Gary North is not the only controversial figure involved in the development of that new Ron Paul Curriculum. One of the other people involved in it is Thomas Woods, an Ivy League-educated historian and a leading figure in the neo-confederate movement. Rachel Tabachnik has more information about him.
Woods was one of the founders of the League of the South, though he seems to want to downplay that at this point. An article he wrote in 1997 in the Southern Partisan has been removed but is still available on the wayback machine. Like most neo-confederates, he claims that the South losing the Civil War was the beginning of the end of American civilization. And he claims, accurately and unfortunately, that there are still people who want to refight that war today, which he says is about the survival of Christendom itself:
“But the growth of the Southern League and the continuing popularity of Southern Partisan reminds us that many Southerners are prepared to defend their civilization, and a people that still possesses even a spark of resistance, a sense of history and tradition, an attachment to the locality, and a strong Christian faith — is a potential threat to the Left’s new order.
Indeed, Southerners have had too many strange philosophies shoved down their throats already to go quietly in the face of this one. As former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan explained, speaking not of Southerners in particular but of his supporters in general: “We love the old republic, and when we hear phrases like ‘New World Order,’ we release the safety catches on our revolvers.” Make no mistake: the persecutors of the South hate her today for the same masons [sic] they hated her in 1860. An 1868 article in the pro-South periodical The Land We Love summed them up quite well:
“Her conservatism, her love of the Constitution; her attachment to the old usages of society, her devotion to principles, her faith in Bible truth — all these involved her in a long and bloody war with that radicalism which seeks to overthrow all that is venerable, respectable and of good repute.”
So the War Between the States, far from a conflict over mere material interests, was for the South a struggle against an atheistic individualism and an unrelenting rationalism in politics and religion, in favor of a Christian understanding of authority, social order and theology itself. The intelligent Left knows this, and even the incurably stupid, like Carol Moseley-Braun, must at least sense it. For all their ignorant blather about slavery and civil rights, what truly enrages most liberals about the Confederate Battle Flag is its message of defiance. They see in it the remnants of a traditional society determined to resist cultural and political homogenization, and refusing to be steamrolled by the forces of progress.I have been a Northerner for my entire 24 years. But when we reflect on what was really at stake in the “late unpleasantness,” we can join with Alexander Stephens in observing that “the cause of the South is the cause of us all.”
Amusing that Woods complains about always hearing that the war was fought over slavery, then makes a point of being a compatriot with Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederate States of America. Stephens, the man who gave the famous Cornerstone Speech, where he makes clear that the very foundation of the CSA was slavery:
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
Gosh, I can’t imagine why anyone would ever get the idea that the confederacy was “based upon” slavery. I mean, other than that the VP of the CSA says so in very blunt language.