Is Mackubin T. Owens recycling his anti-south diatribes?

south-haters are nothing if not consistent in their HATEFULNESS.

free the southland,sw

Having spent most of my life in Chattanooga, I'll give my biased opinion.

West Tennessee is extremely liberal. Taxes are also higher around Memphis. I would avoid that area.
Nashville is a nice area to live in, if you have lots of money.

East Tennessee would be my pick. Chattanooga will always be the best city to live in. Unfortunately, the city government places more importance on tourism than industry and schools. If you can find a job and can afford private schools (we have some of the best in the country with about 30 different choices) go with Chattavegas.

I've spent the last four years in Knoxville at UT. Knoxville is nice and much bigger than Chattanooga. The city is actually growing, but with that brings horrible traffic with never ending road construction. However, the city isn't nearly as beautiful or fun as Chattanooga.

LOL!

free dixie,sw

Knoxville and Marvel (how the locals say it) are both beautiful. Sadly they are growing steadily (10% year?) - I remember when everyone knew each other. I found some stats on Knoxville for ya. Enjoy! MPC Knoxville

Jean Smith alerted me to this thread, so I thought you might like to hear from the author of the two articles cited by GOPcapitalist. First of all, the topic of both pieces was the influence of the Lost Cause School on how we think about the Civil War. Historians have come to realize that this interpretation of the war has been pervasive since 1866. I was merely making the same point in two different settings. Call it cut and past if you want, but writers do this all the time. The common sections constituted a samll part of both essaays.

Neither essay was an 'anti-southern diatribe." I am no “basher” of the South. I grew up in a Lost Cause household, although I didn’t know the name. All of my forebears on both sides of my family fought for the Confederacy, so I’ll put my Confederate pedigree up against yours or any of the FR posters who contributed to this thread.

In my CRB review, I made the point that although the Lost Cause claim that sates’ rights and not slavery was the cause of“ the war, there is truth “to the second part [of the Lost Cause interpretation]. The South did fight at a material disadvantage, and in Lenin's words, ‘quantity has a quality all its own.’ Robert E. Lee was a remarkably skillful soldier who overcame immense odds on battlefield after battlefield.”

I believe that Lee was the best general of the war and that the Army of Northern Virginia was the best fighting force. But it was not sufficiently better than the Army of the Potomac to gain the decisive victory the Confederacy needed to win its independence. Here’s more from my CRB review.

"Lee's critics claim that his penchant for the offensive contributed to the defeat of the Confederacy because of the casualties incurred, pointing to Gettysburg as a prime example. But the idea that the Confederacy could have defeated the Union by adopting the strategic defensive is nonsense. For one thing, the Confederacy lacked the necessary strategic depth to employ a Fabian strategy of retreat (even if the Southern population would have stood for it). For another, when the Confederates did pursue the defensive, the end result was usually a siege—not a good idea, given Union strengths in artillery, engineering, and naval power. For instance, Confederate General Joseph Johnston, praised for his ability to fight on the defensive, almost lost Richmond in the spring of 1862 and did lose Atlanta in 1864.

"My own judgment is that while the key to victory for the Union lay in the West, the Confederacy's best chance for success lay in Virginia, where the Confederacy had its best general and its best army. Given the disabilities under which the South labored, there is little the Confederacy could have done differently; no alternative strategy would have led to a better outcome. The ultimate failure of the Confederacy can be attributed to its inability to translate tactical success into strategic victory. While strategy trumps operations and tactics in determining the outcome of a war (the Germans were masters of operational art but were done in by strategic incompetence in two world wars), a successful strategy still requires the right tactical instrument. As good as Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia were, they were never sufficiently better than the Army of the Potomac to constitute that instrument."

Those who want to read the whole review rather than GOPcapitalist’s selective quotes can find it here.

http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/summer2003/owens.html.

As for the Gods and Generals review, it is here.

http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens022503.asp.

I need to point out that some of the most vociferous critics of the Lost Cause School are southern historians such as Thomas Connelly and Alan Nolan. They also happen to be critics of lee and go so far as to suggest that Lee’s reputation was “manufactured history” created by Virginians like Jubal Early and the Virginia-dominated Southern Historical Society.

