What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Witness for a New Century

In the current (Spring) issue of Houston Baptist University's The City, I review Richard Reinsch's book Whittaker Chambers: The Spirit of a Counterrevolutionary, from ISI Books.

Chambers’ profound worry was that all this brute materialism and reductionism would conquer by means of the Communist enterprise. He was wrong in that baleful judgment. But he was not wrong in fearing that the resistance to Communist would corrupt the West by forcing it to absorb and embrace much of Communist doctrine. Thus his famous antipathy for Ayn Rand. Thus his strong critique of Austrian economics. As Reinsch puts it, “Self-interest becomes despotic when it is no longer governed by the higher and nobler obligations of love, sacrifice, and the numerous loyalties that exist in a humane society.” A wholly materialist opposition to Communism would erect its own version of the “vast, impersonal force and order, a system without sacrificial love or mercy, the person realized in a state of masterful sovereignty over self and others not similarly clever or acquisitive.”

In this light Chambers’ essay on St. Benedict in Clare Boothe Luce’s excellent collection Saints for Now (still available through Ignatius Press) stands as the most concise statement of his teaching. I fancy that there are few greater essays written in the 20th century than this one. In it, Chambers speaks of “three great alienations of the spirit ... [which] can be seen at their work of dissolution among ourselves, and are perhaps among the little noticed reasons why men turn to Communism. They are: the alienation of the spirit of man from traditional authority; his alienation from the idea of traditional order; and a crippling alienation that he feels at the point where civilization has deprived him of the joy of simple productive labor.”

There is much to learn from that essay, and all of Chambers’ writings. Here is a man who, despite his earthy participation in the 20th century, still instructs us (if we let him) in the 21st. We whose sudden privation is precisely a result of our abstraction of wealth from human things, we who profess salvation by technique, can profit much by Chambers’ instruction.

Read more; the issue is viewable online. Or just subscribe here.

Comments (34)

I just got my copy today and thought that I saw an article by someone named Paul Cella. :) However, I don't see it in the online version and my hard copy is at the office -- have I missed something, or did I get the previous issue in the mail today and not this one?

I read 'Witness' and Chambers' letters to Buckley last year -- both outstanding -- then promptly bought copies of his two books of essays and journalism, which I haven't read yet. I imagine the Benedict essay is in one of them?

In any case, I completely agree with you that Chambers' is a voice that needs to be heard long about now, especially by those on the Right. He's long overdue for a revival.

Rob -- in fact the whole St. Benedict essay is online:

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/chambers_benedict__aug06.asp

I also couldn't find your article Paul, but I have a little trouble taking Chambers as authoritative on anything except what he is best known for.

I haven't read Reinsch's book, but in "Saints for Now" I do believe his historical outlook is flawed, whatever its other merits. His portrayal of the Dark Ages as the grinding ignorance of lore, and the monastic orders before Benedict as hopeless rubes with little better to do than stare at the skulls on their desks I don't think really stands up to scrutiny, and it seems to me his narrative as you've presented here might owe a lot to such ideas. Or maybe not. I'll look forward to reading the review. But if so, having such a flawed view of the past doesn't auger well for having reasonable views on the matter you are citing him for. Perhaps "Saints for Now" isn't representative of him, but if not it shouldn't have been cited to make the case that the West "embraced much of Communist doctrine." I think that is highly dubious. Did Solzhenitsyn say the same in his strong critique of the West? I'd take notice if he did.

Mark, it should be readily apparent from the context that the description of the Dark Ages he is relating is the one he was taught as a boy in school, not what he himself believed about them as he was writing the essay in adulthood.

"it seems to me his narrative as you've presented here might owe a lot to such ideas. Or maybe not."

Yeah, since you got the narrative wrong, I'd say it's definitely the "maybe not."

Btw, the piece does appear in the collection of Chambers essays called Ghosts on the Roof, under the title "The Sanity of St. Benedict."

P.S. Paul's review is on The City site. You have to click on the "book" where it says 'expand' then find it in the table of contents and flip forward to the appropriate page at the bottom of the screen.

Mark, it should be readily apparent from the context that the description of the Dark Ages he is relating is the one he was taught as a boy in school, not what he himself believed about them as he was writing the essay in adulthood.

