This week the Tennessee Historical Commission decided NOT to take down the Nathan Bedford Forrest Statue. The reasoning? “It’s history”. And that is the argument that runs rampant in America right now. The idea that statues should not be removed because removing them is “erasing history”. But. let’s discuss it. Are Confederate statues really history? Well no. To be honest the Confederacy as a whole stopped being History quite some time ago. In the early 1900s Southerners decided the Confederacy should be taught the way THEY wanted it taught. And a lot of it was out right lies.

In 1866 a book was written entitled “The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates, “, in this book the myth of the extremely brutal Union assault was written. Now, yes the Union was brutal, but so was the Confederacy. The Fort Pillow massacre happened at the hands of the Confederacy. And to be honest, the Union did nothing that the United States has not done in every other war that the Confederate lost cause folks still support. The same people SUPPORTING actions like Abu Ghraib have spent over a century whining about the Union. I simply do not understand this. To top that off General Early began writing his own version of events; and Jefferson Davis wrote a 2 volume defense of the war. Now, if you have to write TWO VOLUMES to defend yourself; your cause probably was never that noble to begin with.

But honestly, the new Confederate history came in the 1900s. In 1900, the government decided that fake unity was the way to go. And at a reunion of Union and Confederate troops, General Gordon stated: “In the name of the future manhood of the South I protest. What are we to teach them? If we cannot teach them that their fathers were right, it follows that these Southern children must be taught that they were wrong. Are we ready for that? For one I am not ready! I never will be ready to have my children taught that I was wrong, or that the cause of my people was unjust and unholy.” In other words, he just didn’t want his kids to know he was wrong. And that was the mindset of Confederate veterans. It’s not that the North was wrong, it was that the South just didn’t want to admit their wrong. And so they created a myth to make themselves look better for their children. This myth held that secession was justified, the North waged an unjust war, and the South had been victimized ever since. The problem was, this myth was about as credible as Santa Claus. But as soon as the myth took off, The Confederate Veteran Magazine dominated conversation, and contributors held that Northern historians were liars, bending the truth, and the South needed a voice too. But their voice was littered in half truths and misleading quotes. Secession was never justified. There was no “war of Northern Aggression”. Each state had DECIDED to become a part of the Union. The constitution left no room for a “take back” on that decision. And as such, the North never waged an unjust war. As far as The South being victimized, as someone raised in The South, a lot of what is seen as “victimization” is really just people in rural areas consistently voting against their best interests and letting coded language in elections steal their votes rather than things they can benefit from. But Southerners didn’t care about the facts. They just did not want to be the bad guy. And they went to great lengths not to be. Northern historians were painted as “ignorant or prejudiced against the South and her institutions, her principles, and her real character”. And Southerners were called to counteract their “ignorance and prejudices.”

The myth soon took on a life of it’s own with 5 main tenants:

• The North was incredibly brutal (already discussed above)
• Succession was legal (also discussed above)
• “Not all whites owned slaves”
• “Not all owners were bad”
• Civil War was not about slavery

While not all whites were slave owners (in fact very few of them were), the Confederate historians conveniently forgot to talk about non slave owners who served on slave patrols. I think painting Slavery as a rarity helped peddle the idea that The South was really doing nothing wrong, and that slavery was not as awful as African-Americans made it seem. But I also think this runs deeper. Slaves were a symbol of status in The South. And the truth was, most people were too poor to own one. Yet slavery allowed those people to feel that at LEAST they were above SOMEONE. That’s why they eagerly served on slave patrols and fought to reinforce slave codes. Whether they owned slaves or not, they were willing to go to war over it. And they did that for a reason.

The idea that “not all owners were bad” is kind of silly to be honest. Owning someone is bad. Whipping a grown man is bad. There is no way to slice this. Saying “not all owners are bad” is like saying “not all serial killers are bad” or “not all rapists are bad”. You have to be a bad person by definition to even do something like that. But part of the rhetoric here was to convince people that slavery was a benevolent institution. That it wasn’t awful or horrific and was okay to be a part of.

But once the defenses for slavery ran out, the Confederacy turned to a new idea. The idea that the war was never about slavery at all. Which, is refuted by every Southern secession document that screams slavery. But admitting the war was about slavery, now that we know slavery is an awful institution, would be admitting The South was wrong. Which runs counter to everything Confederate historians were fighting for. On top of that the truth is, all of the people who didn’t want their children to know they were wrong, had a hard time explaining why they signed up for a war where each state cited slavery as their reason. And this is the part that made the “it wasn’t about slavery” stick so hard. To admit it was about slavery, meant to admit that people were dumb enough to fight for something they’d never be rich enough to have. It meant admitting to fighting a rich man’s war just to continue to be poor. And a LOT of people could not live with their children knowing that. So ignoring all primary sources and maintaining that it was not slavery was the only logical option. Being honest, The Union helps with this myth a lot. A lot of Confederate hard knockers cite the fact that there were 3 Union states who still had slaves during the war, and the fact that Lincoln himself offered to let states keep slaves if they laid down their arms and came back, as proof slavery was not the issue. But here is where things get tricky. No, the war was not about slavery, FOR THE UNION. The Union had one mission: keeping America in tact. But for the Confederacy, it was ALL about slaves. Confederate states convinced themselves that Lincoln would take their slaves. Would he? No. But they thought he would. And admitting that, would again be admitting they were not only wrong, but stupid enough to wage war over a falsehood. The truth is, if not for slavery, there would have been no secession. And if not for secession, there would have been no war. So while The Union had less than pure motives, their motives are not the question here. The South fired the first shot and they did so over slavery, so we must consider slavery as a primary reason for The Southerners to fight.

