Learn the Truth

There is so much disinformation, distorted history and down right lies being told about the Confederacy, you need to constantly studying and learning so when confronted by a misguided and ignorant detractor you can explain to them the TRUTH. It probably won't make a difference, but you should always be ready with an answer. This page is dedicated to the truth history of the Confederate States of America.

It's Time to Dump Dixie!

Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast believes “It’s Time to Dump Dixie.” Please do. He also thinks that there may be a point in the future when the South should have its independence. Hallelujah, but we tried that once and were forced to keep company with our “kind” neighbors to the North, those like Tomasky who call the South, “one big nuclear waste site of choleric, and extremely racialized, resentment.” Tomasky, by the way admits he was born in West Virginia, yet laments it “was not a Southern state when I was growing up but culturally is one now.” You see, according to Tomasky, the South lacks “tolerance, compassion, civic decency, trans-racial community, [and] the crucial secular values on which this country was founded….” Translation: America used to be a great progressive wonderland of democracy and equality, but evil Southerners ruined it! Better to just write off Dixie than try to convert them, for, as we all know, the North is the bastion of all things good and noble, the shining city upon a hill for the world to emulate.

Tomasky suffers from a common syndrome known as Yankee Self-Righteous Delusional Disorder (YSRDD). It can be seen in most major metropolitan areas in the North and heard on many nationally syndicated radio and television programs, particularly those that lean Left. You can also find it in Northern dominated tales of their moral and intellectual superiority. See, for example, any major collection of American literature or art. But are the invectives that drip from Tomasky’s pen true? After all, one would think with all the hand-wringing over the problematic South there must be something to the progressive narrative of the region.

Let’s start with Tomasky’s first claim that the South lacks “tolerance” and “trans-racial” communities. According to a study by professors John Logan and Brian Stults, only eight of the top twenty-five most racially segregated cities in the United States are in the South, and that includes Miami and St. Louis, two cities that Tomasky considers Northern and Western. Remove those, and nineteen of the most racially segregated cities are found in the North, including Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Detroit. Progress. Perhaps us racist Southerners should look to emulate our good brothers to the North. Examples of modern, progressive meccas of racial harmony abound north of the Mason-Dixon. Probably as a result of YSRDD Tomasky conveniently forgets that the nastiest and most violent of all the race riots of the twentieth century took place in Northern cities. And he probably doesn’t know—or doesn’t care to know—that according to the Christian Science Monitor, black Americans are moving back to the South in large numbers for “economic and cultural” reasons. So much for the South as a hostile, segregated, cultural wasteland of America.

What about civic decency? I am not sure of Tomasky’s definition, but this would generally include good manners, hospitality, and charity. Conde Nast Traveler recently released its annual survey of the friendliest cities in America, and surprise, surprise, four of the five friendliest places are in the South, with number one being Charleston, South Carolina. Conversely, all five of the unfriendliest places in the United States are found in the North, with number one–Newark, New Jersey–ranked as the unfriendliest place in the world in 2013. That is a big honor for our Northern “friends.” At least they are number one in something.

Southerners also love to open their wallets for those in need. The South is consistently ranked as the number one charitable region in the United States with Alabama and Mississippi closely following Utah as the most charitable States in the Union. I guess Southern Bible thumpers hate people so much they want to give them a helping hand. Tomasky does not want to admit it, but Christians actively follow their calling to charity. Faith matters. By the way, the least charitable region in the U.S. is New England, followed closely by New York and California. But who could donate to charity in those States even if the people had the desire? Progressive politicians and heavy handed government rob their citizens of over fifty percent of their income. John Taylor of Caroline, an evil white Southern plantation owner, had something to say about that in 1814, “A nation oppressed by taxes, can never be generous, benevolent, or enlightened.” Tomasky hasn’t gotten the memo.

How about “crucial secular values on which this country was founded”? No one would confuse the South with the rampant non-Christian regions of the North and West Coast, thank God, but the South does have a claim to the “secular values on which this country was founded.” It was Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Southerners by the way, who insisted on religious liberty in both Virginia and the United States at large. The most vociferous opponents of this idea could be found in…you guessed it, New England. During the tense period leading to ratification of the Constitution in 1788, many New Englanders worried that the Constitution did not have a religious test for office and complained the new government was too secular. Three New England States had State established churches at the time. Additionally, Charleston, South Carolina earned the nickname the “Holy City” because of its religious diversity, including a large Jewish population. Baptists and Quakers were beaten and killed in New England in the colonial period. Tolerance.

All of this says nothing of Southern contributions to American culture at large, from music (integrated bands in Alabama during the height of segregation), to food, to literature, to political and military heroes, the South has a monopoly on what most people consider “American.” No one sings “Sweet Home Massachusetts.” Even the Southerners Tomasky likes, Carter Glass of Virginia for example, were reared by a culture he finds deplorable. Southern “populists” were not progressives like Tomasky. They were Jeffersonians, a tradition which was nourished by a Southern taproot.

Thankfully, though Tomasky is a lost cause, YSRDD is a curable disease. Many Northerners, both on the Left and the Right, have found in the South the cradle of all things good in American history and culture. The place makes the people. Every year, thousands of Northerners move to the South to escape the decaying cities, culture, and people of the North. The same can’t be said of Southerners. Who flies north for the winter or chooses to retire in Ohio? And for those who don’t like it here, as Lewis Grizzard said, “Delta is ready when you are.”

Without the South, however, Tomasky and his fellow YSRDD suffering comrades would have no one to blame for all of their problems. They could just look out back, but that would be too easy. Southerners are their bogeyman, which is why they would never (and could never) let us go.