Oops. Well I guess my memories were dim. But I actually managed to find it online and reread it. I think. Is what I linked the essay in its entirety? I found your article finally and read it. I'm just not seeing your thesis, which seems to me basically your "plutocracy" and "materialism" thesis in the idea that Chambers said that the West "embraced much of Communist doctrine." Is "Witness" the source for the latter? I haven't read it yet.

Historians have downplayed religion for a long time. Or worse. Recall Gibbon's scandalous take on Christianity's place in the fall of Rome in "Decline and Fall." This isn't a new phenomenon. WWII is a very clear example of this too, and because of this few know of it now. That there was a religious dimension to the American Civil War is of course known, but hidden or explained away as much as possible, and, though in certain ways due to the demands of sectional reconciliation, often ignored outright for the same reasons. One of which is the long and often noted fact that Western historians tend to interpret past events in terms of impersonal forces, whatever their take on religion. This is all regrettable, but it isn't unusual or new.

Thanks, Rob!

Mark, I would recommend that you go ahead and read Witness, along with Ghosts on the Roof and the collection of letters between Buckley and Chambers. Your remark that "Western historians tend to interpret past events in terms of impersonal forces" is right in line with what Chambers has to teach us; in the question at hand, those "impersonal forces" include the inevitable triumph of Capitalism over Communism, thus minimizing the human agency behind that struggle. In making such an assumption about historical inevitability, the West embraces a fragment of Marxian doctrine through the back door.

That First Things article is first rate. McClay is dead on that Butterfield's view was a necessary corrective to an ". . . overweening but fully empowered and entrenched progressive tradition," but notes that this context naturally could not consider a "growing enfeeblement of such an ordering tradition, including the loss of the very Christian faith that underwrote his programmatic modesty . . . and that programmatic modesty would shrivel into a kind of inconsolable self-loathing and lingering postcolonial guilt."

He goes on:

"Hence, although Christians can have no expectation that there will be a sure correspondence between worldly success and metaphysical “success,” neither can they expect that the two will invariably be at odds. Faced with such a quirky, unpredictable, uncategorizable Providence, it seems that Butterfield did something rather similar to what the analytic philosophers of his day—with whom he had almost nothing else in common—were doing: asserting that, because nothing can be said with clarity and precision about God’s activity in history, nothing should be said at all. "

". . . Nor does such detachment give us any help in the larger task with which we seem now to be faced: a civilization that seems in imminent danger of losing its story and that needs the fresh nourishment of foundational self-confidence far more than it needs yet another dose of critical distance."

". . . When Butterfield went beyond merely problematizing the relation between progress and history and seemed to rule the question of their connection permanently out of bounds, a knowledge too noumenal for phenomenal beings, he went too far. Such a move risks robbing history of a usefulness for life that is part—if only part—of its reason for being."

I think it is fair to say that McClay's advice is needed at a time when a laughable screed can pass for a serious book by some merely because it matches the narrative that McClay describes well enough. So let's make sure we're not selectively reading Butterfield, as many are wont to do.

"I think it is fair to say that McClay's advice is needed at a time when a laughable screed can pass for a serious book by some merely because it matches the narrative that McClay describes well enough. So let's make sure we're not selectively reading Butterfield, as many are wont to do."

On the other hand, we probably shouldn't dismiss certain historical arguments simply because we find them discomforting. While I have issues with DiLorenzo's presentation and his rather unmeasured prose, I agree with what the American Library Association reviewer Gilbert Taylor said about the book: "...general readers are accustomed to noncritical admiration of Lincoln and might be motivated by DiLorenzo's assertive, free-swinging style into exploring the validity of his argument."

Perhaps some admirers of DiLorenzo's thesis accept it merely because of its anti-Whig quality, but I doubt that that's the case generally speaking.


On the other hand, we probably shouldn't dismiss certain historical arguments simply because we find them discomforting. While I have issues with DiLorenzo's presentation and his rather unmeasured prose, I agree with what the American Library Association reviewer Gilbert Taylor said about the book: "...general readers are accustomed to noncritical admiration of Lincoln and might be motivated by DiLorenzo's assertive, free-swinging style into exploring the validity of his argument."

Notice how your statement of support for DiLorenzo follows DiLorenzo's own style of attacking his critics. Here is where Butterfield should be heeded. Debate the merits, not the debaters. Is there any doubt this was a part and parcel of Butterfield's message? How does the saying go? Amateurs talk strategy, while professionals talk logistics . . .

