ate deception by employing a shibbolethrnto win the uninformed and unthinking tornthe support of a sinister undertaking.”rnThe “sinister undertaking” to whichrnhe refers is the transformation of the federalrngovernment into an agent for Northernrnindustrial interests at the expense ofrnSouthern agricultural interests. Whilernslavery was one economic factor in thisrnpower grab — which ultimately led tornwar—Owsley cites several others, whichrnwere part of a much larger list of economicrnand political conflicts betweenrnthe two regions.rnThe federal government subsidizedrnthe marihme industry and the merchantrnmarines with tax dollars, and these enterprisesrnsupported Northern manufacturingrnbut not Southern farming. The federalrngovernment spent millions onrninternal improvements designed to helprnNorthern factories deliver their goods tornSouthern and Western markets —suchrntax-funded projects as paved roads, railroads,rnand canals. The Northeast favoredrna government-controlled national bankrnto serve the needs of business interests tornfinance further industrial expansion.rnAnd, most of all, the North favored a tariffrn(the higher the better) to protect goodsrnproduced in Northern factories—whichrnforced lower-income Southerners to buyrnfrom domestic manufacturers and to payrnartificially high prices.rnThese criticisms seem like irrelevantrncarping to most 21st-century readers.rnNorth and South, who drive the InterstaternHighway System, buy agriculturalrnproducts hauled into local markets byrnfreight cars, and admire Alan Greenspan.rnOnly the tariff issue continues to resonate,rnlargely because globalists want thernUnited States to lower its trade barriersrnwhile allowing its “trading partners” tornraise theirs. But apologists for the South’srnpast believe these economic concernsrnwere fundamental considerations in thernincreasingly bitter debate that led to secessionrnand war.rnAnd Southern apologists believe theyrnhave a better historical imagination thanrntheir intellectual adversaries, who, theyrnargue, want to measure the social and politicalrnarrangements of another era byrnmodern, polihcally correct standards, asrnif the 19th century were a Harvard sociologyrnprofessor reading the New York Timesrnwhile jetting from Boston to San Francisco.rnSoutherners who harbor a neo-Agrarianrnpiety are also bemused by the blindnessrnof many conservatives—allies in otherrnbattles —who fail to recognize thernseeds of Big Government in the Union’srnvictory, not only on the battlefield but inrnevery other aspect of American life; Industryrnand urbanization have led to increasingrngovernment involvement in thernlives of all people.rnAn agricultural society would neverrnhave required such intervenhon, whichrnnecessarily involves high taxes and muchrn”ordering about.” As Owsley wrote, “ThernNorth was demanding positive action onrnthe part of the federal government, andrnthe South was demanding that no actionrnbe taken at all. In fact, it may be stated asrna general principle that the agrarianrnSouth asked practically nothing of thernfederal government in domestic legislahon.”rnThese are some of the historical disagreementsrnthat spring from I’ll Take MyrnStand and the Southern pietas it exemplifies.rnThese quarrels conhnue to rage,rnalthough many of the terms have been altered.rnSouthern apologists no longer arguernfor the preservation of family farms,rnsince Prudential Life and ADM do mostrnof the nation’s farming these days. Norrndo they claim that industrialism inevitablyrnleads to mass unemployment, anrnargument that seemed credible in 1930,rnat the beginning of the Great Depression.rnThe opponents of Southern Agrarianismrnno longer defend the unlimitedrnbuilding of factories, nor do they laud thernbenefits of living in big cihes. As an ideology,rnindustrialism is dead, although,rnlike Stonewall Jackson, it died only afterrncompletely routing the enemy.rnDespite the shifting grounds of debate,rnhowever, the enmity is ver)’ much alive.rnOutsiders and a growing number ofrnSoutherners will continue to say, “Givernup and rejoin the Union. Admit that thernSouth was wrong and wicked, that its defeatrnwas a blessing, that the nation we livernin today is better because Lee surrenderedrnat Appomattox. And by the way,rnquit flying those Gonfederate flags andrnplaying Dixie at athletic contests. Thesernthings are symbols of hatred and offensivernto a lot of good people.”rnOn the other hand, unreconstructedrnSoutherners will continue to reply, “Wernhaven’t left the Union. We’re simply tryingrnto restore what the Founding Fathersrnestablished. As for the war, if we’d won —rnand we could have won—we would bernenjoying greater freedom and equality inrnour part of the continent than the Yankeesrnhave in theirs. And who are you torntell us what our symbols mean? UnlikernLee, Grant didn’t free his slaves until afterrnthe war; and Lincoln wanted to shiprnthem all back to Africa.”rnThese quarrels—kept alive by a naturalrnconflict between pieties—are unlikelyrnto disappear in the foreseeable future.rnThey are like the ancient differences betweenrnEngland and Scotland; the ghostrnof history whispers in the ears of bothrnsides, egging them on. And since that isrnthe case, then we might as well try to fightrnwith some civility and enjoy ourselves inrnthe process.rnThomas Landess is a retired professor ofrnEnglish who taught for 16 years at thernUniversity of Dallas. He has publishedrnseveral books and articles on Southernrnculture.rnSocietas Regained:rnAgrarianism, Faith,rnand Moral Actionrnby H. Lee Cheek, Jr.rnAllen Tate’s “Remarks on the SouthernrnReligion” (his contribution tornI’ll Take My Stand) was a plea for the recoveryrnof a humane social order. Nourishedrnby daily labors in the fields, thernagrarian community not only produced arnmore stable and wholesome environmentrnfor families and workers than industrialismrncould offer, but an agrarianrncommunity was also more conducive tornreligious and moral living. Farming, byrnits very nature, is a communal act: Thernexperience of tilling the soil and harvestingrncrops fosters a sense of self-sacrificernand an attachment to a shared communi-rnGenuine cultural renewal, Tate believed,rncould not take place without appreciatingrnthe agrarian worldview—rngrounded in a connection to the soil andrnlove for the Greator that was increasinglyrnless palpable to his generation. At thernend of the 20th cenhiry, even the memoryrnof such an existence is quickly fading.rnFor Tate, the root of the problem wasrnsimple: New England (or, more specifically,rnthe Massachusetts Bay settlementrnand the subsequent religious and politicalrndevelopments in American life) hadrncrowded out the agrarian alternativernfrom public discourse. To the 12 Southernersrnwho contributed to Til Take MyrnDECEMBER 2000/45rnrnrn