PDF Summary:How the South Won the Civil War, by Heather Cox Richardson

Since America's founding, two competing ideologies have shaped the nation: democracy and oligarchy. In How the South Won the Civil War, Heather Cox Richardson examines this tension, arguing that the American principle of equality has always been constrained by beliefs in racial, gender, and class hierarchy. She traces how oligarchs have repeatedly convinced white men that equality for women and people of color would threaten their freedom, allowing elites to consolidate power and undermine democratic institutions.

Richardson explores how this pattern has repeated throughout American history—from Southern slaveholders before the Civil War to Movement Conservatives in the late 20th century. She discusses the brief period of multiracial democracy during Reconstruction, the westward expansion of hierarchical beliefs, and the strategies oligarchs have used to maintain control through narratives, legal tactics, and voter suppression.

(continued)...

Their ascent relies on effectively separating perception from truth in storytelling about politics. Oligarchs tap into the extraordinary strength of the ideology of American freedom, the profoundly exciting, innovative, and principled notion that has been encoded in our national DNA since Englishmen first began to imagine a New World in the 1500s. That belief states that people should have control over their destinies, thriving or floundering based on their talents and work. It addresses essential human nature and lets us determine our futures without submitting to religious or traditional mandates. This philosophy is America's great innovation, represented by two key figures: the self-sufficient farmer prior to the Civil War and the cowboy of the West afterward. Throughout these times, those pursuing oligarchic influence have claimed to defend the freedoms of these emblematic Americans. However, they were actually weakening individualism.

The Origins of the Ideology of American Freedom

While the ideology of American freedom is often traced back to the 1500s, as Heather Cox Richardson suggests, some historians argue that the specific cluster of political ideas that would later be celebrated as distinctively American only crystallized in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In The Ideological Origins of the British Empire, historian David Armitage contends that early English expansion was articulated mainly through languages of Protestantism, dynastic competition, and commerce, not the political philosophy of liberty and rights. He explains that it was only after the English Civil Wars and the Glorious Revolution that the language of the liberties of “free-born Englishmen” and their claims within an expanding British world became central to Anglo-American political thought.

Richardson notes that oligarchs have historically used narratives to weaken democracy and maintain power. They have convinced white men that if women and people of color were treated as equals, it would ruin their freedom. They consolidated control through the government, and class divisions appeared over time, as the rich betrayed the less wealthy white males who had helped them rise to power.

(Shortform note: Political scientist Thomas Ferguson argues that the US political system is controlled by coalitions of wealthy investors who fund political parties and candidates. He claims that these investors determine the outcomes of elections by deciding which candidates and policies to support financially. This system limits the choices available to voters, making elections less about public opinion and more about the preferences of wealthy backers.)

Expansion and Reinforcement of Hierarchy

Richardson argues that western regions reinforced racial hierarchies and exclusionary policies. Prior to the Civil War, western settlers had already enshrined racial hierarchies in their legislation. Following the war, land ownership, voting rights, and interracial marriage were restricted by state and territorial legislation, military actions, and agreements with Native Americans. Lawmakers in the West construed the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in July 1868, as only applying to African Americans. The amendment explicitly left out Indians, and westerners contended that a law from 1802 that stated citizenship was restricted to “free white” people applied to Chinese and other immigrants. During the war, many in the East supported equality, but the majority in the West reinforced racial divisions.

(Shortform note: In Recovering History, Constructing Race, Martha Menchaca argues that the Spanish and Mexican colonial regimes that preceded US control of the Southwest had already established a racial hierarchy that determined access to property, political participation, and social status. She contends that when the US took over, Anglo elites didn’t invent a racial hierarchy from scratch but instead adapted and intensified the existing Iberian caste system to justify concentrating economic resources and political power in the hands of those they recognized as white. This historical context helps explain why western lawmakers used land ownership, voting rights, and citizenship as tools to entrench racial divisions.)

