If The South was a nation during the time of the War for Southern Independence, at what point did it cease being a nation? The answer: it didn’t. The Confederate States of America was, of course, the political arm of the Southern nation, but the South was a nation long before the C.S.A. was formed, and it remains a nation to this day.
Before we continue, we need to define exactly what a “nation” is. Let’s start by looking at an example. The Cherokee Nation is a group of people living within the borders of the united States of America, yet they are known as a “nation”, and are recognized as such by law. So what makes them a nation? Is it a geographical area with clearly defined borders? No. Did they win through military victory? No, they were conquered militarily just as The South was. Is it international recognition? No, they have no ambassadors and conduct no foreign policy. No, it is none of these. What makes the Cherokee Nation a nation is that they are a homogeneous group of people sharing a similar background with a generally common ancestry.
Let’s look at how the word “Nation” was defined in the earliest published dictionary – Websters American Dictionary of The English Language published in 1828:
1. A body of people inhabiting the same country, or united under the same sovereign or government; as in the English nation; the French nation. It often happens that many nations are subject to one government; in which case,the word nation usually denotes a body of people speaking the same language, or a body that has formerly been under a distinct government, but has been conquered, or incorporated with a larger nation. Thus the empire of Russia comprehends many nations, as did formerly the Roman and Persian empires. Nation, as its etymology imports, originally denoted a family or race of men descended from a common progenitor, like tribe, but by emigration, conquest and intermixture of men of different families, this distinction is in most countries lost.
Can anyone reasonably claim that those of us who recognize The South as our homeland are any less of a nation than the Indian tribes? Not anyone who has given the matter serious and open-minded thought. There are, of course, those who will scoff at the notion of The South currently existing as a nation. Their reasoning however, is little more than a churlish, “You lost – get over it”. The South may no longer have a political structure and an agreed-upon name, such as the Confederate States of America, but we are still a unique people who fit the definition of “nation”. Just as many of the Cherokee people have spread out from the reservations and others now live among them, they are still here; they still exist as a nation. The Southern people have lost the high concentration of a homogeneous people that we once had, but we are still here.
Once we understand that we are a nation and not just a scattering of people whose ancestors shared the dream of a new and politically independent nation, then the symbols of our heritage become not just dusty relics of history, but the national symbols of a distinct people. They become a national symbol every bit as much as the eagle is the symbol of the united States of America.
What then becomes the point of actually being a nation? In today’s world, not very much. In tomorrow’s world, perhaps something very different. In the mean time, we need to understand that the Confederate flag and other symbols of our Southern nation should be treated with the same respect and honor that the flag of the united States or any other nation is given. It is true that, although the Confederate armed forces formally surrendered, the government never surrendered, never formally disbanded, and was never dissolved. It just faded into the mist, essentially becoming a dormant government. Does that mean that “The South Will Rise Again” as a reconstituted Confederate States of America? No, probably not – at least not as a political entity. The spirit of The South is another matter though. As long as the Southern nation lives in the hearts of those who cherish the honor and the chivalry and the beauty of Southern culture, then The South has indeed risen.
One of the chief problems inherent in any nation – at least with its national government – is not the government itself, no matter how good or bad it may be, but with the support of, or at least acquiescence to it, by the residents of that nation when problems arise.
Supposedly, governments which are voted into power by some broad group of residents, as in the US, are, by their very nature, “fixable”. If the government is not working properly, let the members know what should be corrected. If the problem continues over some period of time, ‘vote the b**d’s out” is the commonly held solution – and it’s not a bad one at all.
That supposition seems logically impregnable. What could go wrong?
That supposition is also almost hilariously flawed – at least it would be if the results weren’t so often tragic.
The fact is – and this is a fact that I think you are zeroing in on in this latest series of ‘Colonel entries – that no ‘nation’ can arrive at a common course of action without a common set of beliefs and a common set of goals. Certainly there are always going to be differences among residents but – to be a nation – those differences have to be relatively slight. There has to be at least the possibility of agreeable compromise among the differing parties.
I’ve held that the Northern victory in the War for Southern Independence did not reunify the nation at all, it simply changed what was then a ‘currently divided’ nation into an ‘irretrievably divided’ nation. It did that by consolidating power in a central government which would always be the shiny prize sought after by ambitious politicians. No longer would the ‘top brass’ be accountable to their Vermont or Tennessee or other neighbors; they would be comfortably insulated in Washington, DC, far away in both distance and manner of thought from the majority of all residents everywhere. The state would always be secondary to the national government from then on and who wants a secondary job when you can have all the bells and whistles? Who wants it especially when the added layer of government can so comfortably shield you from public scrutiny?
Well – and here I’m reluctant to pick on a particular politician when they are all so deserving – Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts certainly wasn’t one of those who wanted to labor among the locals. Nor did he want to take any steps to insure any commonality among the residents of the US.
I mention him because he was among the leaders of the ‘let everyone in’ movement of the ’60’s. Largely because of Ted, we were able to enjoy all manner of “discommonalities”. To the – at least sort of Christian – urban, rural, northern, southern, big government, little government, etc. mix we could add the Muslim, the Sikh, the Animist, the Not Too Sure But It Really Doesn’t Matter Because No one Here Speaks or Understands the Language And Doesn’t Want To.
That certainly added interest. The list of ‘favored diversities’ of course expanded exponentially as time went on and we are now where we are now.
Beyond the fractures introduced this way, Washington was able to fracture even the existing ‘common groups’. It did that by assuming the role of Mom and Dad, aka Nanny. It became increasingly possible for people to get through life without ever taking on the personal responsibility of caring for their elderly – the government would do it. It became increasingly possible for people to get through life without ever taking on the personal responsibility of rearing – educating or, at least overseeing the education of – their children. The public school would do it. Public schools now start somewhere around pre-pre school in some ‘progressive’ areas.
It became possible to escape the personal responsibility associated with pregnancy, with laziness, with sloth, with both financial and social issues. There seems no end of issues for which the government does not either have, or is frantically willing to develop, a solution. That solution will almost always absolutely infuriate more people than it satisfies. But that’s OK because the government can then turn to rendering some additional solution to placate the currently upset group which will …
I don’t believe there is any end to this nor do I believe there can be. It is simply not human nature to be the first to bite the bullet when there’s no personal principle involved. And it certainly isn’t political nature to do so when ‘fixing things’ invariably results in larger, better funded government with larger staffs and greater prestige.
When government grows out of the man/woman/family – group/tribe – small area/larger region – common experience progression, it has a foundation and a solidity that can hold it together for a very long time. When government grows out of pitting the wants of one individual against those of another, it’s sooner or later doomed. The ebb and flow of constantly changing alliances among constantly changing groups is simply not ‘governable’. But, and I think this is important, it’s easily ‘manipulatable’. A smart and ambitious person can play one against another, play one group against another, play one party against another for a very long time and enjoy a very good life in the process.
I am saying here that I think there is absolutely no hope whatever for the US to regain its status as a nation and, probably, no hope of it even surviving as a single political entity. Your series, encouraging examination of traditional values, the traditional nation and the possibility of some day enjoying that in the South, is very helpful in my opinion. I don’t know that it can be done but trying is better than not trying.