] Anti-immigrant, anti-Indian, and pro-imperial sentiments were on the rise, as well as anti-black sentiment among growing European immigrant communities in the North who Republicans wanted to win over, all of which were mutually reinforcing sentiments.
[13] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1...
[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corners...
[15] The U.S. Naturalization Test taken to obtain citizenship asks, “What problems led to the Civil War?” and allows the answers: slavery, economic problems, or states’ rights. Loewen provides this as an example of the degree to which neo-Confederate thought has gone mainstream.
July 28, 2019
I think a lot of people don't want to read because they might find out what they believe is wrong.
June 24, 2019
Fascinating collection of documents covering almost 200 years of American history. The words of Confederate leaders in the 19th century are some of the most troubling in this book, but even those who spoke during the days of the reconstruction Nadir and civil rights movements are disturbing as well. My complaint would be if some of the documents are so heavily edited for space reasons that they might be less authoritative than they could be.
February 24, 2017
A must have source for material relating to the Civil War. I did not technically read this as it a collection of documents but it will make a very welcome addition as a reference source. Very convincingly makes the case that the Civil War was about slavery and that all other arguments are obfuscations of this.
October 10, 2020
This is not light reading. However, for anyone interested in the historical continuum of how myths these we take as fact are created - in this case surrounding the Civil War - it is a mind bending read.
December 30, 2019
Editors James W. Loewen and Edward H. Sebesta use the Confederates' own documents to show that the reason for their secession was slavery. In document after document, the secessionists pointed out the same grievances: the northerners are preventing the enforcement of fugitive slave laws; slave owners are not allowed to move their "property" into northern states or new territories.
The tragedy of the founding of the United States is the inclusion of slavery in the Constitution. When world sentiment began to turn against the institution of slavery, and American abolitionists started their campaigns, southern slave owners felt victimized by a bait and switch.
The neo-Conservatives referred to in this book are the revisionist historians who began to claim, during and after Reconstruction, that slavery was not the reason for secession; that states' rights, or unfair tariffs or taxation, among other things, were the reasons for secession. One thing the neo-Confederates have not let go of is their belief in white supremacy: slavery was to the benefit of childlike negroes, who were incapable of governing themselves.
Since the end of Reconstruction, southern states have, through various means, been doing their best to disenfranchise blacks, and we can better comprehend the behavior of such people as Mitch McConnell, who see the enfranchisement of blacks as a "power grab." This subset of southern whites feel that they are victims of the federal government's, liberals', and others' attempts to "destroy their culture, belief system, way of life." That belief system is, namely, a racial hierarchy with whites at the top.
The tragedy of the founding of the United States is the inclusion of slavery in the Constitution. When world sentiment began to turn against the institution of slavery, and American abolitionists started their campaigns, southern slave owners felt victimized by a bait and switch.
The neo-Conservatives referred to in this book are the revisionist historians who began to claim, during and after Reconstruction, that slavery was not the reason for secession; that states' rights, or unfair tariffs or taxation, among other things, were the reasons for secession. One thing the neo-Confederates have not let go of is their belief in white supremacy: slavery was to the benefit of childlike negroes, who were incapable of governing themselves.
Since the end of Reconstruction, southern states have, through various means, been doing their best to disenfranchise blacks, and we can better comprehend the behavior of such people as Mitch McConnell, who see the enfranchisement of blacks as a "power grab." This subset of southern whites feel that they are victims of the federal government's, liberals', and others' attempts to "destroy their culture, belief system, way of life." That belief system is, namely, a racial hierarchy with whites at the top.
August 15, 2021
The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader is a book that aims to rectify the misconceptions about the Civil War. But more important, it showcases a vast historiography and the shifting of narratives throughout time by Neo-Confederates.
To set it clear, there are many misconceptions about the Civil War, from obscuring the reasons to why the states who were in the Confederacy seceded from the Union, to details about who fought in the Civil War, and what Reconstruction was. The book aims to attack these misconceptions by using the primary documents themselves. It is a good array of primary documents from various eras:
Pre-Civil War (1787-1860)
Secession (1859-1861)
The Civil War (1861-1865)
Reconstruction (1866-1890)
The Nadir of Race Relations (1890-1940)
Civil Rights Era (1940-)
Through these eras the reader will begin to see how these narratives change. The Confederate states ultimately existed to defend the idea of slavery and white supremacy, but the further you get from the Civil War (i.e Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Era) we see writers from those times completely mystifying the whole era.
For example, many of the documents shown during Reconstruction tried to mystify that slavery was the main cause. Many writers during the Civil Rights era even tried to state that African-Americans fought with the Confederacy (even though they were not allowed to).
Overall it is a fantastic collection of documents for the historian, teacher or amateur lay-man; and really shows how history can be mystified and propagandized.
To set it clear, there are many misconceptions about the Civil War, from obscuring the reasons to why the states who were in the Confederacy seceded from the Union, to details about who fought in the Civil War, and what Reconstruction was. The book aims to attack these misconceptions by using the primary documents themselves. It is a good array of primary documents from various eras:
Pre-Civil War (1787-1860)
Secession (1859-1861)
The Civil War (1861-1865)
Reconstruction (1866-1890)
The Nadir of Race Relations (1890-1940)
Civil Rights Era (1940-)
Through these eras the reader will begin to see how these narratives change. The Confederate states ultimately existed to defend the idea of slavery and white supremacy, but the further you get from the Civil War (i.e Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Era) we see writers from those times completely mystifying the whole era.
