A Hollow Argument

A Hollow Argument

Southern Nationalism, Myth or Reality

Introduction

The American Civil War, until halfway through the Vietnam War, was bloodier then all other American wars combined. Nearly one million soldiers were killed during its four years. From its ruins, a new freedom would come for millions of Americans previously held in bondage. The nation would pay a great cost for those four years, and the years after were no less turbulent. It would take nearly a century to complete the changes that the war brought about and many feel those changes have not yet been fulfilled.

Some historians believe the war was avoidable. Called revisionists, they held that far from being an irrepressible conflict, it was quite preventable. They blame northern and southern firebrands for causing the war, the former being Anti-slavery and the latter pro.

Years after the revisionists arrival, other historians would emerge to present a countervailing opinion. They contend that the conflict was anything but avoidable and that the South and the North were locked in a deadly game of, "Chicken," which neither could stop; the only outcome foreseeable was war. Many have agreed with this irrepressible conflict argument, but for different reasons; some place the inevitability of the war on the fact that the South was unwilling to do away with slavery. This argument is quite persuasive, given slavery's importance to the agrarian economy of the South. Some will tell you that the South was destined to clash with the North because of a crisis of nationalism. This argument presents the South as a separate nation that could no longer tolerate life within the United States. Ernest Gellner would write decades later, "Nationalism is primarily a political principle, which holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent."(1) The South, held these historians, could no longer tolerate the North's "abusive ways." The only desirable outcome was to separate and form its own state, one which the South could control for themselves and that would be free from alien rule.

The idea of southern, and later Confederate, nationalism is not without its supporters. Modern-day Civil War historians, such as Garry Gallagher, have authored works dealing with the concept. While they attempt, very admirably, to prove their point, they are still unable to deal with major "rough spots," including the lack of differences between Confederate Nationalism and its American counterpart. Along with this problem, these historians have failed to explain the seemingly non-nationalistic attitude of many southern states and individuals within the newly formed Confederate State. Finally, as Charles P. Roaland would term it, there was a "fatal rift in the psyche of the South," namely the innate, almost unconscious desire of the South to resemble the nation from which it separated.

Authors Kenneth Stampp, David Potter and others, argue that a southern nation did not exist in the South before, during or after the war.

One argument by historians and political scientists who believe in a southern nationalism is this: States comprised of more then single nations are either capable of keeping harmonious relations between both or are drawn into conflict, resulting in either the separation of the two, or the subjection of one by the other. These historians believe the southern states, at some point in their shared history with the North, became a separate distinct nation of their own, different then that of there northern neighbors.

Multi-national states are problematic, since civil wars and separatist movements can and do occur within their borders. Examples of this in the contemporary world include Canada and Palestine. French-Quebecers of Canada believe themselves to be a nationality different than there English, Anglo-Canadian countrymen. Many Quebecers have used violence to attempt to separate themselves from greater Canada. Canada, a stable first-world state, is perhaps on the edge of civil war as its two "nationalities" vie over what it means to be Canadian and whether separation of Quebec, i.e. secession, is the only resolution to their grievances.

Palestine is similar to Canada as well in that there are two obviously different people sharing a state, Israel. The Palestinians, who represent a portion of the Israeli population, feel they are being ruled by a foreigner---the Israelites. Many Palestinians have used violence as a means to solve this problem--killing themselves and Israelites in horrific numbers. The Israelites, acting out of the desire to protect their own people and control their territorial integrity, have taken violent measures to control the Palestinian dissenters.

The difference between how the Palestinians and Quebecers have been, "handled," by their respective governments is very pronounced. The Quebecers have attempted in some cases to use violence to attain their independence, but in a larger sense the country of Canada has allowed them the right to vote on whether to remain a part of Canada. The Quebecers have simply not reached the majority needed for secession. Palestine is quite different. While certain concessions have been made to give the Palestinians certain autonomy, the Israeli government shows no inclination to allow the Palestinians the right to depart with their land, holding their desire for territorial integrity over that of the national determinations of the Palestinians.

The southern states of the United States of America believed that as a separate nation they had the right to self determination as well as the right to leave the United States and to form their own state. The problems inherent in separation itself, whether considering the southern states, Quebec or Palestine, are numerous.

With a cursory examination of the problem established, we now move onto the topic at hand, Southern nationalism. Did it in fact exist? The first section of this work will deal with the concept of the "Nation." In order to accurately discuss southern Nationalism, it is first necessary to understand exactly what constitutes a nation. Is it culture, ethnicity or something else? Once a definition is established, it will be possible to judge the claim of southern nationalists against it and determine if they do in fact have an adequate case. The second section of this work will present the argument that a southern nation did not exist, that it was simply a section within a larger Pan-American nation and