Posted on 02/18/2021 8:30:54 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
There is a cancer among most conservative websites that devalues and glosses over the importance of history. This glossing leaves a conservative in a position to assert that x is true, because they heard it or saw it or read it somewhere. But then we look foolish, I look foolish because while yes, x is in fact true, what I read didn't carry the necessary follow through. That's how truth becomes a lie while lies remain true. Case in point is this article from The Federalist which glosses over what is arguably the most important fact of the article. The article points out:
Southern intellectuals found the argument they were looking for in the thinking of the German philosopher George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
Wait, what? Full stop. What did you say? Is this true? If so, how did you even complete the article with a straight face without detailing this? Thats a huge deal! This busts so many myths that dozens of books could be written about it if one chose to do so.
Now, the Civil War isn't my fight. If I've talked with one person who finds the era fascinating, I've talked with two dozen of them. They're "everywhere", in the sense that "they" actually have an established title: "Civil War Buff". You know of any "Progressive Era Buffs"? Yeah, I'm the only one and I know it, and I'm fine with that. I only have a tangential interest in this instance because of the lies that progressives tell. Progressivism is my main area of interest. But here's the problem and why it gets my attention. We're led to believe by Civil War buffs and professional historians alike that the Confederacy was this pinnacle of conservative thought or at least deeply conservative in its outlook.
There's just one problem. There's no room for Hegel nor Marx in conservatism.
This is too big of a contradiction and there's too much of it that can be referenced to ignore it. Now, to get back to the Federalist article I did go looking around in some of the sources I have access to, but the copyright firewall was strong with this one. Many historians have glossed over the fact that Hegel did in fact hold quite a big sway with southern slaveholders, and I get the distinct feeling that these historians want that fact erased from the books. It doesn't fit the narrative. The south MUST be remembered in connection with conservatism and this Hegel thing is just a distraction from what the historians know to be true. It was extremely difficult to get names, speech titles, books, and more to independently verify this fact, but I did find one. The usual web of footnotes pointing to another historian who points to another historian was momentously annoying. But historians do this as a tactic in order to shroud history they dislike while using direct footnotes to promote history they prefer.
This is of course why I have such a beef with ideological historians, which is pretty much all of them, but I'll save that for another day. Were there Hegelians in the South? Yes there were. And Marxists too, which during the course of researching this I remembered that I had once posted about Fitzhugh in a similar one-off post at the time. Fitzhugh wrote that "A Southern farm is the beau ideal of Communism." Now doesn't that conservative to you? /sarcasm
Looking back that post makes a little more sense to me in its actual historical context. The natural course of Hegel is ------> Marx. When asking the question of how George Fitzhugh could come to a place of being pro-communism, it's because the intellectual generation that preceded him were reading Hegel. This viewpoint of idealizing Hegel even made it into the United States Congress. In a speech in 1860, Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar II said the following:
I propose, just here, to read from Hegel's Philosophy of History, an imperishable monument of human genius, in which the author holds "freedom to be the essence of humanity, and slavery the condition of injustice." And what does he say?"The negro, as already observed, exhibits the natural man in his completely wild and untamed state. We must lay aside all thought of reverence and morality, all that we call feeling, if we would rightly comprehend him. There is nothing harmonious with humanity to be found in this type of character." (Page 97.)
"The undervaluing of humanity among them reaches an incredible degree of intensity. Tyranny is regarded as no wrong, and cannibalism is looked upon as quite customary and proper.... The devouring of human flesh is altogether consonant with the general principles of the African race. To the sensual negro, human flesh is but an object of sense, mere flesh." (Pages 99, 100)
After describing many other characteristics, the author concludes "slavery to have been the occasion of the increase of human feeling among the negroes. The doctrine which we deduce from this condition of slavery among the negroes, and which constitutes he only side of the question that has an interest for our inquiry, is that which we deduce from the idea, viz: that the 'natural condition' itself is one of absolute and thorough injustice, contravention of the right and just. Every intermediate grade between this and the realization of a rational state retains, as might be expected, elements and aspects of injustice; Therefore, we find slavery even in the Greek and Roman States, as we do serfdom, down to the latest times. But thus existing in a State, slavery is itself a phase of advance from the merely isolated sensual existence, a phase t of education, a mode of becoming participant in a higher morality and the culture connected with it." (Page 104)
Now, it is fairly common knowledge that Karl Marx was a racist as was Che and many other hardcore communists. But I will admit I never thought to examine if Hegel was also on that list. It's quite clear though that he too is there.