About Brion McClanahan

Brion McClanahan is the author or co-author of six books, How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America (Regnery History, 2017), 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America and Four Who Tried to Save Her (Regnery History, 2016), The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers, (Regnery, 2009), The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution(Regnery History, 2012), Forgotten Conservatives in American History (Pelican, 2012), and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Real American Heroes, (Regnery, 2012). He received a B.A. in History from Salisbury University in 1997 and an M.A. in History from the University of South Carolina in 1999. He finished his Ph.D. in History at the University of South Carolina in 2006, and had the privilege of being Clyde Wilson’s last doctoral student. He lives in Alabama with his wife and three daughters.

Time to End the Fake Confederate Monument-Jim Crow Connection

“A lot of people don't really understand these statues were erected during the Jim Crow era..." - Ben Frazier. Northside Coalition

This claim originated with the Southern Poverty Law Center in very recent years. It was rarely made before, because it is not true. The fact that the two circumstances occurred at the same time does not mean they were connected. That a logical fallacy called post hoe ergo propter hoc. It means "assuming causality to mere proximity. "

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s “timeline” graphic shows “spikes” of monument building during the time when “Jim Crow laws were being passed.”

What the SPLC graphic glosses over is that the “spikes” coincide withthe 25th and 50th anniversaries of the Civil War, and short periods of time before and after each. Why gloss it over? Because the purpose of these attacks on Confederate artifacts is to drum up hatred for white Southerners, past and present, and acknowledging that the monuments were raised by grieving family members to commemorate their war dead is useless for that purpose. The longing to remember is understood by anyone who has lost family in war. Right after the war, the South lay in utter ruin, physically and economically. There was simply no money for monuments. Hundreds of towns and thousands of homes destroyed by the union army's barbarism had to be rebuilt, and that took the few pennies Southerners had. A military dictatorship ruled over the people, and sham state government officials enriched themselves at the expense of the people, saddling them with debt that could never be repaid. Policies intended to keep industry from developing in the South kept Southerners, black and white, in poverty for generations. But the women of the South were determined that their husbands, fathers, sons, and brothers who fought so valiantly and died so horribly, to defend them from barbaric invaders, would not be forgotten. So they raised the money in nickels and dimes, no matter how long it took. As an example, fundraising for the Beauregard Monument in New Orleans took twenty years.

Slavery was not the reason for the war

Chapter 36 – “Recapping the Big Puzzle:” Simply Understanding
Why the War Between the States was Not “About” Slavery.
By Paul C. Graham of S. C., S. I. S. H.


By now, we, the sixteen authors of Understanding the War Between the States, have surely presented sufficient history to justify the conclusion in your mind that the WBTS was not “about” slavery. But let us look at this again as a special study. In considering the posed statement, a focus on the operative word “about” is merited. In the English language, when a man declares that “so-and-so” was “about” “such and such” he is saying that his “such and such” was the cause of the “so and so,” not just some related event we might call a side-line issue. If Joe stabs John with a butcher knife and kills him, are we talking about murder or improper use of the kitchen butcher knife? Properly framing a question is so essential to the understanding of the issue that the question presumes to concern. So, the question concerning the role slavery played in the WBTS must be asked this way: “Did the North invade the South to emancipate its slaves?” With that introduction and lesson, and the importance on properly framing one’s question, author Paul C. Graham proceeds to address the subject of this chapter. As you read his words be sure to distinguish between the passions for Exclusionism, versus Abolitionism, versus Deportationism.

Relevant History

In today’s accepted historical narrative, there is only one acceptable answer to the questions concerning the cause and/or meaning of the WBTS, namely, that it was “about slavery.” This position, more than any other, makes the task of articulating the Southern position difficult, if not impossible, for those who have not carefully studied the historical record. Most often the claim that the war was “about slavery” is tied to the question of why the South seceded. Even if, however, it could be shown that the South seceded over the issue of slavery, it does not follow that this caused the war or that this was the reason the two sides engaged in mortal combat. There is a fundamental difference between why one political body may separate from another and why an armed conflict would ensue. Both must be considered if the claim that the war was “about” slavery is construed to be even a theory worth consideration.

Secession and Slavery

Let us begin by looking at Southern secession, especially as it relates to slavery. Before commencing, however, it is important to understand that “The South” did not secede from the Union, but rather,individual Southern states did. The causes for the secession of these individual Southern states did not occur simultaneously or for the exact same reasons. During the first wave of secession, beginning with South Carolina on December 20, 1860, many of the Deep South states were forthright in stating that their actions were, at least in part, motivated by the perceived threat to the institution of slavery. Other “slave states,” particularly those of the upper regions of the South, remained in the union until Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 state militia to reinforce the suppression of the “rebellion” following the incident he contrived at Fort Sumter. Still other Southern states did not secede at all, but stayed in the Union – coerced except for Delaware.

Insofar as slavery was linked to any motive for secession, it was specific to one or more of the following related issues:
The preservation of slavery (where it existed)
The extension of slavery (into the territories)
The fugitive slave laws (when/where unenforced)

Of these three, only number 1 can be a legitimate candidate when considering whether or not the war was “about” slavery. Out of the Union, the Southern states had no influence about how and by whom the territories would be settled. The U.S. fugitive slave laws became irrelevant for the Southern states.

The Corwin Amendment

Between December 1860 and April 1861, seven states had declared their independence from the United States without a single shot being fired. During this interim, the 36th U.S. Congress set to work to find a compromise to bring the seceded states back into the Union, or at least to avert the exodus of the eight other Southern states that where considering secession at that time (NC, TN, AR, VA, DE, MD, KY, MO)

Among the many proposals put forth, one gained significant bi-partisan support in both houses of Congress. It was to be an amendment to the Constitution, what would have ironically become the 13th amendment. Named after Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio, The Corwin Amendment would have unambiguously and permanently protected the institution of slavery from any action taken by the U.S. government: