I just received my copy of The Enterprise dated September 6 which contained the above letters.  Those letters raised two particular issues for me.

One was the statement “There can be no denying the Civil War was waged in defense of the institution of slavery.” That’s an opinion.

Yes, slavery was a big issue, but if one wants to really define the cause of “The War of Northern Aggression” (a better term) in only one word, I would suggest “economics” is much more accurate. Yes, that word encompasses the slavery issue—the means of agricultural production. However, the industrial revolution was beginning and it was recognized that slavery was simply too expensive and would get more so with time.

With the application of technology the cost of production would be reduced and eliminate the need for the plantation to provide food, shelter, medical care, etc. Those expenses were a plantation necessity in order to have productive labor. A simple example was the impact of the cotton gin on cotton production—a mechanical device eliminated the need for hand labor to process the cotton.  Consider that in the context of what is happening today as technology is eliminating many of the jobs that have existed for so many years.

The first steps of eliminating slavery are contained in Article 9 of the Confederate Constitution. That constitution did protect slavery—but it also prohibited the importation of slaves from any foreign country. The south was going to have to deal with slavery elimination as technology advanced, and I would submit that was the first step.

Economics also encompasses taxation. Note that the Confederate Constitution also prohibits the imposition of taxes that favor any particular industry. This provision was inserted because the southern states had been providing the tax revenues of the United States for many years—approximately 75% of the United States revenue came from taxes levied on foreign exports of agricultural products, and foreign imports of manufactured products.

Those taxes benefited the northern states, who were the manufacturers—they wanted cheaper agricultural products (cotton for their mills) and higher prices for United States manufactured goods. Taxes had been in place a long time to accomplish that objective, as foreign countries would pay more for cotton and would sell manufactured products for less. (Again, consider our current labor issues and the jobs that have moved to countries like China because of lower costs. Donald Trump even talked about increasing such taxes on imported goods inflate those prices and get make American products more competitive.) And the south could do nothing about it because of the population difference—and the corresponding votes in congress. Those taxes were increased during the 1850’s to what became an intolerable level.

The above are merely summaries. Anyone who wants to get into the details only needs to read some real history—not the “textbook” history that is offered as education, but look at issues in real depth. (Remember who won the war—and who gets to write the history as a result.)  There were other causes of that war too of course, but “economics” is the most definitive term if one wants to reduce the issues to a simple “sound bite.”

My other issue concerns the monument of the Confederate soldier at the courthouse. It appears that because “Stuart” was named for General Jeb Stuart, it was suggested that his name apparently be removed and change the monument to be for all soldiers of that war. Why? Does someone also want to change the name of the town back to “Taylorsivlle?”

That monument is to the soldiers who volunteered to defend their state, property, families, and friends, from an invading enemy who sent troops to collect the taxes previously referenced. (Most of those taxes had been collected in the ports of South Carolina—and note, Fort Sumter is also there.)  Even Lincoln stated that he wanted to preserve the union with or without slavery, so he certainly didn’t lead a war against slavery. He really led a war of economics so the United States could survive financially. (I wonder how he would look at the country now, with a debt of $20,000,000,000 and growing.  We’re on the road to bankruptcy once again.)

I am greatly offended by such ideas of moving monuments or changing their wording.  In fact, being “politically correct” it would seem that I should also demand that I not be offended!  Leave the monuments alone.  Leave our real history alone so we will hopefully learn from it. Instead, take the opportunity to really learn something about the historical facts of this country, not just the opinions of some who are offended by anything that doesn’t fit with their opinion, regardless of the factual basis.

P.S. We’re going through the same thing here in Tennessee—some want to remove the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the state capital. Some even claim he was the founder of the KKK! If only H.K. Edgerton were younger and could come back to Stuart to speak in support of keeping our monuments. (Photo from The Enterprise shown here.)

Sincerely,

William S. Rodgers
Brentwood, Tenn.