Remarks against the usage of the Phrase “War for Southern Independence”
Keith N. Knapp
History matters because it reveals to us who we were and who we have become. That is to say it is central to our self-identity. Its importance is obvious in the vigorous debate we will have today over what a course about the American Civil War should be entitled.
The college course catalogue carries the approval of the institution and its members. What we title our courses reflect what we think is a socially acceptable and accurate description of what we teach. The reader of the college catalogue can only make his or her judgments about a course based on its name and description. If a course’s title appears partisan or discriminatory, it will surely leave the reader with a negative impression of the institution that offers it. To ensure that this does not occur, course titles in the catalog are not “owned” by individual instructors; rather, they are broadly worded and reflect a scholarly consensus, while allowing for any qualified instructor to teach the class. For instance, any 20th C. US historian should be able to teach the WW2 class as described in our catalog. It can’t reflect the biases of any individual. Furthermore, the title should be an objective description of the phenomenon examined and should not reflect partisan viewpoints.
A class title that includes the phrase War for Southern Independence is for white students only. Many black and some white students, especially from the North, understand the political implications of the course’s title. Black students most certainly will feel unwelcome in such a class, while some white students will view the class as a means to reaffirm their identity as white southerners. That using the phrase “The War for Southern Independence” is unusual and irregular is clear in that no other peer institution offers a class with this name. The scholarly consensus for naming this conflict is the “American Civil War” or the “Civil War.” To ascertain whether this was indeed the case, I conducted an informal survey of 178 historians of the Civil War and the History of the South. Much to my surprise, we received responses from 110 professors; most of their responses came within the first 48 hours and were quite lengthy. 80% of the respondents believed that the term is inappropriate as part of a course title; 13% believed that it would only be appropriate if the phrase was encased in quotation marks to indicate that it is a problematic term. When asked whether having a course with such a name would hurt our reputation as a department and a college, 80% of the respondents said it would. A number of the respondents also pointed out that the term is inaccurate. At the time of the war, the South had many Southern Unionists, particularly in mountainous areas, which is why West Virginia split off from Virginia at the outset of the War. Moreover, as Bo pointed out 40% of the southern population was blacks who yearned for their freedom. Certainly the war the Confederates fought was not one for the independence of these southerners.
We should note that our graduate course is called HIST-504—Civil War and Reconstruction, which covers the period from 1850-1877. Why is it called this rather than “Disunion and the War for Southern Independence?” That is because we have a joint program with the College of Charleston – its historians would never agree with the phrase “The War for Southern Independence”; moreover, they would disagree with focusing the course on the time frame of 1850-1865, which leaves out Reconstruction. Bernard Powers at the College of Charleson, an expert on the history of African-Americans in the American South and who at one point was the Director of our joint M.A. program, had this to say about the proposed course:
Without question the use of the title “The War for Southern Independence” would be a detriment to your department and The Citadel among the community of professional American Historians. Firstly, it is not a term that is commonly used now and harkens back to the “Lost Cause” type writers on the War and Post-War years. Secondly it is a term that is clearly designed to promote a political agenda and makes no pretense to fairly consider all points of view. The view that such a title suggests is that of the Confederate or Neo-Confederate or Sons of Confederate Veterans. The viewpoint of such individuals and organizations needs representation but as part of the larger picture. It is not at all clear that there will be a larger point of view given the choice of the proposed title. I think your department had such a course some years ago and I spoke to one of The Citadel’s early African-American students who took that course or a similar course there. To say the least it was an unpleasant experience, with things being said that were considered blatantly racist. I say this to say that this title will conjure up all the images of those times among those around here who still remember them and will confirm in the minds of others that nothing has changed at The Citadel. This would be unfortunate given the realities that those better informed know” (E-mail from 11/16/11).
The course Professor Powers refers to in his letter is our undergraduate course “Disunion and the War for Southern Independence.”
How is it that we already have a course with the name of “Disunion and the War for Southern Independence”? This course was the creation of John Coussons who became a full professor in 1974 and head of the History Department in 1977. Before his time the course was called “The American Civil War and Reconstruction, 1860-1877.” John created this course and altered the coverage of the course so that it only covered the period of 1850-1865; that way, he did not have to deal with the central legacy of the war: the freedom of blacks and the struggle to integrate them into society and citizenry. That Professor Coussons subscribed to a Neo-Confederate view of the war is clear in his being a signatory of the year 2000 “The Statement of College and University Professors in Support of the Confederate Battle Flag Atop of the South Carolina Statehouse.”See http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/profs.html
This document argues that the war was caused by the Northern states desire to turn “the U.S. into a centralized pro-business state.” As the authors of this document so plainly state, “More importantly, though the desire to defend a longstanding way of life from outside interference was a partial cause of secession, slavery did not cause the war. The invasion and conquest of Southern States and the destruction of their legal and democratically-elected governments was justified by the desire to preserve the Union, as was stated repeatedly by Lincoln.” In this blatantly Neo-Confederate document, the Civil War is referred to as the “War for Southern Independence.” It is plainly evident that Professor Coussons used his course called “War for Southern Independence” to propagate a Neo-Confederate vision of the war – one in which the abolition of slavery was not a root cause of the war. [Read from Bernie’s letter]
To provide you some sense of the racial environment that prevailed at The Citadel in the 1970s when this course was adopted, I would like you to take a look at this photograph from the 1977 Sphinx. That this image could appear in a college sanctioned publication speaks volumes about the prevailing atmosphere when the course with this phrase was created. In 2012, both the country’s and the college’s racial atmosphere have improved by leaps and bounds. This image could not appear in today’s college yearbook. If we cannot sanction this photograph now, how is it that we can sanction a term such as the “War for Southern Independence” as part of a course title? What does that say about who we are?