‘The Battle of Chancellorsville came at the mid-point of the Civil War, and although they certainly had set-backs, the Confederate Army did unexpectedly well – unexpectedly to the men of Washington DC in 1861, that is. As with most wars, both sides believed their armies would sweep forward and end the war quickly. If you ever hear a General or politician saying “The war will be over by Christmas!” you can almost be assured it will not. History bears that out. Very generally speaking, the men of the Union looked to their foes as outnumbered, and outdated, at least with regards to their aristocratic thinking and ideas of honour. They also thought of the average Southern soldier as a bare-foot backwoodsman who was not all that smart. They were right about the first one, though, the South was certainly out-numbered. However, the Southern ideas of honour and their so-called aristocratic thinking were overblown and these ideas actually sometimes played to the South’s benefit, as the men in the South followed natural leaders and often times appointed them on their own (via popular vote). All too often, in the North, Officers were often political appointees – desk-bound Officers who hadn’t seen a battlefield in years – or ever. Or men who simply bought their way into a General’s uniform. One of the more stereotypical views of the South was the aforementioned backward, backwoodsman. Think about that for a moment. Yes – a significant portion of the Confederate Army was poor, uneducated, and illiterate. Some left-leaning historians have said – with some accuracy – that the poor Whites of the South had more in common with the slaves – than they did with the leading families who owned most of the land and the fabulous estates like the fictional “Tara” in Gone With the Wind.’
Captivating History: The Battle of Chancellorsville, Vicelane LLC, (2020), Audible, Chapter 3 – Summary of the Battles Before Chancellorsville (1min-34s)
The issue of the Confederacy is often approached (ironically) rather like how the US (anti-intellectual) ideologues address the USSR, China, North Korea, and Cuba, etc. The onus is all about “hiding” the positive (realistic) truth – whilst creating a negative (fictional) counter-narrative designed to “demonise”, “alienate” and “reject”. Falsehood and fiction collide to generate a thoroughly repulsive image that no one in their right mind would want to associate with – or support. In my own opinion, the reality of the culture that drives and defines the US is the genuine horror-show that is really going on both within America and around the world (via US hegemony). Individuals possess a brain-mind nexus – use it – think for yourself (certainly do NOT follow my lead – but apply the dialectical method of deconstruction I employ [only if you want to]). Here’s the infantile double-bind the modern US system employs – the American Civil War (1961-1965) has to be reduced to just two issues – “slavery” and “States’ Rights”.
The reality on the ground is much more complex. It can be reasonably argued that the conflict was about the type (or quality) of “freedom” US citizens were allowed to live under. The Industrial Revolution in Europe (principally England – but also elsewhere – including Scotland) was in the midst of transforming the world. During the 1776 Declaration of American Independence – the British bourgeois (middle-class) populating the American colonies – rebelled against their own country of Great Britain, and no longer wished to be controlled by the British Parliament in London. The British rebels in the American colonies wanted to keep their own surplus profit – the product of their own labour (and that of their slaves and indentured workers – including the Irish) – albeit using machines and supplies provided by England and/or the British Empire.
Why divert part of your income back to the mother-country that spawned you and facilitated your emigration to a foreign land (assisting your invasion of it – a process regarding the genocide of its indigenous population) – when you can rebel and take power for yourself? The American War of Independence was really an armed conflict between two-branches of the British bourgeoisie. The government in the UK Parliament – whilst keeping an eye on developments in Europe and India, etc, did not militarily take the British rebels in the Americas seriously – assuming the excellent “Red Coats” of the British Army (and the German mercenaries in the service of the UK) would deal with their nonsense more or less in quick time and in good order. The lack of attention applied by the UK government led to neglect in the Americas – a policy (that although typically “British”) placed an unreasonable strain upon the loyal British Authorities and its limited resources.
As with everything in America – English terms are distorted to fit an anti-intellectual agenda. This like an immature child who has rebelled against their parents – but does not yet know how to interpret or navigate the world properly. Now, imagine if that child was endlessly empowered through the acquisition of “free” land and limitless resources – whilst possessing the modern weaponry to easily displace (and occasionally eradicate) the indigenous population – and there you have the modern American. Naughty, irreverent, wealthy, ignorant, arrogant, and entirely “free” to be so. This is a type of three-dimensional freedom we do not possess in the UK – despite being reasonably free in our own right – probably in a more profound manner than in the US. Of course, we had our Civil Wars in the 1660s – which saw the bourgeoisie seize power from the aristocracy. In the true sense of the word – this was a “revolutionary” event. The war of British Rebellion on the American Colonies was not a “revolution” as political power did not change hands from one class to another.