No, Mark, I'm doing precisely the opposite of what you say. I'm stating that DiLorenzo's arguments should be considered without regard to his polemical approach, and on their historical merits alone. Despite the fact that I find his tone to be off-putting, I think that his thesis has validity.

He gives entire interviews where he never even discusses any substance but supposed conspiracy theorists against him. The book was called a "laughable screed" not because of his polemical approach. It was based on academic and historical merit. There is no author I've ever read who I'd have any confidence in whatever, or cite, that any reputable publisher such as Publisher's Weekly could even conceivably call any of their books a "laughable screed," whatever other issues there might be. And aren't you the one who deflects attempts to argue substance with the "oh you drank the Claremont Kool-aid?" Seems to me you're selectively reading the McClay article you cited.

I think not. I read DiLorenzo's book, then returned it to the library. But not before I photocopied the bibliography.

Because of his polemics DiLorenzo draws lightning. And that's a good thing, since most people wouldn't even be aware of the fact that there are alternate views about Lincoln out there if it weren't for that. I certainly don't think his books alone will convince any truly historically-minded readers. But if he manages to stir up some folks into looking deeper into the thing, God bless him.

most people wouldn't even be aware of the fact that there are alternate views about Lincoln out there if it weren't for that.

This is so obviously absurd. You even parrot DiLorenzo's thesis and varied conspiracy theories. Only a moron would not know and does not know alternative views of Lincoln, since it was the most controversial event in American history, part of the historical record, and very, very well known to anyone with any sense.

Hogwash. Ask a group of undergrads who are a product of public schooling and I guaran-freakin'-tee you that 99% of them won't be able to proffer an intelligent, coherent alternative to the received historiography of the Civil War and the associated Lincoln mythology. I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of them don't even know that one exists. They might have some vague hazy notion of the idea that the South was concerned about "states rights," but that's about as far as it would go.

And please don't accuse me of conspiracy theories. I am constitutionally skeptical of them, no matter where (and among whom) they occur.

Rob, I grew up in KS at a time when the schools were pretty good, but I heard nothing except the "Northern" view of Lincoln, ever. I had to move to MS and study history there (to teach a Southern Lit class) before I heard anything that even hinted at the possibility of another view. And even here in the South (but I live in TN now, which isn't as radically Deep South as MS), the "Northern" view is pretty much the one my students seem to know; only if their parents are die-hard Southerners from many generations back do they appear to have heard anything else. (And then it's not always a healthy view based on history, either . . .)

Exactly, Beth. I know that I certainly had no clue coming out of public high school in Pa., and neither did any of my peers, apparently. You just didn't hear the other side.

Only a moron would not know and does not know alternative views of Lincoln, since it was the most controversial event in American history, part of the historical record, and very, very well known to anyone with any sense.

Well, then not only was I a moron when I graduated high school (private, not public) in the North, but so were all of my teachers, not one of whom ever displayed the slighted awareness of there being an anti-Lincoln position available post Civil War. I am not a moron anymore, I think I have moved up into the dumb idjit category, for I have now read about other stances than the received universal one of the US schools from (at least) 1950 onwards.

Rob: Please accept my apologies for such strong language. I guess I need to take some time off and relax. Sorry I was so harsh.

As far as what is taught in school, I grew up in Yankee territory near Chicago with no southern proximity or ties whatever, and what I was taught in grade school was heavily influenced by the Dunning School, though I didn't know it until many years later. JFK, a Massachusetts blue blood, did too as can be seen in his highly influential "Profiles in Courage" and didn't learn differently until he was president and dealing with southern governors using violence caused him to reconsider and seek books outside of this school. It is generally considered that Dunning was the dominant theory taught in American schools (not just in the South) for the first half of the 20th century. So it was supposedly discredited before I was born, but the knowledge from academic circles takes decades to move into public schools. Learning CW history on my own has been a shock to me, and I still marvel at how little I know about the supposedly ubiquitous "northern view" after ten years of reading. Kenneth Stampp and several British authors in the last two months have amazed me when I thought I was done being amazed at these things years ago. Believe me, Northerners don't know the "northern view" as those who lived through it understood it. I don't count a dim "Lincoln was a great president" to be anything of the sort, or very informative or useful.

