Saturday, July 28, 2012

H.L. Mencken: The Calamity of Appomattox, or If the South Had Won the War

With thanks to Brion McClanahan

The Calamity of Appomattox

by H.L. Mencken (American journalist and muckraker)

[From the American Mercury, Sept., 1930, pp. 29-31]

No American historian, so far as I know, has ever tried to work out the probable consequences if Grant instead of Lee had been on the hot spot at Appamattox. How long would the victorious Confederacy have endured? Could it have surmounted the difficulties inherent in the doctrine of States’ Rights, so often inconvenient and even paralyzing to it during the war? Could it have remedied its plain economic deficiencies, and become a self-sustaining nation? How would it have protected itself against such war heroes as Beauregard and Longstreet, Joe Wheeler and Nathan D. Forrest? And what would have been its relations to the United States, socially , economically, spiritually and politically?

I am inclined, on all these counts, to be optimistic. The chief evils in the Federal victory lay in the fact, from which we still suffer abominably, that it was a victory of what we now call Babbitts over what used to be called gentlemen. I am not arguing here, of course, that the whole Confederate army was composed of gentlemen; on the contrary, it was chiefly made up, like the Federal army, of innocent and unwashed peasants, and not a few of them got into its corps of officers. But the impulse behind it, as everyone knows, was essentially aristocratic, and that aristocratic impulse would have fashioned the Confederacy if the fortunes of war had run the other way. Whatever the defects of the new commonwealth below the Potomac, it would have at least been a commonwealth founded upon a concept of human inequality, and with a superior minority at the helm. It might not have produced any more Washingtons, Madisons, Jeffersons, Calhouns and Randolphs of Roanoke, but it would certainly not have yielded itself to the Heflins, Caraways, Bilbos and Tillmans.

The rise of such bounders was a natural and inevitable consequence of the military disaster. That disaster left the Southern gentry deflated and almost helpless. Thousands of the best young men among them had been killed, and thousands of those who survived came North. They commonly did well in the North, and were good citizens. My own native town of Baltimore was greatly enriched by their immigration, both culturally and materially; if it is less corrupt today than most other large American cities, then the credit belongs largely to Virginians, many of whom arrived with no baggage save good manners and empty bellies. Back home they were sorely missed. First the carpetbaggers ravaged the land, and then it fell into the hands of the native white trash, already so poor that war and Reconstruction could not make them any poorer. When things began to improve they seized whatever was seizable, and their heirs and assigns, now poor no longer, hold it to this day. A raw plutocracy owns and operates the New South, with no challenge save from a proletariat, white and black, that is still three-fourths peasant, and hence too stupid to be dangerous. The aristocracy is almost extinct, at least as a force in government. It may survive in backwaters and on puerile levels, but of the men who run the South today, and represent it at Washington, not 5%, by any Southern standard, are gentlemen.

If the war had gone with the Confederates no such vermin would be in the saddle, nor would there be any sign below the Potomac of their chief contributions to American Kultur—Ku Kluxry, political ecclesiasticism, nigger-baiting, and the more homicidal variety of wowserism. Such things might have arisen in America, but they would not have arisen in the South. The old aristocracy, however degenerate it might have become, would have at least retained sufficient decency to see to that. New Orleans, today, would still be a highly charming and civilized (if perhaps somewhat zymotic) city, with a touch of Paris and another of Port Said. Charleston, which even now sprouts lady authors, would also sprout political philosophers. The University of Virginia would be what Jefferson intended it to be, and no shouting Methodist would haunt its campus. Richmond would be, not the dull suburb of nothing that it is now, but a beautiful and consoling second-rate capital, comparable to Budapest, Brussels, Stockholm or The Hague. And all of us, with the Middle West pumping its revolting silo juices into the East and West alike, would be making frequent leaps over the Potomac, to drink the sound red wine there and breathe the free air.

My guess is that the two Republics would be getting on pretty amicably. Perhaps they’d have come to terms as early as 1898, and fought the Spanish-American War together. In 1917 the confiding North might have gone out to save the world for democracy, but the South, vaccinated against both Wall Street and the Liberal whim-wham, would have kept aloof—and maybe rolled up a couple of billions of profit from the holy crusade. It would probably be far richer today, independent, than it is with the clutch of the Yankee mortgage-shark still on its collar. It would be getting and using his money just the same, but his toll would be less. As things stand, he not only exploits the South economically; he also pollutes and debases it spiritually. It suffers damnably from low wages, but it suffers even more from the Chamber of Commerce metaphysic.