When I was a doctoral student, I originally intended to write my dissertation on Alexander Stephens’ apologia, A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States, which advances the Lost Cause interpretation in its purest form—states’ rights and not slavery cased the war. But then someone called my attention to his speech of March 21, 1861 in Savannah, where he states quite clearly that slavery was the cause of the breakup of the Union and that African slavery was to be the “cornerstone” of the new Confederate constitution.

Imagine my shock as a Southerner who had imbibed the Lost Cause interpretation without question. After the war, it was all states’ rights. Before, even from an anti-secession old Whig, race and slavery were the culprits. You can find the speech at http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=76. but just read this passage from Stephens' speech.

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the 'storm came and the wind blew.'

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, 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 normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

Stephens was not alone. Read Charles Dew’s Apostles of Disunion. And read the account of his personal odyssey, which parallels my own.

Now I know that in GOPcapitalist’s circle, Thomas DiLorenzo’s dreadful book on Lincoln probably passes for “scholarship.” But it is not. If you are going to re-fight the Civil War, you need to at least have some idea of contemporary historiography.
.

And according to this article, we have more testosterone, also.

Those who want to read the whole review rather than GOPcapitalist’s selective quotes can find it here.

Perhaps you might acknowledge that his reasons for quoting you in excerpts were the same as yours in quoting a passage of a doubtless very long speech of Alexander Stephens, in which at the outset he identifies his topic as a "last, not least" cause, one among many, of the reasons why the new (Confederate) constitution would better provide a better foundation for government than the old -- as he was expressing it to his audience in Savannah -- and only the " immediate cause of the late rupture" [emphasis added], and not the underlying, overarching, or all-encompassing cause.

That he believed that the two races were of unequal capacity is incontestable. From the record, it is equally incontestable that Abraham Lincoln believed much the same. The difference between them is that Lincoln appears to have believed in what you might call an equity position in freedom and humanity, or a proprietary interest in citizenship and liberty, that didn't depend on virtuosity, rather than what I would call -- just making it up as I go -- an earned position that devolved from having civilized capacities (which we recognize now spring mostly from education).

These ideas still would appear to have application today, when meritocracy is creeping amongst us and the idea begins to gain a foothold that anyone who doesn't have a professional or advanced degree isn't really educated enough to have an opinion ..... or perhaps not educated enough to hold a job, either.

Yeah NJ and CA suck, they don't let you marry your sister.

Yeah, but California lets you give your sister tongue -- as the tabloids said about Angelina Jolie.

Greetings and thank you for taking the time to post. Now, for the Lost Cause issue.

First, I will readily concede and note the presence of such a school in post-war writings about the conflict. That seems not to be in issue even for those who follow in its model, though the validity of its arguments is continually debated and debatable to this day. Pending more time I would like to go into the issue of slavery v. states rights v. economics v. any additional matters of argument as they pertain to the cause(s) of the war both in this school and others. In the meantime, the following should suffice to explain at least my own position. I find it difficult if not outright absurd to make an attempt at causal reductionism for the war beyond a certain level at which the issues become irreducably complex. By example, to state that the war was all about slavery, or caused immediately and proximately by slavery as you argue, is itself an oversimplification of both the events at hand in 1861 and the interpretations of them offered in the period since (for the record I would similarly agree that certain "Lost Cause" approaches, insofar as they have maintained states rights to be the central cause of the war, is equally flawed). Thus it is my view that an answer lies not in a single causal relationship but rather in a complex causal relationship of many issues and events acting simultaneously. Again, I'll happily discuss this further and with it the reasons behind this approach when more time permits and if you desire to discuss it further.

I've also read Alex's so-called "cornerstone" speech many times, just as I have read many other speeches from the era. It is in itself indicative of a view expressed by Stephens at a given time in history in a given political speech of similar circumstances. As such it is relevent historical material to the era, but an appeal upon its authority alone is by no means sufficient to define the confederacy, the war, the causes of that war, or the circumstances surrounding it. There were literally hundreds if not thousands of speeches given in that era upon the very same subject of war with both similar and dissimilar messages, reasons, causes, and claims. Many came from persons who, in their relevance to the war, were no less or more of an authority on the confederacy than Stephens or anyone else in their ranks. Stephens was in fact a unionist who argued against secession up until the act was taken and therefore commented in its favor and to the reasons he saw as its purpose only after it had already occurred. The congressional globe, state assembly records, newspapers, diaries, journals, and pamphlets of the period provide hundreds of other documents on the exact same subject of secession and the confederacy and, unfortunately for history, the overwhelming majority of them have not appeared in print since then. I've researched the subject extensively and electronically published dozens of documents on any number of subjects pertaining to the war, including many that have not seen print since 1861, and could happily provide a copy for you from a prominent confederate for practically any cause of relevance to secession that you desire - slavery, states rights, tariffs, federal expansion, government subsidies and handouts, you name it.