Lincoln died and was treated as a martyr no doubt then and now. I think it is true that considering Lincoln to be our "best President" can be called part of a Northern view. But this and the view above are not mutually exclusive with a conspiracy here and there. It isn't entirely coherent, but public school understandings usually aren't. I see DiLorenzo's project as having little to do with Lincoln in fact, and my comments reflect that. I see DiLorenzo's books as a book length ad hominem attacks, with Lincoln as merely a foil. So I agree that it is widespread to think that Lincoln was a great president, and even to see him as saintly in many ways, but my comments about not knowing alternative views of Lincoln were about more than a dim understanding that he was a great president.

Mark, the Dunning School has to do with Reconstruction, not with the war itself and the Lincoln administration. To be honest, I don't remember what I learned in school about Reconstruction (I was in high school in the late 70s) but I do know that what we got on the Civil War and Lincoln was pretty much straight Northern "Treasury of Virtue" boilerplate, a la Jaffa, McPherson, Guelzo, et al., with no inkling that there were other views. My daughter graduated from high school last year and she got exactly the same.

The old adage says that the history of conflicts is written by the winners. In this case, the winners have done such a good job of promoting their version and stifling the opposition that the losers' version rarely gets a hearing.

The issues of war and Reconstruction are not separable.

I'm also amused to hear the "winners write history" thesis. The Lost Cause is a story remarked on, studied, and portrayed in the arts to a degree without parallel in the history of the nation. "Birth of a Nation" (originally called "The Clansman") was the highest grossing film of the silent era, and made Hollywood less than fifty years after the CW. It also inspired the 2nd era of the KKK, even outside of the South where it had not even existed before. Twenty years later, Gone with the Wind had unparalleled success as a novel and a movie, and has been performed for the last thirty years as a play in Japan. Some very popular films in recent years even perpetuate the baseless LC idea that Longstreet was a blundering traitor and lost Gettysburg, and possibly even the war. The bibliography on the topic from a scholarly point of view is vast too, but the arts are quite effective.

It is pretty apparent that the war and Reconstruction are closely related in the minds of those telling the story, as indeed it is. This is the scholarly view, and the popular view. So you see, the story is quite well known. The statistics speak for themselves. I think it is enough to show that the "winners write the history" meme has not been operative here.

I'm not sure how this thread ended up in a dispute over Lincoln historiography, but for the record I tend to lean in Mark's direction on this. The Lost Cause narrative has been very strong, much stronger than the "winners write history" sort of rubric would imply. It gain traction even outside the South and it seemed to take a particular toll the stature of U.S. Grant (though the perfidies of his presidency surely assisted that). Here in Georgia, folks even today sincerely talk as if Sherman had marched through the state with a mandate of massacre and rapine. The March to the Sea of course inflicted great misery and privation, but at no point did it rise to wholesale massacre. Immense destruction of property, not human life, was its chief feature. And I fail to see how natural law can prohibit the destruction of the enemy's property. The entire state of Georgia was in a state of rebellion; Sherman had no obligation to respect the property of its citizens.

I believe this book proved a sobering corrective to the Lincoln the Tyrant school of polemic.

it seemed to take a particular toll the stature of U.S. Grant (though the perfidies of his presidency surely assisted that)

It took a toll so great it is not to be believed unless known by scholarship. In fact, I'd even argue that "the perfidies of his presidency" is a part of the same thing, and has undergone a fairly serious revision. I've read scholarly books as far back as the sixties that maintained Grant was a solid president, and some new ones are quite valuable in doing thorough work on his presidency.

I was taught that Grant was easily our worst president in grade school. This was the "northern view" you see. But look, then as now what you think of a president has to do entirely with your politics so it is fairly pointless to argue that. But it is fairly certain that he could have had a 3rd term if he'd have run for it. He almost won after being out of politics for four years, and after he lost he campaigned (for the first time) for the Republican nominee and helped him win, such was his political viability. It is indisputable that the public did not think he was a presidential failure, and in fact he is a very large and important figure in American history for political reasons as well as military. His relationship to his wife one of the great love stories of American history. All unknown now. The difference between the postwar generation and us on this question is so stark as to be shocking. In any case, I'm not sure anyone can really know American history or politics without being able to answer the question of what happened to Grant's reputation. It is a study in American politics, and deeply fascinating.