No doubt the Confederates, victorious, would have abolished slavery by the middle of the 80s. They were headed that way before the war, and the more sagacious of them were all in favor of it. But they were in favor of it on sound economic grounds, and not on the brummagem moral grounds which persuaded the North. The difference here is immense. In human history a moral victory is always a disaster, for it debauches and degrades both the victor and the vanquished. The triumph of sin in 1865 would have stimulated and helped to civilize both sides.

Today the way out looks painful and hazardous. Civilization in the United States survives only in the big cities, and many of them—notably Boston and Philadelphia—seem to be sliding down to the cow country level. No doubt this standardization will go on until a few of the more resolute towns, headed by New York, take to open revolt, and try to break out of the Union. Already, indeed, it is talked of. But it will be hard to accomplish, for the tradition that the Union is indissoluble is now firmly established. If it had been broken in 1865, life would be far pleasanter today for every American of any noticable decency. There are, to be sure, advantages in Union for everyone, but it must be manifest that they are greatest for the worst kinds of people. All the benefit that a New Yorker gets out of Kansas is no more than what he might get out of Saskatchewan, the Argentine pampas, or Siberia. But New York to a Kansan is not only a place where he may get drunk, look at dirty shows and buy bogus antiques; it is also a place where he may enforce his dunghill ideas upon his betters.


  1. that is a good question and while any attempt to answer that question can only be called speculation there are a few things that we can be verily certain of and others that can be said as predictable to a degree.

    1. that even tho the States were no longer united i believe that both sides knew that they needed each other for self-defense purposes thus would have created an alliance for this specific purpose.
    2. i would also speculate that once slavery had been abolished in the South there would be negotiations for the reuniting of the States.
    3. with the above as givens we can be verily certain that the Constitution would be seen in an entirely different light then it is now.

  2. Interesting thoughts, though a trifle beyond my peasant mind.

  3. Well Gorges, as one peasant to another, let's drink some wine, smoke some cigars and sing Dixie! :)

  4. Interesting to hear Mencken said the South would have been led by gentlemen. Yes, the "gentlemen" did rule the South, but read what those Gentlemen were. They were despots, said George Mason, founding father, who predicted the Civil War precisely because slave owners, the owners of large plantations anyway, were gentlemen "groomed from birth in the school of hell" practiced in torture and oppression, who covered their cruelty and depravity in fine clothes and fancy speech. You should read his speeches and letters about this "gentleman" class. He saw it first hand, for example, he knew Robert E LEe's father,who had black women hung, and was known for raping slaves. These "gentlemen" according to George Mason, were as vile as any despot who ever lived, and they would lead the US into a violent calamity. He was right.

  5. Spoken like a true Northern ignoramus and propagandist. Generally, though there are always exceptions, slave owners treated their slaves very well. I have read two books on the subject (and you, none, am I right?). Happy slaves were productive slaves who didn't try to run away, so they were well clothed, housed and fed. Also, studies have shown that there was much more white on black sex in the North than there ever was in the South. As for Lee's father, this is the first time I have heard these claims, but then, you Yankees are always making things up to justify your ancestors' war on women and children. Fuck off.

  6. Mark,
    Consider what is missing from what you say.

    • Did you know that by the time Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, every slave in Lee’s charge had been freed? -- And that some Union generals didn’t free their slaves until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868?

    • Did you know that there were four times as many abolitionist societies and four times as many members in the South as compared to the North before 1835? (Cited in A Disease in the Public Mind by Thomas Fleming.)

    • Do you really think that the lot of blacks improved after the War of Northern Aggression? (See Slavery by Another Name, by Douglas Blackmon, and Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel) And remember, you can't say "not right away, but eventually" because this is what the Southerners claim.

    • Was the Apostle Paul evil because he endorsed slavery (Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22)? Are those black African ancestors evil because they continue to practice slavery?

    • Should attitudes about slavery and racial superiority apply only to condemn Southerners? The main inspiration for these views were not from Southerners, but Northerners like Louis Agassiz, who is still honored throughout the North. If your rule applies to all, then it seems that the War of Northern Aggression was not fought about the issue of slavery, as Lincoln himself declared it was not in his First Inaugural.

    There is nothing wrong with moral zeal, but surely you are capable of making distinctions -- especially between our common ancestors, who did accept slavery, and ourselves, who do not.