Heather Cox Richardson’s How the South Won the Civil War
(2020) isn’t traditional history but a political commentary disguised as
history. Its aim isn’t to clarify the past but to defend the legitimacy of
American liberalism during a crisis. The main idea—that the slaveholding
South’s “ideology” spread westward and culminated in Donald Trump—serves as a
moral story for a confused middle class, reassuring them that the Democratic
Party still protects “democracy.”
Richardson’s narrative is a “concentrated expression of the
political and historiographical dead end of American liberalism.”¹ This
narrative depicts a world where ideas are detached from material realities,
class conflict vanishes, and the Democratic Party takes centre stage in
American history. However, this is not genuine history; it is a form of
ideological self-comfort.
The Civil War as a Bourgeois Revolution
The American Civil War stands as the most significant
revolutionary event in U.S. history. Contrary to liberal historiography's
portrayal as a moral struggle between “democracy” and "oligarchy" or
a tragic clash of opposing American ideals, it was fundamentally a bourgeois
revolution. This upheaval was fueled by the deep-seated contradiction between
the South's slave-based plantation economy and the North's fast-growing
industrial capitalism.
The abolition of slavery was essential to the full
development of American capitalism. The Union's victory dismantled the
political influence of the enslaved person owning class, seized control of the
plantation aristocracy, and freed four million enslaved individuals. This
marked the Second American Revolution, finishing what the first had started:
establishing a unified national market and removing pre-capitalist barriers to
bourgeois progress. However, like all bourgeois revolutions, it contained
inherent contradictions that the bourgeoisie itself could not resolve.
Reconstruction: The High Point of the Democratic
Revolution
Reconstruction stood as the most radical democratic effort
in American history. During a short-lived phase, Radical Republicans, freedmen,
and impoverished Southern whites united to reshape the South around universal
male suffrage, public education, civil rights, and the political advancement of
formerly enslaved people.
This moment marked the peak of the Second American
Revolution's democratic potential. There was a brief window for a complete
transformation of Southern society, including the redistribution of land and
the establishment of a biracial democracy focused on labour interests. However,
this opportunity was never realised, as the bourgeoisie backed away from the
consequences of their own revolution.
The Bourgeoisie Feared the Working Class More Than the
Planter Class
Once slavery was abolished and the national market secured,
Northern capital no longer needed the freedmen as political allies. What it
feared was the emergence of a politically conscious, unified working
class—Black and white—whose demands would extend beyond democratic rights to
social and economic equality.
The bourgeoisie recognised that the democratic mobilisation
unleashed in the South could merge with the rising labour movement in the
North. The Great Railroad Strike of 1877 confirmed these fears. Faced with the
prospect of a broader class challenge, the bourgeoisie chose to abandon
Reconstruction and reconcile with the Southern elite.
The Agrarian Question Was Never Resolved
Reconstruction failed to initiate the agrarian revolution
that could have dismantled the economic dominance of former slaveholders.
Without redistributing land, political rights remained fragile, leaving
freedmen economically reliant on their former masters. This shortcoming was
deliberate; the bourgeoisie could not endorse challenging property structures
that sustained the reactionary class's power.
The Democratic Revolution Threatened to Become a Social
Revolution
Trotsky’s concept of permanent revolution explains why
Reconstruction failed. The bourgeoisie initiates the democratic revolution but
cannot finish it because doing so would endanger capitalist property by mobilising
the masses. Only the working class has the capacity to complete the revolution.
In the 1860s and 1870s, in America, the working class was not ready to take on
this role due to a lack of organisation, political independence, and class
awareness. Consequently, the revolution remained incomplete.
IV. The Counterrevolution of 1877 and the Consolidation
of Jim Crow
The end of Reconstruction was not due to “Northern fatigue,”
“racism,” or Southern ideology's persistence. Instead, it was a
counterrevolution led by the bourgeoisie to maintain capitalist dominance.
The Compromise of 1877, which ended federal military
presence in the South, coincided with the violent suppression of the Great
Railroad Strike. These events were interconnected, representing different
aspects of the same class struggle. The bourgeoisie suppressed both the
democratic hopes of freedmen and the rising militancy of industrial workers.
Consequently, this led to the establishment of the Jim Crow system: Black voter
disenfranchisement, the restoration of planter dominance, racial terror, and a
strict racial caste hierarchy. This outcome was not a Southern “victory” but a
betrayal of the democratic revolution by the Northern bourgeoisie.
The Legacy of the Second American Revolution
The abolition of slavery was irrevocable, but
Reconstruction's failure left the democratic revolution unfinished. Its
repercussions influenced American society for over a century: the working class
remained racially divided, the South turned into a centre of reactionary
politics, and the ideal of multiracial democracy was postponed. Additionally,
the capitalist state solidified racial hierarchy as a means of class dominance.
The unresolved issues from Reconstruction resurfaced throughout American
history—from the Populist movement to the CIO, the civil rights era, and
ongoing challenges to American democracy.