But the real issue isn't yet another quote that won't go anywhere if obsessively used in twitter tweets. The issue is how on earth do we arrive at a place where the southern confederacy is constantly cast as a bastion of conservatism when deep examinations of their ideological works unearths collectivism, Marxism, and Hegelianism?
Other than historical malpractice, of course.
Here's another fair question: Just how deep did the rejection of the Founding Fathers go with those in the south in the 1800s?
Agreed. Maybe I was not specific enough in that direction, but in any case, Fitzhugh’s communism was to the same point a rationalization of slavery with his drawings of parallels; provided support, no competition, shared ownership, etc.
What they were _not_ reading(or being critical of) is just as important as what they were reading and trying to assimilate - to whatever extent that was.
Fitzhugh was a vehement critic of Thomas Jefferson.
Not your contradiction, I don't think you have one. What you said was spot on. The contradiction is that of the progressive historians who have weaponized history.
In the 21st century, the progressive historians constantly tell us that the Founding Fathers were racist.
WELL WHY THEN DIDN'T THE SOUTHERNERS RELY UPON THE RACISM OF THE FOUNDERS?!?!?
Why did they have to go to "trendy German philosophers" to find what they needed?
That's why it's so interesting to me.
If the Founding Fathers were racists, it was a huge massive secret in 1860 that didn't get discovered until the progressives discovered it over a century later. I apologize, these are not meant as digital shouting in the traditional sense. I just can't get past this extreme historical malpractice on part of "the professionals" in academia.
All of their lies fail the smell test.
........... Meant to write “the so-called racism of the founders”, since all of this proves that the historians are liars.
But I digress.
since you cite zero proof to support of your theory that Lincoln was an admirer of communism, I just disregarded your premise all together and stated a fact.
I think the correct thinker to look at here is the formidable Calhoun. It is certainly correct to note that in many respects he was Hegelian; perhaps in his analysis of class and economics in history, even a bit Marxist - though he probably wouldn’t have thought in those terms.
Calhoun was utterly brilliant. But I think in time we will conclude that his deep thinking was outside the boundaries of what America can accommodate philosophically speaking. And politically speaking.....
We’re led to believe by Civil War buffs and professional historians alike that the Confederacy was this pinnacle of conservative thought or at least deeply conservative in its outlook.”
Ummmmmmmm.......no.
no and no
Not if human liberty and flourishing and civilization is a “goal” of conservatism.
Now all that said....the South had an aristocratic culture, and a healthy culture, should always have aristocratic elements in it. Because of our collective irrational hatred of the South (they are Americans too, so many forget), we tend to not see the beauty in aristocracy. That’s a big topic, and of course, aristocracy (like democracy) has its own inherent defects. But aristocracy is important...it does promote human flourishing when it is part of the mix.
The South is not an enemy. But it’s not the pinnacle of conservatism.
Sorry but the Federalist did not gloss over it and is seems you are making false assumptions. It was Hegel and Marx who were influenced by the implications of the American Republic and not vice versa. Southerners were not advocating for Hegel or Marx but were advocating for the principles of the founding fathers regarding states rights and the importance of a decentralized federal government.
In a biography of John Hunt Morgan there is a reference to appreciation of Hegel. In general the slaveholding caste in the South can be described as “conservative” only in that they desired to ‘conserve’ the institution of slavery. Conservativism turns ut to be a relative term. Russian Conservatism in 1989 is a very different thing from American Conservatism in the present, and even that is relative. What we try to conserve even now is what the radical left has imposed on us continuously since President Wilson up to a dozen years before today.
This is what it is.
Marx was interested in what was happening in America. He wrote many articles against slavery and supported Lincoln and the Yankees.
The South most definitely did not reject the founding fathers. They embraced them. The vast majority of the Founding Fathers were in fact, Southerners themselves. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Patrick Henry, James Mason, John Jay, etc etc.
Marx and his disciples were in fact more sympathetic to the North because they were interested in centralizing power. They detested the idea of decentralized power. Decentralized power which the South supported was the antithesis of their whole ideology.
Exactly. The Puritans were the Roundheads in English Civil War and yes, there definitely was some back and forth between New England and England at the time.
While the parallel is not 100%, the Cavaliers were much more aligned with Virginia....its not coincidence they named UVA’s mascot the Cavaliers. My own direct namebearing ancestor 11 generations ago landed in the Jamestown settlement in 1649 the year they chopped King Charles’ head off. Lots of others with Cavalier sympathies found their way to Virginia as well.
The generation of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson was strongly influenced by Hegel and Darwin. In America, though, historicism was a move away from the founding tradition of natural rights. Under the influence of Hegel, the generation of Roosevelt and Wilson moved away from ideas of individual rights towards demanding a more powerful state and thinking that rights were not given by God or nature, but determined by social evolution and by government. It didn't help that Hegel wrote glowingly about "The State." He was a German whose university was controlled by the Prussian government. What we would call society or civilization or culture, Hegel and those he influenced called the state, and thus they accepted more power for the state than before.
This was roughly Harry Jaffa and the Claremont school's criticism of Hegel: the German philosopher turned away from the founding tradition of natural rights and put the state above the human individual. While Hegel and his successors were moving away from the idea that all men were created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, Southern slaveowners were coming to endorse a social model based on slavery and the denial of human equality. Whether or not Hegel was the source of the ideas of the supporters of slavery, the militant slaveowners certainly were part of the same current of opinion as Hegel and drew from the same pool of ideas, whether or not they actually read Hegel works.
Why did Southern militants need to draw on German thinkers? Because the American founders recognized the contradiction between the idea of natural rights and the institution of slavery and hoped that slavery would eventually go away. Pro-slavery thinkers wanted an ideology that would make slavery the foundation of civilization and liberty and they found much of what they needed in the historical relativism of the day. If Blacks weren't as evolved as Whites, a relativistic ideology would make it easy to deny them basic human rights. A tradition of natural or God-given rights makes it harder.
Jaffa overdid the identification of Calhoun with Hegel and Marx - Calhoun was almost dead when Marx started to make a name for himself. Jaffa overdid a lot of things, but he wasn't wrong in seeing a connection between Hegel and pro-slavery thought.
Interestingly, Martin Luther King cited Hegel's idea of freedom expanding through conflict as an important influence on his own thought.
“Exactly. The Puritans were the Roundheads in English Civil War and yes, there definitely was some back and forth between New England and England at the time.”
That is so very true! There is another great book called “The Cousin’s Wars” (https://bit.ly/2Jr8kJR) that goes into excruciating detail to explain the connection between the English Civil War, The Revolutionary War, and our Civil War.
Couple that book with Albion’s Seed and it sheds much light on how we evolved as a nation (in fits and starts).
Nothing new under the sun :-)! Are we there again???
“My own direct namebearing ancestor 11 generations ago landed in the Jamestown settlement in 1649”
That is very amazing! Did your family remain in VA for all of those generations?
“Ummmmmmmm.......no.”
Ummmmmmmm.......yes. I searched google books for all of about 20 seconds, this was one of the first that came up.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Never_Surrender/rlgFJzoQyQsC?hl=en&gbpv=0
Here is another. Search these books for the word conservative and see what you get. No really, you won’t be surprised. It’s predictable propaganda.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Irony_of_the_Solid_South/lo7-k6uzUDcC?hl=en&gbpv=0
Historians are a big time source of attacks against those of us as conservatives and the Civil War Buffs aren’t a known body of stalwarts against this.
To my knowledge the Founders were not popular among slaveholders. If you have specifics, I would love to see those. Names, dates, speeches, paragraphs. We cannot trust the historians.
Some of the more prominent names who were in on these were John Pettit, who called the Declaration’s “All men are created equal” statement to be “nothing more to me than a self-evident lie”. Pettit is written about specifically by Lincoln.
John Calhoun was among those critics, also attacking the all created equal idea in the Oregon Bill speech.
George Fitzhugh, one of the most prominent slavery propagandists anywhere repeatedly attacked Jefferson.
And Vice President Alexander Stephens also had harsh words for the Declaration in his Cornerstone speech.
The irony is that Jefferson in general and the Declaration in particular was the focal point of all this venom spitting, especially when progressives today try to paint Jefferson as king slaver.
That’s not what the slaveholders believed.
Again, if you have specifics please let me know I am interested to look at them.
Calhoun spoke a frequently and in large amounts, which leads to large volumes to search. Are you aware of a way to narrow it down?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.