Wednesday, November 13, 2002

Seems to me Dixie Parker and others preaching acceptance and understanding for the Confederacy and Southern heritage have their collective heads stuck in the sand. They would hope to convince the man in the street that the Southern cause was noble and righteous. Perhaps a revisionist historical account sympathetic to the Southern cause has, over the past century, obscured their minds of the culpability of those Southerners that dared secede from the United States.

The stain of the black man's blood on the steps of the lily-white mansion can not be washed away with the passage of time or the revisionist pen. A review of the historical record reveals a Southern heritage arguably opposed to the one promulgated by the Southern apologist and revisionist.

During the years prior to the outbreak of hostilities, the Southern ruling class feared the loss of their power and prestige by the overpowering economic and moral might of the Northern states. The rise of the Northern abolitionist movement struck deep into the heart of the Southern social order. The Southern elite would ultimately go to war to preserve that social order and their ill-gained wealth and power.

The Southern United States basically had three social classes the aristocracy, the enslaved blacks, and the ignorant poor whites. The greatest threat to the ruling class was the possibility of the poor white man realizing his lot in life would improve immensely if he and the slaves joined together to demand economic justice. The poor whites (the majority of white Southerners) were poor simply due the fact that the aristocracy did not need their services or labor. The enslaved blacks provided such services and labor virtually free.

When the demands of the abolitionists became overwhelming and the end of slavery seemed inevitable, the Southern elite became desperate and surmised that only war would preserve their cherished way of life. The question was how could the elite convince the poor ignorant Southern white man that going to war was the righteous path to follow.

The solution was deceptively simple. By playing on the ignorance and prejudices of the poor white, the aristocracy convinced them that by freeing the slaves he (the poor white man) would be no better than a freed black man. They were told that the blacks could purchase their own land and be allowed to compete freely in the market place for jobs and so forth.

The ruling white class made a pact with the poor whites. They agreed that the poor whites would take up arms against the North and no matter the outcome, the aristocracy would always treat the poor whites with respect and dignity and surely as a better class of people than the blacks. (Some of you more mature readers may remember years ago when poor white folks occasionally said "I may be poor, but I'm proud.") This somewhat tacit agreement evolved into the Jim Crow South many decades later.

Is this a Southern heritage one should be proud of a heritage of subjugation and of one class of whites taking advantage of their ignorant brothers? Seems more like a shameful heritage that should be tossed into the dustbin of history rather than to be glorified. That poor ignorant Southern Rebel was not put into his earthly grave by a Yankee bullet. No, his life was sacrificed on the altar of greed and power by the men that occupied those lily-while mansions. Indeed, this is a shameful heritage.

Trebor Zerpsed

zerpsed1@yahoo.com