Here in Georgia, folks even today sincerely talk as if Sherman had marched through the state with a mandate of massacre and rapine. . . . The entire state of Georgia was in a state of rebellion; Sherman had no obligation to respect the property of its citizens.

That't interesting. The Confederate army foraged too, and payed the Southerner's with worthless money. An ethicist for the army from Georgia in the 70's told an author that his family had warm feelings for Sherman because his family had their food stores taken by the Confederates and Sherman shared his store with them when he saw their plight.

I believe this book proved a sobering corrective to the Lincoln the Tyrant school of polemic.

DiLorenzo will only succeed in spurring on Lincoln scholarship, much to his dismay. McFeeley's brutal and unfair treatment of Grant in the 80's has spawned a whole slew of scholars doing serious work on him and publishing now. Some real fine work is being done now. One such author, a professor from AZ, has one of the best CW blogs on the Internet.

"I'm not sure how this thread ended up in a dispute over Lincoln historiography"

Mark floated the line, I unfortunately took the bait.

~~I'm also amused to hear the "winners write history" thesis. The Lost Cause is a story remarked on, studied, and portrayed in the arts to a degree without parallel in the history of the nation.~~

This statement illustrates my point exactly. In the minds of those of the received view, one either holds to that view or is a "Lost Causer," and the fact that the Lost Cause view itself is held in disdain demonstrates that the winners of the war have also won the war of historiography. The idea that the conflict defaults to an either/or of "received version" vs. "Lost Cause" version is precisely what I reject; it's an historiographical example of what Maximos in another context has called a "tired binary."

One can have a view of the thing which questions the validity of the Civil War textus receptus without defaulting to Lost Cause mode. Examples:

Robert Penn Warren -- The Legacy of the Civil War (which no one even remotely interested in the war should miss. And it's a mere 100 pages long, which gives one no excuse)
Jeffrey R. Hummel -- Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men
Richard Weaver -- The Southern Tradition at Bay
Joseph R. Stromberg -- "The War for Southern Independence: A Radical Libertarian Perspective" (article)
Donald W. Livingston -- "A Moral Accounting of the Union and the Confederacy" (article)
John S. Rosenberg -- "Toward a New Civil War Revisionism" (article)

Also consider The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War by Crocker, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Woods, neither of which are "Lost Cause" tomes. And even the recent book Lincoln Uber Alles by Emison, despite its unfortunately overblown title, is not the neo-Confederate screed it might appear to be on passing glance.

No, the reduction of the argument to the false "received version" vs. "Lost Cause" binary demonstrates in spades that the winners wrote the history here.

Perhaps I am naive, but so far as I understand, one half of the Lost Cause theory, that the South was overwhelmed by numbers rather than by superior fighting skill or virtue, is simply and totally beside the point with respect to the received version of the history. The received version does not much concern itself with a comparison of fighting skill and battlefield valor, it concerns itself more with (a) the rightness of eradicating slavery, even by a war; (b) the rightness of forcing the South to submit to the Union, regardless of rather feckless claims of secession, and (c) the near saintly character of Lincoln.

As for the other half of the Lost Cause, the supposed high integrity and nobleness of the distinctive Southern culture, the North simply doesn't care, and the received version - instead of arguing point by point on whether the South had noble customs - sidesteps all that by shouting "slavery" at every turn, as slavery makes all other issues irrelevant.

But however much there may have been disagreement or debate about these 2 versions (and - may I hope - other alternatives to such benighted versions of history) in the higher levels of academia, none of that disagreement trickled down into the schools AT ALL, so far as I can tell. Mark, to my ill-educated eyes, the Lost Cause theories are allowed to be bandied about (allowed by the winners who wrote the histories) mostly because the main LC theories have very nearly nothing to do with the main points the North wanted pushed: the North and Lincoln was in the right to prosecute such a bitter war. The few bits and pieces of LC that are directly contradictory to that primary thesis are drowned out, shouted down, or ignored out of existence.

This diverged into CW history by Rob quoting a superb FT article on Butterfield's "Whig History," and I wondered how in the world one could approve of the article *and* CW books written by DeLorenzo, who notoriously spins out of context quotes into a grand narrative that roughly follows the Lost Cause. McClay rightly notes that "Whig History" should be applied to more than just Progressivism.

The Lost Cause is surely false, but that does not make any supposed "northern view" true. In fact, there is no "northern view."

