"The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form."
The words of a true, committed revolutionary giving voice to the feelings of his followers. The man who spoke these words was a person who struggled through setbacks and overwhelming odds knowing that he would ultimately be vindicated by history, but almost certainly not in his lifetime. His sentiments, often articulated in surprisingly quotable speeches, will continue to be debated for as long as the history of America survives, but few can deny his singular and unwavering commitment to his cause. It is a commitment that many have shared: the commitment of a political martyr who felt that though their cause was misunderstood, unpopular or even hated during their lifetime, the passage of time would ultimately reveal the truth in his words. These words could have easily come from Marx, Robespierre, Spartacus, or Thomas Jefferson. In fact, the man who said these words was Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederate States of America.
The Impossibilists
All revolutions will suffer from some degree of sectionalism, but Jefferson Davis learned that the fierce independence of its components made Confederate experiment untenable almost from the start. This should surprise no one; the Confederacy was based in a radical form of self-determination, which made central leadership virtually impossible, and without central leadership, winning a war is impossible. "Impossiblilists," led oddly enough by Davis' own Vice President Alexander Stephens, represented the part of the Confederate conscience that was most pure: anything that could be construed as centralization was to be fought as viciously as the Union invaders. They reasoned that if they were to resort to the tactics of the hated federals to win their independence, they had replaced one autocracy with another. Confederate governors famously hoarded supplies and otherwise undermined Davis constantly, almost certainly contributing to their own demise. It is an extreme example of the lack of coordination and common purpose that has doomed many revolutions before and after the Confederacy, and hindsight seems to indicate that many Confederates cared little if they were doomed: they had their pride, and by 1865, that was about all that was left.
The Lesson: Sectionalism will kill your movement. Success will be impossible without clear, attainable goals, and yes, you will have to surrender much of your autonomy, and perhaps even your principles, in order to be successful. Choose a (1) leader, and find a comfortable balance between holding them accountable and supporting them. A casual observer should be able to ask just about every member of your movement what you are fighting for and get a satisfactory answer. If the average person cannot understand your goals, they are probably a too abstract to be practical. Genuine unity will give your movement sustainable momentum, but reactionary violence and infighting, no matter how justified they may seem, will make you look disorganized and immature.
Sherman
For many Southerners, William T. Sherman has come to personify the repressive and Imperial spirit of the federal government. American military historians seem to half-heartedly credit Sherman as the bridge between the old and new military conventions of what is acceptable in warfare, and it is a badge that "Old Billy" wore with pride. Sherman laid waste to entire regions of the South, most notably in his "March to the Sea," in which he and his army cut a swath of destruction through Georgia and the South Carolina that encountered little organized resistance and brought the war up to (and often across) the doorstep of the Confederate Heartland. Though it was far less ruthless than Davis and his compatriots would have us believe, Sherman was genuinely ruthless, and in fact was at the cutting edge of the terrible kind of total war that characterized the 20th century. When asked to justify the savagery, Sherman would answer that a terrible war is a short war, because unlike the confederate firebrands mentioned above, most people prefer "subjugation" to utter destruction. It's cold, and certainly not a high moral standard, but one that is reasonable.
The Lesson: Do not expect quarter from the "establishment." Even the most high-minded social orders in the world will not give up their position to a new one without a fight. You have chosen for yourself an uphill battle, so prepare for one.
A Confederacy of the Mind
Another quote that is revealing about Mr. Davis' worldview is his insistence that he and his compatriots were "fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination, we WILL have." This was a common theme among confederates: an almost visceral aversion to compromise. Southern "Chivalric Culture" glorifies a romantic, almost medieval dedication to preserving one's honor, and our Civil War gave Southern men and boys the perfect opportunity to test their honor, though it was usually tested on empty stomachs, shoeless feet and little sleep. Shelby Foote described Davis' commitment to this belief in purity of the struggle as "putting a blind telescope to his eye": he and his people had chosen a very narrow path, and would see even the most trivial obstacle as one that was beneath his honor to even acknowledge. It is a feeling that, upon reflection, should feel very familiar: compromise with the enemy is tantamount to defeat. In circumstances where lines have been crossed and blood has been spilled, that feeling will be almost impossible to overcome. Davis of course cast the mental struggle of the South in racial terms, going so far as to classify descendants of Puritans in the North as a race predisposed to subjugate others. I suspect much of that was genuine, but it was also a shrew political move that dehumanized his opponent and made any compromise a virtual impossibility.
The Lesson: Seek compromise, and don't be afraid to be flexible. Creating an adversarial situation will feel right and gain you support, but it will hurt your cause. Dehumanizing your opponent will make bringing them to understand your position impossible, and will almost certainly harden their own views. Never forget that your opponent is a person, and as such is capable of changing and improving, in whatever way you characterize as "improvement." If you take the Impossibilist approach of shirking compromise at any cost, do not expect success.