Northern book publishers started caving under pressure and changing the narrative.The Daughter’s of Confederacy responded to the changes with this “If his history was a false record of events when written, he is not a good historian. If it was a true record when written, nothing has since transpired to make it false, and the history should not be corrected. A historian who will correct his work to suit the fancy and desire of each State and community only to save his book from elimination from public schools and thereby save himself from financial loss is not a suitable historian.” By agreeing to change their presentation of it, the northern publishers had confirmed her view that they were guilty of prejudice against the South and thus were under the sway of financial gain rather than historical accuracy. College students started burning text books that painted Confederate soldiers as traitors. Confederacy was a symbol of status, even those who’s family defied the confederacy (like children of the members of the Free State of Jones), flew the flag. By the 1940s it was clear: The confederacy lost the war on the battle field, but they won the war in memory. They retold history. They changed the narrative. And the whole country followed suit.

But the major question is: WHY? Why was this fake history allowed to run all over the United States? Part of it is fake unity. Historians on both sides, Union and Confederacy, let untruths slide for “unification”. A unification they happily decided would cost African-Americans and not them. The Daughters of Confederacy said: “Why should we be so intent upon the truth of history being put into the textbooks taught in our schools? Because history as now written is stirring up discord and causing bitterness . . . The South resents these falsehoods, and that part of the North ignorant of our side resents our resentment.” So many people were willing to sweep the fact that lies were being sold under the rug to end resentment. Northern historians were happy to let Southerners peddle untruths, as long as the union remained in tact. It did not matter how damaging the fake history was for African-Americans, it was never about African-Americans for the North to begin with. The United States President Woodrow Wilson (Same one who thought “Birth of a Nation” was good art), was quoted in 1928 as saying “The history of the South, if it is ever properly written, must be written from a sympathetic viewpoint and, therefore, must be written by Southern men.” Even the White House was happy to peddle lies to be “unified”

There are still “historians” writing these lies. In the 1994 book, “The South was Right!” it was written  “The Southern people have all the power we need to put an end to forced busing, affirmative action, extravagant welfare spending, the punitive Southern-only Voting Rights Act, the refusal of the Northern liberals to allow Southern conservatives to sit on the United States Supreme Court, and the economic exploitation of the South into a secondary economic status. What is needed is not more power but the will to use the power at hand! The choice is now yours – ignore this challenge and remain a second-class citizen, or unite with your fellow Southerners and help start a Southern political revolution.” The idea that The South was right is still ingrained in the memory of children raised there. And the idea that if we had just let slavery be, the world would be a better place, is still a commonly held belief. It is no surprise that although Southerners rag on African-Americans in inner cities concerning education, the highest illiteracy rates exist in rural America. The least educated populations in the States are, for the most part, confederate hard knocks. And the same group says victimization is the culprit for them, and lack of responsibility is the culprit for African-Americans. Odd. The Confederate myth allows Southerners to escape ANY responsibility while denying any racial injustice and forcing responsibility onto African-Americans. It is a perfect set up for a loser of a war to be honest. What happened before, during, and after the war for White Southern Americans is merely the result of “Northern Aggression”. What happened before, during, and after the war for African-Americans can’t be Southern fault then because The South itself is “a victim”. So racism, slavery, and the likes can not be “obstacles” for African-Americans, as they are “Southern institutions under attack”. This absolves the South from EVER considering the long term effects of what they have done, instead they cling on to fake history to avoid looking in the mirror and doing what General Gordon could not, say “We were wrong”.

But even if all of this wasn’t the way that it was. Even if there was no Confederate myth, I want to make it clear: STATUES ARE NOT HOW PEOPLE LEARN HISTORY. You learn as much history from a statue as you do from a grave stone. Date of birth, name, date of death. And it is 2017, we have google for that. People learn history from books, from lectures, from museums, from scholarly articles, and from documentaries. Without these things to put history in context, we will continue with half truths and out right lies masquerading as historical fact. If your kids can’t “learn history” without a statue, you need to evaluate what and how you’re teaching them. Sorry. Not sorry. So no. Statues are not history. They are participation trophies for people who lost the war and wanted to be seen as glorious anyway. They are pats on the back for a region that made dumb decisions to uphold an awful institution. The Confederacy wasn’t glorious. They were traitors, and losers. And that means, it is time to take them down. No more participation trophies for slave traders and slave defenders. Slavery is over. The war is done. The winners have been decided, and The South doesn’t get recognition for showing up against all common sense. Especially when they are so against “the participation trophy generation”. If we want to stop the concept of participation trophies, we should start where participation trophies began, with the Confederate Generals who wanted to be seen as winners even though they were losers. The ones who changed history to be seen as noble in their children’s eyes even when they weren’t. The ones who wrote two volumes defending their loss. They’re right, participation trophies are dumb. So let’s knock them down.