Why I Am A Southern Loyalist
         There is no doubt about it, today many people stereotype all patriotic southerners as being backwoods, brain-dead, racist rednecks. Some of the radical, self-proclaimed leaders of the "Black Community" have even openly associated anything Confederate with the German Nazis and demanded what they call "De-Dixification" to purge all symbols of the Confederacy and a distinct southern culture from the Deep South. It is certainly not a popular position to take, being a Confederate in this era of rampant uniformity and political correctness. But, I am used to having unpopular opinions having also sided with the loyalists of the American Revolution and looking back fondly on the days of a Christendom dominated by Church and monarchy. Needless to say I have been called about every ugly name in the book, but though I have dropped my support for some organizations, I have never backed down from any of the principles I have ever supported, and with my origin and background, no cause has ever come before that of home and family; and that home is in the State of Texas.
          It is, in fact, my upbringing as a Texan first and foremost which first enabled me to look upon the American Revolution without any prejudice. July 4, 1776 changed nothing for Texas (which was still part of the Spanish Viceroyalty of New Spain at the time) as our independence day did not come until March 2, 1836. After careful study, starting when I was still in high school, I came to the conclusion that the American Revolution was not justified and that were I alive and in the 13 colonies at the time I would have had to have stood with the loyalists. This, however, did not ultimately change my opnions regarding either the Texas Revolution or the American Civil War. Conversion to Catholicism somewhat changed my attitude regarding the Texas War for Independence, but even that did not change my position on it. In opposing the American Revolution as well as supporting the secession of the southern states and the formation of the Confederacy I have found absolutely no contradiction and these two conflicts had distinctly different origins.
          The American colonies were not independent politicial bodies which had joined the British Empire, nor were they suffering under British rule, in fact they were prospering. They were a natural extension of Britain and had no more ability to separate themselves from the King of England than a child has to divorce his/her parents. However, one cannot say the same for the United States which formed afterwards. When Britain's King George III recognized the independence of the United States, he did not do so on the basis of one nation but by recognizing the independence of each state. Each of these sovereign and independent states then willingly joined the Union, just as other states did later. In the case of Texas it was even more clean-cut. The Republic of Texas was an independent, established and recognized country, having diplomatic relations with the USA, Britain, France and others, and by mutual vote the Republic of Texas freely chose to join the United States. As such, Texas, like any other state, had every right to freely choose to leave that Union when their rights were being threatened. Though, even if they were not, the point still stands that they had every right to secede for any or no reason at all if they wished.
           The 13 original colonies could not claim the same status. This was not like the modern Commonwealth of Nations made up of independent powers. The colonies were not and never had been independent and had no right, nor in my opinion justification, for rebellion. The American states did, and furthermore, what the south did in 1861 was not actually rebellion at all, people who were loyal to their state simply made the choice to resign their membership in the Union to which they had previously belonged. It would have been better if the north had not determined to force them into submission and started a war, and it would have been better still if the issues which caused such division could have been avoided entirely, but history simply didn't unfold that way. The United States had been freely founded by sovereign states, and when a more centralized constitution was introduced to replace the Articles of Confederation, it was probably just a matter of time before some sort of struggle developed between those who wanted centralized national power and those who wanted localized state power to have the final word.
          For most people in the south though, the common workers and farmers who owned no slaves and did not care much about politics, the situation was quite simple. They fought for the south because that is where they lived, where their families were and they were being invaded. They fought to defend hearth and home, they fought for the world as they knew it. They fought because it would be their homes and crops that would be burned, their women who would be harassed and their children who would be left to starve. They fought because they were attacked. The north could have reacted differently, with moderation and discussion rather than force of arms, but they chose to immediately call up 75,000 troops to wage war on other Americans and for that reason alone, regardless of the politics, I would count myself among the Confederates then just as much as I do now and always will.
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1