The West's growing influence posed a danger to the more established communities back East. As the frontier advanced, the communities that were no longer on the edge grew more intricate; they created governments, rules, and taxation, and sought to exert authority over westerners who were free men. Easterners tried to use religion, education, or political restrictions to control people in the West. People in the West, conversely, resented the East's efforts to control them, viewing them as threatening their liberty.

How Easterners Used Religion, Education, and Political Rules to Control the West

Easterners used religion, education, and political rules to control people in the West in several ways. For example, they established churches and religious organizations in the West, often sending missionaries to convert and influence the local population. They also established schools and colleges in the West, often with curricula that reflected Eastern values and beliefs. Additionally, they established territorial governments in the West, often with laws and regulations that reflected Eastern values and beliefs. These efforts were often funded and controlled by Eastern organizations, giving them significant influence over the West.

Challenges to Ruling Elites and the Resurgence of Hierarchy

Richardson believes the struggle between democratic values and hierarchy has been a recurring theme in American history. During the 1860s, people in the United States resisted slaveholders seeking dominance over the country's political and financial systems. They committed the nation to equality again, but their principles failed to gain traction. The notion of the American paradox migrated west, and its supporters eventually regained dominance in American culture. Between the Reconstruction era and the conclusion of World War II, U.S. citizens rebuilt a hierarchical society. The struggle opposing fascism—the contemporary version of societal hierarchy—once again challenged that paradox. Oligarchs harnessed their equivalent to the American contradiction, acquiring power by persuading voters that freedom was undermined by equality across races and genders, which had followed the push for equality for all. We are again asked to protect democratic ideals.

The United States as a Liberal Society

Richardson’s view of American history as a recurring struggle between democratic values and hierarchy is not universally accepted. In The Liberal Tradition in America, political scientist Louis Hartz argues that the United States is a uniquely liberal society, founded without a feudal or aristocratic past. He explains that a broad commitment to Lockean ideas of individual rights, private property, and limited government has dominated American political culture. This consensus, he argues, has prevented both socialism and traditional conservatism from taking root. Hartz’s thesis suggests that the United States’ lack of a feudal past created a society where liberalism is taken for granted, and even sharp social conflicts play out within this overarching liberal framework rather than around fundamentally opposed ideologies.

We will begin by discussing how Republicans attempted to establish a multiracial democracy in the South after the Civil War, then look at how Movement Conservatives reshaped the Republican Party to dismantle the liberal consensus and reestablish hierarchy.

The Brief Flourishing of Multiracial Democracy

Richardson explains that following the Civil War, Republicans worked to establish a multiracial political system in the southern United States. The Fourteenth Amendment established that everyone born in the United States is a citizen and has a right to the same legal protections. The Military Reconstruction Act assigned the federal government the responsibility of safeguarding Black people in the South and registering voters in that region. The law expressly included every man over 21, regardless of “ethnicity, skin tone, or former status.” The Military Reconstruction Act mandated the drafting of new state constitutions in the South, diminishing the influence of previous elites and integrating African American men into the political sphere. Governments formed under those constitutions approved the 14th Amendment, rejoined the Union, and sent representatives to the national government.

The Military Reconstruction Act

In Reconstruction, Eric Foner explains that the Military Reconstruction Act divided the former Confederacy into five military districts, each commanded by a Union general. These generals had the authority to appoint boards of registration, which were responsible for enrolling eligible voters and excluding prominent ex-Confederates. The generals also oversaw the election of delegates to state constitutional conventions. The military commanders had the power to remove or overrule local officials and court decisions that threatened the rights or safety of freedpeople. This system of military governance meant that, for a time, the national government, acting through the army, became the ultimate authority in southern political life.

The Conservative Counter-Revolution and Re-Entrenchment of Hierarchy

Richardson argues that Movement Conservatives reshaped the Republican Party to dismantle the liberal consensus and reestablish hierarchy. These radical right-wingers took control in the 1980s and 1990s, pushing it away from conventional conservative beliefs and toward a new ideology. They believed the government should be restricted to safeguarding individuals' lives, freedom, and assets, and that any involvement of the government in the economy or society was a threat to individual freedom. They saw the liberal consensus as a form of socialism that was destroying American values and prosperity.