The workers in the US retained their status as the “oppressed” – whilst the middle-class remained in control of the means of production (as the “oppressing” class) and nothing substantially changed in the socio-economic sense. Given this is the case, what did change? Well, the British population in the Americas, via recourse to violence and force of arms, broke the legal connection between their foreign settlements and the mother country (England) that sent them there in the first place. Now, all the monetary and resource profits could be retained by the new “local” ruling elite – based in Washington. Whereas the English (UK) forces had resorted to all kinds of liberal policies – granting African slaves “freedom” if they joined British Regiments specially designed for Black men (these Black regiments would go on to fight at the Battle of Waterloo and police British colonies in Africa) and the granting of guaranteed land rights to Native American Indians for their help in defeating the rebels – the British rebels (the “Americans”) doubled-down upon the preserving of the status quo, rejecting all interference from the (external) English Authorities.
The thirteen colonies, once the English (British) Authorities had withdrawn their military forces and given-up their direct claims to dominance (the UK Parliament finally granted “Independence” to the American colonies in 1781), and assumed “Sovereign Rights” for themselves. This created a situation similar to ancient Greece where the separate “States” became independent countries – actng in a “Confederacy” of co-operation. This is nothing more than a loose association of pooled strength that is never allowed to get in the way of complete freedom of each State (and the freedom enjoyed by each citizen residing within each State). This is the basic structure of the original “American Constitution” – that was upheld by the “Confederate States of America” (1861-1865) – but which was altered by the US government post-1865 to emphasis an enforced “federalism” over “confederacy”. A possible “revolutionary” element of the British rebellion in the Americas is preserved in the fact that the thirteen colonies developed a type of anarchic freedom (in the positive sense) that emphasised a “total freedom” applied to each State and everyone living within these States.
Whereas “federalism” requires a strong, centralised governmental authority (the European model rejected by George Washington), a “confederacy” is a voluntary association that acts together only in the need for self-defence, survival, and development. The original thirteen colonies developed the very freedom that Abraham Lincoln rejected, and Jefferson Davis defended. Lincoln and his ilk, wanted to re-import the very European federalism the British rebels (the “Americans”) had rejected through armed uprising in the 1760s. This was the spreading of industrialised capitalism from Europe into the USA – as this was understood as the contemporary manner in which entire countries could be immensely enriched through manufacture, trade, and commerce on the international level. Prior to this, the endless free land stolen from the indigenous population, was usually settled in-part, with most turned into farming and livestock areas. Most of America, North or South, evolved around the principle of agrarian capitalism – with only the Eastern States – those geographically nearer Europe and the areas within which Europeans entered (as migrants), seeking to radically change this.
The most efficient model of profit-making in the industrial model requires a strict, centralised power-base (a capital city hosting a strong and unyielding governmental structure), from which no peripheral or local movement can be permitted to develop any regional influence that might challenge this power. Freeing the slaves had nothing to do with it. Lincoln could have used slaves to work in the industrialised factories he planned to build throughout the South. No – Lincoln first of all threatened the South with freeing the slaves if the Confederacy did not cease all military action within 100-days. If the Confederacy surrendered – Lincoln advised – the slaves would not be freed. Lincoln resorted to this economic terrorism because the Confederacy was winning one engagement after another on the battlefield and making a mockery of the Union cause. Lincoln refused to free the slaves living in the North – and he refused to criticise the many businessmen living in the North who held considerable financial investments in Southern plantations worked by slaves. Indeed, many Northerners who believed in the Union had no problem with slavery and had no ideological interest in abolishing it.
Yes – the slaves were lifted out of the state of “institutional slavery” and elevated into the position of “waged slavery”. The hitherto free labour provided by the slaves was converted into waged labour. This is only a type of “freedom” that is not that “free” in the last assessment. When the Union won – the European model of capitalist federalism was enforced across the US States – and the freedoms achieved in 1776 were lost forever. Although the slaves attained a type of debatable freedom – everyone in the US – North and South (Black or White) – lost a substantial freedom, a true freedom, a real freedom. Of course, the Native American Indians possessed no freedom whatsoever (after the English left and returned to Great Britain), gained no freedom post-1865, and possess no freedom today. This might explain why Black, Indian, Mexican, Chinese, and many other non-Whites fought within the Confederate States Army.
It was understood that federalism as an ideology (as a form of hyper-capitalism) would prevent any gaining of further freedom – and so many minorities viewed the preserving of the “Confederacy” as the only vehicle through which capitalism could be overcome. Agrarian capitalism was the type of socio-economic condition that existed in Czarist Russia in 1917 when the Socialist Revolution took place. This type of capitalism is structurally weak and enthused with religion and all kinds of notions of altruistic attitudes and behaviour. Dominant Individuals were obliged to be kind and considerate to their subordinates – but within feudalistic (industrial) capitalism, there is absolutely NO compulsion for the workers to be cared for by their employers or the State. Post-1865 America is a disaster of a nation that has inflicted untold death and destruction upon the world under the guise of greed. I believe that if the Confederacy had won the American Civil War – a Socialist Revolution would have eventually took place.
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 