This statement illustrates my point exactly. In the minds of those of the received view, one either holds to that view or is a "Lost Causer," and the fact that the Lost Cause view itself is held in disdain demonstrates that the winners of the war have also won the war of historiography.

This is absurd. I'd never heard of the Lost Cause in school, or anywhere until I long after I started reading CW history myself. Americans ahistorical people. They get their history from the arts, and few who don't take a special interest in the CW have even heard of the Lost Cause, as I had not.

No, the reduction of the argument to the false "received version" vs. "Lost Cause" binary demonstrates in spades that the winners wrote the history here.

Rob, you are the one who has the binary view where thinking the Lost Cause false means anything other than that the Lost Cause is false. There is no "received text." The Lost Cause is the closest there is to it of any sort. If you think there is a "received text" other than that, then do tell us what it is. The Lost Cause can be given in a set of bullet points. Please do so for the "received text," unless it is simply that the war was justified to keep the Southern states from seceeding generally speaking, and secession had something to do with slavery. If that is what you are referring to as the "received text," then you are free to argue this, but you must do so explicitly. If you refer to books, then quote them on the relevant points so they can be argued. I'll quote one of the books you listed in replying to Tony.

No, the reduction of the argument to the false "received version" vs. "Lost Cause" binary demonstrates in spades that the winners wrote the history here.

Well if you're going to throw around witty quotes, you might want to think about "the pen is mightier than the sword"?

The received version does not much concern itself with a comparison of fighting skill and battlefield valor, it concerns itself more with (a) the rightness of eradicating slavery, even by a war; (b) the rightness of forcing the South to submit to the Union, regardless of rather feckless claims of secession, and (c) the near saintly character of Lincoln.

Tony, I think this is ok except for (c). I'd say that it isn't a part of the story now or anytime recently. It is a pretty naive view for this day and age to think Lincoln saintly. I think most now think as I do: that Lincoln was a wise, canny, and shrewd politician. Most think he was not a Christian, and though I think it possible that could have been, there is no conclusive evidence either way. I think most Americans would find it amusing today if they were asked if they thought Lincoln was saintly.

As for the other half of the Lost Cause, the supposed high integrity and nobleness of the distinctive Southern culture, the North simply doesn't care, and the received version - instead of arguing point by point on whether the South had noble customs - sidesteps all that by shouting "slavery" at every turn, as slavery makes all other issues irrelevant.

That is the Southern claim, but I disagree with it strongly. I don't think the North shouts "slavery," but that the South keeps the issue alive by denying its obvious role in secession, and also historically has made strong racial claims to boot. The Lost Causers in the Dunning School shouted "but blacks can't govern themselves and that is why Reconstruction was doomed to be a failure!" The Dunning School was a scholarly school, but you could see it clearly and unmistakably in "The Birth of a Nation," "Gone with the Wind," and various highly popular novels and movies since and even recently. Since great racial progress has been made, the issue is now whether secession had anything to do with slavery. The issue will die when the LCers let it die. The vindictive North wanting to rub the poor Southerners noses in their defeat and mistakes is a huge part of the LC. Inserting race and then claiming it illegitimate to mention race just shows that race politics aren't as new as we think. I disagree with Rob that Reconstruction is separate question relative to the debate as normally framed. In DeLorenzo's book on Lincoln he devotes a whole chapter to it, when Lincoln died before it began.

But however much there may have been disagreement or debate about these 2 versions (and - may I hope - other alternatives to such benighted versions of history) in the higher levels of academia, none of that disagreement trickled down into the schools AT ALL, so far as I can tell. Mark, to my ill-educated eyes, the Lost Cause theories are allowed to be bandied about (allowed by the winners who wrote the histories) mostly because the main LC theories have very nearly nothing to do with the main points the North wanted pushed: the North and Lincoln was in the right to prosecute such a bitter war. The few bits and pieces of LC that are directly contradictory to that primary thesis are drowned out, shouted down, or ignored out of existence.

I think probably the Southern Historical Society with Jubal Early at the helm advocating the LC and textbook transmission has much to do with it. But I think here is a good place to ask ourselves why any of this matters. I think the only reason it matters is because underlying this debate are conflicting understandings of what the country was, and even this only matters in the debate about what it should be. Lincoln and race has little to do with it. It isn't about the CW at all, but about the Revolution and what it meant.