The Book’s Foundational Falsehood: The South Did Not Win
the Civil War
Richardson’s title serves as a provocation, yet it is
historically inaccurate. The South did not achieve victory in the Civil
War—neither militarily, politically, nor socially. The slave system was
dismantled; the planter aristocracy was broken; and four million enslaved
individuals were freed. As the document highlights, these represent
“world-historic achievements of the Second American Revolution.”²
Richardson’s trick is to reinterpret “winning” as the
subsequent betrayal of Reconstruction. However, this was not a victory for
Confederate “ideology.” Instead, it was a shift in class alliances within the
Northern bourgeoisie, which, after fulfilling its goals of unifying the nation
and dismantling the slave power, chose to forsake the freedmen. It then
reconciled with former enslavers to secure capitalist stability in the South.
This was not a triumph of ideas but a victory of property
relations. The bourgeoisie pulled back from the revolutionary consequences of
Radical Reconstruction because it endangered private property rights and
empowered the rising labour movement.³Richardson’s ideological
framing—“democracy vs oligarchy”—is a liberal mystification that dissolves the
material foundations of the conflict into a moral drama.
Ideology Without
Class: The Liberal Flight from Materialism
Richardson’s story centres on
a long-standing conflict between “democracy” and “oligarchy,” but these terms
are not purely historical categories; rather, they serve as moral labels. This
framing obscures the reality that the Civil War was fundamentally a conflict
between two economic systems: chattel slavery, based on plantation agriculture,
and free labour, driven by industrial capitalism.
The critique rightly observes that Richardson “substitutes a
clash of ideas for a struggle between classes.”⁴ This exemplifies contemporary
liberal historiography, which struggles to recognise the importance of class
without compromising its political core. By equating the planter class with the
modern Republican right as manifestations of a single “ideology,” Richardson
neglects the significant changes in American capitalism over the past 150
years. Her approach shifts from detailed analysis to a moral narrative.
The Erasure of the Working Class
Perhaps the most critical flaw in Richardson’s book is its
almost complete neglect of the working class. The significant labour struggles
of the late 19th century—the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, the Haymarket Riot,
the Homestead Strike, and the Pullman Strike—are either overlooked or treated
merely as background. Richardson suggests that 'History is made by elites,'
with the working class only depicted as a passive object of elite kindness or
manipulation. This isn’t an accidental omission but a reflection of a class
stance: the petty-bourgeois liberal intelligentsia cannot see the working class
as an independent historical actor. Its political viewpoint is confined to
swinging between “good” and “bad” elites.
The New Deal, in Richardson’s account, becomes a triumph of
enlightened leadership rather than a ruling‑class concession extracted under
the pressure of mass strikes and the growing influence of socialist ideas.⁶
This is liberal mythology, not history.
The Democratic Party as the Hero of History
Richardson’s narrative clearly
aims to reframe the Democratic Party as the enduring protector of democracy.
Achieving this requires ignoring a substantial amount of history. Historically,
the Democratic Party was associated with slavery, Jim Crow laws, internment of
Japanese Americans, initiating the Cold War, and escalating the Vietnam War.
Its so-called "progressive” reforms were actually concessions gained
through mass activism, which were then reversed once the pressure diminished.⁷
Yet Richardson groups Lincoln, FDR, LBJ, and contemporary
Democrats together as part of a single “democratic tradition.” This is more
about political branding than analysis. As the critique points out, this
framing “serves a clear political purpose: to channel opposition to Trump and
the right into support for the Democratic Party.”⁸
Trump as Symptom, Not Confederate Resurrection
Richardson sees Trump as the
reincarnation of the Confederate oligarchy, but this oversimplifies the
American crisis. Trump isn't a modern Jefferson Davis; he's the result of
decades of deindustrialisation, loss of stable jobs, working-class hardship, endless
imperialist conflicts, and political disintegration. As noted, "Trump is
not Jefferson Davis reborn. He is a product of decades of capitalist decay.”⁹ By
personalising and moralising Trumpism, Richardson obscures the structural
crisis of American capitalism and the bankruptcy of both major parties.
Conclusion: Liberalism’s Desperate Search for a Usable
Past
How the South Won the Civil War is more of a political
narrative than a serious historical work. It aims to reassure liberal readers
that history supports their views, portrays the Democratic Party as the
guardian of “democracy,” and considers Trumpism an anomaly rather than a sign
of systemic failure. As the critique notes, the book’s popularity reflects the
political deadlock of that social class, which desperately seeks a past that
can justify remaining loyal to a party aligned with Wall Street and warfare.”¹⁰
Historical materialism points in the opposite direction:
toward the necessity of the working class taking power in its own name.
Footnotes
- “The
book’s thesis can be critically assessed… concentrated expression of the
political and historiographical dead end of American liberalism.”
- “These
were world‑historic achievements of the Second American Revolution.”
- “The
failure of Reconstruction was the failure of the bourgeoisie to carry
through the democratic revolution to its conclusion…”
- “Richardson’s
framework… substitutes a clash of ideas for a struggle between classes.”
- “In
Richardson’s narrative, history is made by elites.”
- “When
the New Deal arrives, it is presented as a victory of enlightened
leadership…”
- “Its
‘progressive’ reforms have always been concessions wrung from it by mass
struggle from below…”
- “Richardson’s
framing serves a clear political purpose: to channel opposition to Trump…
into support for the Democratic Party.”
- “Trump
is not Jefferson Davis reborn. He is a product of decades of capitalist
decay.”
- “The
book’s popularity… is a measure of the political impasse of that social
layer…”