Second, for all the commentary on the Lost Cause school, it would seem that a significant ammount of discussion is lost with regards to a great many alternative and competing schools of thought on the civil war. Alternatives have been put forth since the days of the war itself and cannot be neglected for their influence upon civil war histories both past and present. Few have recieved so much attention as the "Lost Cause" approach, but that is an area for researchers to make up for at a future time. To take one example, a significant though seldom explored "school" of the war appears in the form of a marxian-revolutionary interpretation that traces directly to no less a source than Marx himself. Viewing the war as the defining moment of another hegelian stage towards communism, this approach essentially interprets Lincoln as a revolutionary and his cause for the union as a workers upheaval of an existing social order, itself initiated decades prior by the American revolution. Marx succinctly stated this thesis in a congratulatory letter following Lincoln's 1864 reelection: "The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world."

While I make no judgment as to the validity of this theory and quite frankly group it among the vast ammount of left wing nonsense to originate from that same source and his many dangerous followers ever since, I do believe it is fair to note that this approach is continuously traceable in certain civil war scholarship from Marx's time to our own and exists today in the more liberal elements of current scholarship. Included among these are certain themes found in the efforts of such well known historians as James McPherson and Eric Foner, both of whom, BTW, write from the left/far-left end of the political spectrum. This does not per se discredit either completely as an historian any more than adherence to any other school may be employed as an exclusively discrediting device upon its respective author, but it does shed insight into the influencing theories behind their writings (from my own readings of these two I believe that the left-revolutionary themes are especially strong in some of McPherson's older stuff from the late 60's and 70's).

Alternative approaches to these appear elsewhere in the political spectrum. Hermann von Holst's multi-volume set on American history (most of which was consumed by the war), which I believe was translated into English in the 1890's, for example, takes what one could probably describe as a northern foil to many of the southern writings of the same period. In addition to it is the libertarian school on the war, probably most notably identified in that period with Lysander Spooner and of recent found in the works of Geoffrey Hummel. And though some have attempted to classify DiLorenzo as "lost cause" himself, he too seems to fit well into the libertarian model.

On the topic of DiLorenzo:

Two things need to be said of him here. First, his book is admittedly geared towards the popular audiences and was published as such. It was written as a readable though reasonably informative take on Lincoln from an unconventional (and libertarian) view. It was also distributed to appear in the local Barnes and Noble for popular consumption, not the university research library or bookstore. Therefore it is just as much geared towards addressing the simplistic "popular myths" of Lincoln (i.e. "Lincoln as an abolitionist" and other such things that rank along side the tale of George Washington and the cherry tree as commonly believed but demonstrably incorrect statements of history) as it is to challenging the pro-Lincoln academic argument. This does not make his book less deserving of honest scrutiny but it does provide reason behind what some of his critics have found difficult to understand.

Second, I am fully aware of the many critical reviews and reviewers who have written upon the subject of his book. I've read Masugi and Krannawitter in Claremont. I've read Jim Epperson's website. I've read Ferrier's responses and discussed the issue at length with him on this forum. IMHO, the sum of these reviews have been unimpressive and shallow, often preffering to dwell upon a small set of typographical errors and minor mistakes rather than the sum thesis of his book. I've also read and re-read DiLorenzo's book and his defenses of it in response to Ferrier et al. The book is not without flaws and in fact no book is. But neither is it guilty of the many things that have been alleged against it by its critics to date. And to that end, I have yet to see any article that sufficiently attacks or successfully rebuts the underlying thesis of DiLorenzo's work. If you desire to discuss this further as well I will again happily do so. In fact, I anticipate publishing a point-by-point rebuttal of Jim Epperson's page analysis of the book's alleged errors in about a month's time here on FR.

Thank you again for posting and I anticipate any response you may have to offer.

It was TRASH the first time he wrote it, and releasing it again simply spreads more manure.