William Henry Trescot of South Carolina was a well-respected historian and civil servant in the 19th century. He was also an ardent Southern nationalist. And, in fact, a short work of his from 1850, The Position and Course of the South, remains just as relevant, if not more so, for Southerners and the rest of the world as it was then.
One of the subjects he expands upon is the ineradicable differences of the regional cultures that have sprung up within the union of States (which are now more in number than the three he wrote of) :
‘ . . . the most striking feature of our physical history, is the marked development of great geographical sections; and the most important event in our industrial progress, is the creation of vast interests, bounded in their fields of action by these ineradicable geographical lines. It is true that science has achieved, over space and time, triumphs almost miraculous, but it has not annihilated them. It is true that the panting of the steam-engine and the tremor of the magnetic wire indicate an unwearied material activity, but still mountain ranges rear their heads in unbroken ruggedness — rivers roll their ceaseless currents, and oceans heave their world of waters, in discharge, now as ever, of God's great commission — to divide the nations. It is almost impossible to conquer nature. A dozen bridges across the Rhine would not identify the Frenchman and the German; a tunnel through the Alps would scarcely reconcile the Italian to the Austrian; and it is idle to suppose that the mere speed and facility of communication between distant geographical sections, will entirely counteract those national peculiarities, which it is an unerring law of Providence that those divisions shall of necessity develope.
‘ . . .
‘In examining, then, the conflicting characters of two great sections, it is no unfavourable introduction to such an investigation, to discover that nature herself has drawn deeply the sectional lines. Now, if a map of the settled portion of the North American continent be pre- pared, indicating only the great mountain ranges and the large rivers, the most superficial review would mark three grand divisions — the north, the south, the west. . . . Not only has nature drawn these lines, but history, in the action of its providential instinct, has followed their guidance. In the colonization of this continent, who has not been struck with the marvellous parallel? The antithesis of Plymouth and Jamestown did not end with their settlement. The growth of the two great sections, radiated from different centres, diverged in distant directions, were developed from differing principles, and perfected through dissimilar experiences. For every point of likeness in the history of the two plantations, points of difference might be multiplied, and from the quaint freshness of the old chronicles might be drawn, passage after passage, expressing, in language of the most strongest symbolism, their ancient, continued, and present variance. Nor does the argument stop here. As the country has filled up^ internal improvements have spread through the land, in obedience to laws hardly perhaps recognized by those who planned, and have developed, in process of completion, well defined sectional systems.
‘With these preparations for great national differences, no philosophical inquirer would be surprised to discover a wide distinction of sentiment and institution; and the student of political principles would anticipate the impossibility of the consistent action of a single government.’
The peoples of the various States and regions of the union have tried for 244 years to accommodate themselves under just such a single federal government, to no one’s satisfaction. The perpetual differences in their deep-seated folkways make for an unceasing struggle of various factions to control that government. But because of the weight of the population in the large cities of the Northeast and the West Coast, it is rare that others outside those sections control the federal government. Here again Mr Trescot’s diagnosis of the situation still rings true:
‘We will avoid a metaphysico political discussion on the checks of the Constitution. The experience of the last twenty years, from General Jackson downwards, has proved that the President, as has been admirably said, "is a demagogue by position" — that the House of Representatives represent popular passions and interests — that in the Senate only is to be found the conservative element of government. Now the representative majority is Northern — the Presidential electoral majority is Northern — and since the admission of California, the Senatorial majority is Northern. Can a multiplication table work out results more certain. If the government obeys the popular spirit which creates and sustains it, what must it do but reflect Northern sentiment, sustain Northern interests, impersonate Northern power. For argument sake, we will admit that the admission of California is right — that a savage greediness for gold is the purest of social bonds — that a State is admirably adapted to influence national legislation, where its heads are the shrewdest of speculators and its body the outcasts of every population under heaven. We will admit that Texas ought to pocket, in an extravagance of jockeying triumph, her ten millions, and chuckle at the market price of patriot blood and State pride — she may have more to spare, and she has found a generous customer. We will admit that Virginia and Maryland are but intruders in the District of Columbia, and if not acceptable, should be removed without even notice to quit; they gave the land to their Northern brethren — what more have they to do with it. We will admit, with Mr. Toombs, that the South has nothing at all to complain of, but as we do not know what we may have to censure, we earnestly ask every Southern man to take a list of the States and having separated the two sections, make the simplest of calculations, and then, with neither the fear nor favour of party before his eyes, answer the question, What is the position of the South? In case — and we may in argument imagine so improbable a thing — in case our rights should be attacked, where is our constitutional protection? The mournful but indignant echo from the past answers — where? If, then, the lessons of experience are worth the reading — if the political events of the last few months are not illusions — if the expression of outraged feeling all through our Southern land, be anything but the wild ravings of wicked faction — it is time for the South to act firmly, promptly, and forever. But one safe path is open to her honour, and that is, Secession and the formation of an Independent Confederacy.’
Let us repeat these last words for emphasis: The only safe path for the South is secession and the formation of an independent confederation. There should be no fear of her failure as a separate country: Dixie is well-placed economically. Mr Trescot described that place in his day:
. . .
The rest is at https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/continuing-relevance-southern-nationalism .
--
Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!
Anathema to the Union!
No comments:
Post a Comment