Another quote that is revealing about Mr. Davis' worldview is his insistence that he and his compatriots were "fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination, we WILL have." This was a common theme among confederates: an almost visceral aversion to compromise. Southern "Chivalric Culture" glorifies a romantic, almost medieval dedication to preserving one's honor, and our Civil War gave Southern men and boys the perfect opportunity to test their honor, though it was usually tested on empty stomachs, shoeless feet and little sleep. Shelby Foote described Davis' commitment to this belief in purity of the struggle as "putting a blind telescope to his eye": he and his people had chosen a very narrow path, and would see even the most trivial obstacle as one that was beneath his honor to even acknowledge. It is a feeling that, upon reflection, should feel very familiar: compromise with the enemy is tantamount to defeat. In circumstances where lines have been crossed and blood has been spilled, that feeling will be almost impossible to overcome. Davis of course cast the mental struggle of the South in racial terms, going so far as to classify descendants of Puritans in the North as a race predisposed to subjugate others. I suspect much of that was genuine, but it was also a shrew political move that dehumanized his opponent and made any compromise a virtual impossibility.
The Lesson: Seek compromise, and don't be afraid to be flexible. Creating an adversarial situation will feel right and gain you support, but it will hurt your cause. Dehumanizing your opponent will make bringing them to understand your position impossible, and will almost certainly harden their own views. Never forget that your opponent is a person, and as such is capable of changing and improving, in whatever way you characterize as "improvement." If you take the Impossibilist approach of shirking compromise at any cost, do not expect success.
Following the fall of Mr. Davis' government in 1865, a combination of many factors led to the creation of the "Lost Cause" myth, this being that the principles for which the Confederacy fought were just (and perhaps divinely sanctioned), and that a series of schemes undermined the morally, spiritually, and racially superior Southern nation and caused its demise. The popularity of this narrative is proof that history is not written by the victors, history is written by the people who take the time to write the history. In the case of the Civil War, it was the descendants of Confederates who appear to have taken up this endeavor most earnestly following the war, and through their work this myth of the Lost Cause dominated the national discussion about Civil War History. Though it strikes many as delusional and perhaps a bit silly, it is a sentiment that is shared by all revolutions: a blind faith in the justness of one's cause, and the confidence that all setbacks in the fight for that cause are temporary.
The Lesson: Learn from your failures. Steadfastness has and always will be an admirable trait, but when it distorts your ability to question your own motives and tactics, you will sounds as silly as the Lost Causers. No matter how difficult you battles are, never allow failure and humiliation to turn your idealism into thirst for vengeance and deflection of blame. People who affect lasting change accept responsibility for their failures and don't continue to make mistakes under the pretense of being "determined" or "committed."
The Statues
During the early 20th century, it appeared that perhaps the seeds of the Southern cause had only been thrown on poor soil, and just needed a bit of tending to grow and bear fruit. During our current national "discussion" about public monuments to Confederate leaders occasionally references the fact that almost none were erected before the person they immortalized was long dead. (Personally, I very much doubt that R. E. Lee and most other confederates would be proud of a statue commemorating his participation in a war that he lost, but I'm prepared to be corrected). Recasting (literally) Confederate leaders as gallant, underappreciated heroes reflects what I think is a uniquely American tendency to love the underdog, and to interpret failure as a result of government oppression. Confederate apologists have, to their credit, played the underdog card perfectly, and have created a groundswell of support for giant pieces of metal that few cared about ten years ago.
The Lesson: History does not change, but circumstances do. It is the constant reexamination of history that makes it useful, even when the stones we overturn show us ugly truths. Expecting perfection from historical figures according to modern social litmus tests is a bit silly, and all revolutionaries should be as ready to consider the merits as well as the defects of those who have earned historical recognition, but taking down statues is not "rewriting history". We should all bear in mind that those suddenly beloved Confederate statues were erected almost entirely in the 1920's and 30's Jim Crow-Era South, which I don't think is worthy of anyone's support. Eastern Europeans tore down statues of Lenin, Iraqis tore down statues of Saddam. Certain things are meant to be changed.
"Truth crushed to dust is truth still, and like a seed will rise again." More of Davis' words that every revolutionary should read both in and out of historical context. Perhaps the best advice any student of history can give to those who want to affect change is this: always question your own motives, and always take responsibility for your words and actions. I offer these suggestions not to discourage or chastise the energetic and politically zealous among us, but only to give some appropriate and (hopefully) helpful remarks, and perhaps to revel in the sunshine of a society that at least feints interest in so dry a topic as its own history. There are plenty of things that are worth struggling, fighting and dying for, but they are all impossible to channel into lasting social change without rigorous self-reflection. As the embodiment of the Confederate conscience (past and present), Jefferson Davis was almost entirely incapable of a lack of this type of reflection, and that, probably as much as the laughable military and economic odds, led to his downfall. My sincere hope is that in the future, the "Lost Cause" of the Confederacy will not be crushed into historical dust, and I do not expect that it will. There are at least 650,000 reasons why the Confederacy and its principles, however removed they are from modern sentiments, will always be part of our history.