(Shortform note: Some conservative scholars disagree with Richardson’s interpretation of Movement Conservatism. For example, in The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945, George H. Nash argues that Movement Conservatism was primarily an intellectual movement that brought together three main groups: free-market advocates, anticommunists, and religious traditionalists. He explains that these groups had different priorities but united around a shared opposition to liberalism and a belief in traditional American values. Nash argues that Movement Conservatism was less about reestablishing hierarchy and more about preserving what they saw as the political, economic, and spiritual foundations of Western civilization.)

They also believed that equal rights for minorities and women would ruin democracy's core freedoms, and they sought to subordinate these groups. Movement Conservatives realized that they couldn't attract voters through policy, so they built their message on narratives that evoked the spirit of rugged independence in the American West. They intentionally developed a storyline portraying a rugged, diligent cowboy figure as being threatened by a huge, overbearing state. They spread this narrative widely, using mainstream culture and media to support their ideology. They also sought to remove those they deemed "liberal" from the system, including Democrats and any Republicans who believed the government should have any societal role beyond financing the military and defending business and religion.

The Power of Stories in Politics

Movement Conservatives’ use of Western hero narratives to gain power over their “liberal” opponents is effective because stories are a powerful way to communicate values and ideas. Stories are memorable, engaging, and emotionally resonant, and they can help people make sense of complex or abstract concepts. They can also be used to create a sense of identity and belonging, and to persuade people to adopt certain beliefs or behaviors. In politics, stories can be used to frame issues, shape public opinion, and mobilize support. They can also be used to attack opponents, discredit their ideas, and undermine their credibility. Stories can be particularly effective in politics because they can bypass rational analysis and appeal directly to people's emotions and values. This can make it difficult for people to critically evaluate the information they receive and to make informed decisions.

We will first discuss how conservatives reframed American politics by rejecting Enlightenment ideals, then look at the political and legal strategies they used to maintain power and weaken democracy.

The Reframing of U.S. Thinking on Politics

Richardson explains that conservatives reframed American politics by rejecting Enlightenment ideals and promoting a narrative of individualism and religious orthodoxy. They claimed that the liberal agreement over the New Deal was ruining America by turning it communist. They claimed that the U.S. government used tax money to distribute resources to unworthy Black individuals and that the push for civil rights was a communist conspiracy to stir up civil disorder. They also claimed that the phrase "civil rights" mirrored China's slogan for land reform, and that government should be limited to safeguarding lives, freedom, and assets.

The Cold War and Civil Rights

Conservatives’ efforts to brand the New Deal and civil rights as communist were significant because they linked domestic debates about egalitarianism to the Cold War. In Cold War Civil Rights, Mary L. Dudziak argues that the Cold War was a central force shaping federal civil-rights policy. She explains that U.S. officials saw that racial segregation and violence at home damaged the nation’s credibility abroad and supplied potent material for Soviet criticism. They came to view limited civil-rights reforms as necessary to defend America’s claim to lead the “free world” and to win the allegiance of newly decolonizing nations. This Cold War context would later shape debates over social policy and the role of government.

The Political and Legal Strategies of Re-Entrenchment

Richardson notes that Movement Conservatives used legal and governmental strategies to maintain power and weaken democratic processes. They claimed that voting fraud was a major problem, even though there was little evidence to support this claim. They used this claim to justify enacting legislation that made it harder for certain groups of people, like minorities and Democrats, to vote. They also redrew voting districts in ways that favored their own party, a practice known as gerrymandering. These actions helped them stay in power even when most voters didn't support them.

(Shortform note: Ari Berman’s Give Us the Ballot provides a detailed account of how legal and governmental strategies have been used to weaken democracy in the US. He uses court records, internal memos, and voting data to show how these strategies have been used to systematically reduce the political power of nonwhite voters. Berman argues that these strategies have been effective because they are often presented as neutral changes to election rules, even though they have a clear and predictable impact on who can vote and how much their votes count.)