For example, many of the documents shown during Reconstruction tried to mystify that slavery was the main cause. Many writers during the Civil Rights era even tried to state that African-Americans fought with the Confederacy (even though they were not allowed to).
Overall it is a fantastic collection of documents for the historian, teacher or amateur lay-man; and really shows how history can be mystified and propagandized.
April 18, 2023
“Neo-Confederates fight to maintain their ancestors’ honor, which they do by obfuscating why their ancestors fought.” It’s understandable that people want to believe that great-great-uncle Josiah was a good person who has been misrepresented and misunderstood. But as Christ told his followers, “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Clinging to a lie is not healthy, no matter how comforting that lie may be.
“They also fight to save ‘our belief system and our way of life,’ in Frank Conner’s words – in short, to perpetuate the South’s racial hierarchy… No such ongoing struggle attaches to, say, World War I, which helps explain why no ‘Sons of WWI Veterans’ exists.”
So what do we DO? There’s a little about this, but not much, which is what keeps it at 4 stars rather than 5. Here’s what the editors offer:
“Justice in the present helps prompt a new willingness to write the truth about the past.” The example given is of reparations paid to survivors of the internment camps that Japanese-Americans were sent to during WWII, and to black former residents of the town of Rosewood, Florida, who were forcibly exiled in 1923. (Note: look into ‘Like Judgment Day’ by Michael D’Orso.)
However, there is no suggestion of how we can go about making reparations for generations of oppression. It’s difficult to even imagine where to begin.
“They also fight to save ‘our belief system and our way of life,’ in Frank Conner’s words – in short, to perpetuate the South’s racial hierarchy… No such ongoing struggle attaches to, say, World War I, which helps explain why no ‘Sons of WWI Veterans’ exists.”
So what do we DO? There’s a little about this, but not much, which is what keeps it at 4 stars rather than 5. Here’s what the editors offer:
“Justice in the present helps prompt a new willingness to write the truth about the past.” The example given is of reparations paid to survivors of the internment camps that Japanese-Americans were sent to during WWII, and to black former residents of the town of Rosewood, Florida, who were forcibly exiled in 1923. (Note: look into ‘Like Judgment Day’ by Michael D’Orso.)
However, there is no suggestion of how we can go about making reparations for generations of oppression. It’s difficult to even imagine where to begin.
Read
June 19, 2020What a great experience, reading this book! It took me months, but I'm way better informed now. It has the source documents to support everything it says. Scholars who wish to expand their knowledge of history should appreciate how well written and sourced this book is. I learned way more than from my textbooks used in public education through a graduate degree. It's not for the faint of heart or for those who still mourn that the South was not victorious in the US Civil War. I am not in that camp.
November 19, 2022
This book is most excellent and would be a revelation to most, so it's definitely recommended. I must admit though that much of this was not new to me as a few years ago I read Charles Dew's excellent Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War. For me, major eye opener in terms of details, specifics and evidence provided. I don't know if one would need to read both, but you can't go wrong with either and as I like to be thorough, for people such as me, I'd go ahead and read both.
May 5, 2021
There is nothing like reading source documents. And the insights that Loewen threw in, so perfect. Eye-opening reads. We seek to not repeat history or at least learn from history, but the parallels between the era in this book and recent rhetoric and political actions are stark. We need to understand what really happened and not just the distorted re-telling of history.
September 20, 2020
Excellent collection of primary resources for those that want to understand a bit more behind the cult of the Lost Cause. Especially good for those of us that grew up in that culture and are relearning history without a biased lens.
July 2, 2021
Not gonna lie. It’s hard to get through. Painful reading. Academic in many was. Def not pleasure reading. But lays to waste any notion that the civil war was fought over anything else other than slavery. And makes the South look mighty bad.
October 25, 2021
I sure do hate me some confederates. Sort of a bummer they've never been crushed here.
(There's a line in here about Obama becoming president, and how it remains to be seen what that'll do to just out and out racism. Turns out, we didn't get that post-racial utopia!!)
(There's a line in here about Obama becoming president, and how it remains to be seen what that'll do to just out and out racism. Turns out, we didn't get that post-racial utopia!!)
December 17, 2021
An excellent treatment of the primary sources, well-organized in such a way as to allow the reader just enough context to understand. A critical read for anyone trying to understand US History and current events.
January 7, 2020
This is a collection of primary documents that should be on everyone's shelf, especially since distortions about the causes of the Civil War and its aftermath continue to this day.
Want to read
June 21, 2021Check this out soon and study
October 11, 2023
A collection of historical primary documents showing the racist history of why we entered the Civil War (can we please stop saying "State's Rights" is the answer????).
July 19, 2021
Absolutely indispensable. Essential reading for all American educators, and insightful and foreboding for readers of every kind.
Want to read
September 21, 2011I won this in a raffle at the Lincoln Group dinner tonight. It looks very interesting.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews