Southern Confederate Hegelians and Marxists

PGA Weblog ^

[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?

[FLT-bird]

The family remained in Virginia until the about 1840 when they moved to Tennessee.

To further support what was said about how the people who settled North and South came from different parts of England...my family name is Welsh though nobody I know of was from Wales....though that would fit with them being of the more conservative pro Cavalier type. My ancestor sailed out of Bristol in Gloucestershire which is in that region. The choice of location (ie Virginia) and the timing all lead me to think he must have been a Cavalier. All the pieces of evidence point to that conclusion.

[otness_e]

Don’t forget Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, and D’Alembert. They were a sordid bunch of actors as well, and also directly led to the same carnage. Heck, even David Hume may have contributed to some of that crap as well with his Empiricist theories that denied anything outside of the immediate five senses.

And quite frankly, the fact that Jefferson supported wholly the Jacobins and their ilk says a lot about HIM, nothing good either (even less so when unlike the other founding fathers who at least had the excuse of slow communication lines for not knowing the true depth of depravity going on during that time when initially supporting it, Jefferson knew FULL WELL what was going on due to being on-site in Paris at the time Bastille Day happened, including the parade of body parts most likely). As far as I’m concerned, Jefferson was as much of a progressive as Roosevelt was. Actually, scratch that, he was even more of one, all while claiming to be for freedom.

[otness_e]

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Larry’s textbook indicated Lincoln had little interest in Marx other than maybe a few correspondences, and aside from that, Marx and Engels’ letters indicated they actually thought the South had more potential for ginning up a French-style Revolution and clearly wanted that result.

[ConservativeDude]

this is my go to source:

https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/calhoun-union-and-liberty-the-political-philosophy-of-john-c-calhoun

[ConservativeDude]

in my post I was disputing that the south is in fact the pinnacle of conservatism...I went on to say that it is not devoid of some conservative notions, but I would dispute that it is anything near the pinnacle. That is, if one uses a Burkean definition of conservatism, which I think we should all do.

That some historians say that the South is the pinnacle of conservatism as a way to belittle conservatives and call them racists is not relevant.

[FLT-bird]

Marx and Engels true to form, got their analysis wrong. They thought the federal govt couldn’t win because they couldn’t field the requisite 4 to 1 number of troops that had traditionally been required - only more like 3 to 1. What they failed to take account of were things like the railroads, industrialization and the federal govt having a standing navy while the CSA had to start building a navy from scratch.

Neither Marx nor Engels were all that influential at the time though they did both want the North to win. Lincoln was “the great centralizer” after all and they heartily approved of that.

[otness_e]

This begs to differ: https://www.aier.org/article/was-lincoln-really-into-marx/

Specifically:

“The way in which the North is waging the war is none other than might be expected of a bourgeois republic, where humbug has reigned supreme for so long. The South, an oligarchy, is better suited to the purpose, especially an oligarchy where all productive labour devolves on the n—s and where the 4 million ‘white trash’ are flibustiers by calling. For all that, I’m prepared to bet my life on it that these fellows will come off worst, ‘Stonewall Jackson’ notwithstanding. It is, of course, possible that some sort of revolution will occur beforehand in the North itself.”

That was from a letter to Engels dated September 10, 1862, and aside from the crass racist language engaged by Marx in that letter, he makes it pretty dang clear he didn’t give a rats patooey about Lincoln’s efforts despite the public PR for the Workers’ International (in other words, any “praise” he had for Lincoln was purely self-serving and not genuine).

“Lincoln has at his disposal considerable means for achieving election. (Needless to say, the peace proposals made by him are mere humbug.) The election of an opposition candidate would probably lead to a genuine revolution. Nevertheless, there is no mistaking the fact that during the next 8 weeks, in the course of which the matter will be decided pro tem, much will depend on military eventualities. This is undoubtedly the most critical moment since the beginning of the war. Once this has been shifted, Old Lincoln can blunder on to his heart’s content.”

And this was from Marx’s personal assessment of the war’s results. In fact, the only one in Lincoln’s cabinet that Marx was genuinely excited about regarding the results was Andrew Jackson after Lincoln’s assassination. If anything, they were more sympathetic to Stonewall Jackson and the South based on those bits.

And Engels was not much better in his comments about Lincoln, either. I believe his exact words were “the only apparent effect of Lincoln’s emancipation so far is that the North-West has voted Democrat for fear of being overrun by Negroes.”

If they had any respect for Lincoln or actually allied with him, they sure have a strange way of showing it.

Now, if you were talking about Horace Greeley, a true disgrace for the Republican party who actually WAS a huge RINO and leftist democrat in all but name, we can find grounds for agreement.

Besides, Marx and Engels didn’t even WANT centralization. Quite the opposite, those guys wanted a literal bloody remake of the French Revolution and Reign of Terror, which was one of the most decentralized events EVER, at least until Vladimir Lenin granted their wish in 1918 with Russia and elsewhere. Even Marx stated the state needed to fade away, not just class systems, wanted complete anarchy in other words.

[FLT-bird]

This says otherwise.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10759726-lincoln-s-marxists

Also if you read about the 48er scum we took in from Germany, they were overwhelmingly hardcore Leftists. They 100% backed Lincoln.

[otness_e]

Has it ever occurred to you that Karl Marx’s “praise” for Lincoln may have just been PR for Marx’s communist followers? It’s like Lenin’s defense of free speech while fighting the Czar yet revoking it once he was in power. Either way, the fact that Marx and Engels in their private correspondences outright MOCKED Lincoln would suggest they didn’t actually support him other than a cynical PR move.

As far as the 48ers, even if they did, their plans backfired big time, especially when it became apparent that Lincoln had NO intention of backing Marx’s ideas (the only Republican founder who did back him was Horace Greeley, and he eventually ended up evicted from his own party).

[otness_e]

By “him”, I mean Marx.

[FLT-bird]

Lincoln wasn’t the end stage of what Marx wanted since though a centralizer, Lincoln didn’t want total government control over the economy. It was more that Marx approved of Lincoln’s direction of travel.

[otness_e]

Actually, Marx didn’t even want total government control over the economy. That was more of a means to an end for him. What Marx actually wanted was complete anarchy and destruction for its own sake, a bloodier remake of the Reign of Terror (most likely including the Republican Armies up and out SLAUGHTERING each other during Vendee if they couldn’t so much as even find any enemies just to satiate their bloodlust under General Louis Grignon’s orders.).

Here, let me provide you with some of his quotes spelling this out for you:

“There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”-Marx, Karl, “The Victory of the Counterrevolution in Vienna”, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, November 1848.

“Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793…”-Marx-Engels Gesamt-Ausgabe, vol. vi pp 503–505, final issue of Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 18, 1849. Quoted in Thomas G. West, Marx and Lenin, The Claremont Institute

“The vengeance of the people will break forth with such ferocity that not even the year 1793 enables us to envisage it.”-Marx-Engels Gesamt-Ausgabe, vol. vi pp 503–505, final issue of Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 18, 1849. Quoted in Thomas G. West, Marx and Lenin, The Claremont Institute

And again, going by that site, Lincoln barely had any real indication of reading Marx’s statements directly, at most only glancing through world news stuff, and Marx didn’t even become particularly well known until AFTER Lincoln’s assassination, and based on the private correspondences between Marx and Engels, NOT the ones publicly published to their followers in the press, but the ones intended for themselves alone, they held Lincoln in contempt during the Civil War, and also seemed to think the South was more ripe for civil war).

There’s far more evidence of Thomas Jefferson openly supporting the Jacobins and their sordid actions, up to and including the inhumane slaughter of the guards at Bastille and their regicide, to say little about Vendee, than there was of Lincoln being a closet Marxist (that description belongs to Horace Greeley, who as I said was a disgrace to Republicans).

[BroJoeK]

arthurus: "...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..."

Right, and that bears repeating.
American conservatism can be boiled down to two words: Constitution & Bible.
We could expand those to say: the ideals & intentions of our Founders plus traditional values from the Bible.
They include such things as life, liberty, family, voluntary associations, private enterprise, constitutionally limited government and so on.

In other cultures & times, "conservative" can mean almost anything -- in communist China, for example, "conservative" might refer to the CCP and "radicals" to Hong Kong (small-d) democrats.
Point is: please don't get hung up on that word "conservative", it doesn't always mean what we think of in the US today.

Clearly, in 1860 Southern Fire Eaters wanted to "conserve" slavery, but as for "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...", not so much.

[BroJoeK]

ontap: "Not talking about individuals but where is the conservative values most prevalent today...North or South!!!
Where are people fleeing too ...North or South."

Sorry, but that's just fake-news propaganda, FRiend.
Here is the answer to your questions: the red counties.

[BroJoeK]

otness: "As far as I’m concerned, Jefferson was as much of a progressive as Roosevelt was.
Actually, scratch that, he was even more of one, all while claiming to be for freedom."

All of Thomas Jefferson's many contradictions & enigmas are resolved & explained by the following fact: Jefferson was our original, prototypical Democrat.
He built the mold from which all future Democrats were cast.

[Reily]

That pic of Alaskan voting demographics convinces me that a Palin challenge to Murkowski will not work. (Visually confirms some comments by Alaskan friends.)

[BroJoeK]

otness: "There’s far more evidence of Thomas Jefferson openly supporting the Jacobins and their sordid actions, up to and including the inhumane slaughter of the guards at Bastille and their regicide, to say little about Vendee, than there was of Lincoln being a closet Marxist (that description belongs to Horace Greeley, who as I said was a disgrace to Republicans)."

Right, that bears repeating.
Sadly, our FRiend FLT-bird is incapable of understanding or learning anything outside the scope of his pro-Confederate programming.

But, thanks for trying.

[BroJoeK]

"That pic of Alaskan voting demographics convinces me that a Palin challenge to Murkowski will not work."

Curiously, in addition to a Republican governor, Alaska has two Republican senators and a very long-serving Republican representative in Congress, but all three tend well into the "moderate" RINO range of conservatives.

You'd suppose that a state so full of rugged individualists would want Federal government out of their hair, but maybe they see strong government as a defense against known & unknown dangers.

Anyway, in hindsight I share President Trump's and most FReepers' disdain for John McCain, but still think of Sarah Palin as one of the best things he ever did.

[Reily]

Agree !

I’ve said this before Alaskan friends (once strong supporters of Palin) say Palin’s time has come and gone.

[rockrr]

Ironically (and sadly), they remain “rugged individualists” just about as long as the checks keep coming.

It will be “interesting” to see what happens after Murkowski retires what with the vacuum that is going to leave.