Robert Penn Warren, in "The Legacy of the Civil War", wastes no time in getting to the point on the first page:

". . . the Revolution did not create a nation except on paper . . . "

Though stated in unusually stark fashion, I would actually argue that this may well be the only true "received text" of the nation generally --not regional but national. That too is a part of the Lost Cause (that the CW marked "The Birth of a Nation"), but in any case the idea itself had no ugly baggage and so there was not any obvious reason for the entire nation not to accept this powerfully artistic romantic ideal presented over many decades in books and movies as true. I believed it for many years. But is it true? I think it highly doubtful, but in any case here is where only historical scholarship will do and I'll leave it at that for now. Here is where we either heed McCall (and Butterfield) or we don't. The devil is in the details, and we can't decide what we'll find before we start looking. For those interested in the question, Donald Ratcliffe's essay "The State of the Union" in "Themes of the American Civil War" isn't a bad place to start.

Mark, Tony has already summarized the assumptions of the received version:

(a) the rightness of eradicating slavery, even by a war
(b) the rightness of forcing the South to submit to the Union, regardless of rather feckless claims of secession, and
(c) the near saintly character of Lincoln.

You disagree with (c). I'd argue that the question isn't so much about his character per se, but with the notion that he was a great president because "he saw what needed to be done to save the nation, and stuck to it despite great opposition, and was able to succeed in spite of the almost unbearable pressures of the war," etc., etc.

Now all of this may or may not be true, but that's the story we're given, and to question it fundamentally is to invite, as Tony says, being drowned out, shouted down or ignored.

"I disagree with Rob that Reconstruction is separate question relative to the debate as normally framed."

I never said that. What I said was that you were incorrect in applying the term "Dunning School" to the historiography of the entire conflict, when it is generally understood to be a term related to Reconstruction, considered separately.

"But I think here is a good place to ask ourselves why any of this matters. I think the only reason it matters is because underlying this debate are conflicting understandings of what the country was, and even this only matters in the debate about what it should be. Lincoln and race has little to do with it. It isn't about the CW at all, but about the Revolution and what it meant."

Someone has said that the Civil War was the final conflict between Jefferson and Hamilton, and the latter won. That is my view, in a nutshell. The Civil War drove a stake through the heart of the idea that the states acted as a diffuser of the federal government's power, and that the central government and the local and state governments functioned in a manner not unlike the "checks and balances" of the branches of the federal government.

The potential for Leviathan was there in the Constitution from day one in larval form so to speak, (the so-called anti-Federalists realized this, hence their suspicion) but it lay dormant. The Civil War was what woke it up and started it feeding.


Someone has said that the Civil War was the final conflict between Jefferson and Hamilton, and the latter won. That is my view, in a nutshell. The Civil War drove a stake through the heart of the idea that the states acted as a diffuser of the federal government's power, and that the central government and the local and state governments functioned in a manner not unlike the "checks and balances" of the branches of the federal government.

That's a good point, Rob. Unfortunately, in addition to the Jefferson and Hamilton extremes, there was a viable moderate position in Madison. THAT position also lost out in the Civil War. I believe that the expression you have above of federal power being checked by the states is as much Madisonian as Jeffersonian, with this difference: Jefferson was willing to push an overwhelming form of state authority that (IMO) would have vitiated the federal arrangement just as thoroughly as the Hamitonian version has done, but would inevitably have resulted in regional secessions and multiple, unceasing petty wars rather than one overarching tyrant. From my limited reading, I think that Madison held out for a more modest state capacity to check the federal than Jefferson did.

The defeat of state power to check federal power is why I think we need a new amendment: if 60 % of the states agree that a federal law, judicial decision, or administrative act exceeds the authority granted those powers by the Constitution, then the act is null; also, if the 60% think the law, decision or act simply violates the Constitution - a kind of super-supreme court.

I'm not sure that a Jeffersonian understanding of states' rights would have been that chaotic had it come to pass, but in any case I'm not familiar enough with Madison's thought to offer an opinion there. Seems to me, however, that a Jeffersonian localism would tend to be inherently less dangerous overall than centralism, in that it would be less apt to accumulate power by aggrandizement.

Of course an extreme or absolutist approach to states' rights is no good either -- one need look no further than the Confederacy for evidence of that. Without some sort of consensus among the states w/r/t to division of powers between the central and local governments it's difficult to accomplish the necessary functions of government.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.