Would the Confederacy Have Celebrated the Fourth of July?

July 4, 1861, was a day of ambivalence for many Southerners.

James River, Virginia. On Confederate gunboat TEASER captured on July 4, 1862.
National Journal
Brian Resnick
See more stories about...
Brian Resnick
July 3, 2014, 1 a.m.

“It is like the an­niversary of a di­vorced couple’s wed­ding.”

That’s how a re­port­er in the New York Times de­scribed Ju­ly 4, 1861, the first In­de­pend­ence Day of the Civil War. And much like a failed mar­riage, it was un­clear which side would re­tain what was once shared. Should the Con­fed­er­acy have their own Ju­ly Fourth as well? After all, without the ini­tial break­away from Bri­tian, their re­volu­tion wouldn’t be pos­sible.

The writer — an ur-Dav­id Brooks of sorts — con­tin­ued in a thought ex­per­i­ment: What might a Con­fed­er­ate Fourth of Ju­ly cel­eb­ra­tion look like?

It would be simply the old one, such as we have been ac­cus­tomed to all our lives, and then a se­quel dir­ec­ted against the United States. Liberty, in­de­pend­ence, Brit­ish op­pres­sion, Co­lo­ni­al mis­gov­ern­ment, would ap­pear in their old places, and then would come “Part the Second,” con­sist­ing of in­dig­nant com­plaints against the Free-soil­ers, and their vi­ol­a­tion of South­ern rights, joined to­geth­er like the land­ing at Torbay and the Gun-powder Plot in the ser­vice we have al­luded to. The tyr­ants of the old speeches would do duty again with a new one ad­ded. It will now be King GEORGE, Lord NORTH, and Pres­id­ent LIN­COLN.

Like the shared bib­lic­al fig­ure Ab­ra­ham in Is­lam, Juda­ism, and Chris­tian­ity, the Found­ing Fath­ers would make it in­to the found­ing sagas of each coun­try. The story would di­verge from there.

In a 2009 pa­per in the Journ­al of South­ern His­tory, his­tor­i­an Paul Quigley wrote that while some South­ern­ers were con­flic­ted with cel­eb­rat­ing the hol­i­day, ac­know­ledge­ment of the day con­tin­ued on. In Char­le­ston, S.C., he points out, a spe­cially ap­poin­ted five-mem­ber com­mit­tee de­cided that “pub­lic pro­ces­sion, sol­emn ora­tion, and polit­ic­al ban­quet ought to be omit­ted on the present oc­ca­sion,” but of­fices would would be closed for the Fourth.

Be­fore the war, the mean­ing of the hol­i­day was already tak­ing on dif­fer­ent fla­vors. In the North, ab­ol­i­tion­ists used its lan­guage of free­dom to call for the end of slavery. In the South, se­ces­sion­ists used its lan­guage of will­ful re­bel­lion to call for a new state, in­cit­ing that the North had not lived up to the De­clar­a­tion of In­de­pend­ence’s prom­ise. Quigley goes on to ex­plain how the Fourth of Ju­ly am­bi­val­ence was “part of their at­tempt to re­solve ten­sions between south­ern­ness and Amer­ic­an­ness.”

But most im­port­antly, the Fourth of Ju­ly rep­res­en­ted a shared cel­eb­ra­tion and an iden­tity the North and South could re­join after the war.

Dur­ing the first half of the nine­teenth cen­tury, In­de­pend­ence Day settled in­to a less overtly par­tis­an oc­ca­sion. Cel­eb­ra­tions took stand­ard­ized forms: the ringing of bells and the fir­ing of sa­lutes; the clos­ing of busi­nesses and stores … the read­ing aloud of the De­clar­a­tion; and the con­sump­tion of food and al­co­hol.’

In their very uni­form­ity, these rituals con­sti­tuted im­port­ant ele­ments of early Amer­ic­an na­tion­al­ism, in the South as well as the North. This was the day of the year when, ac­cord­ing to nu­mer­ous re­ports, the Amer­ic­an people were sup­posed to for­get their dif­fer­ences and come to­geth­er in a uni­fied cel­eb­ra­tion of their great na­tion.

So maybe the Fourth of Ju­ly saved the Uni­on, or at least provided a basis for a re­newed na­tion­al iden­tity after re­con­struc­tion. “They had sep­ar­ated from the cent­ral gov­ern­ment formed by the Amer­ic­an Re­volu­tion­ary gen­er­a­tion but wished to claim the her­it­age of that gen­er­a­tion,” Quigley wrote.

And when the war was over, that her­it­age was something they could still hold on to. The di­vorced par­ents got back to­geth­er.

What We're Following See More »
Snowstorm Could Impact Primary Turnout
2 days ago

A snowstorm is supposed to hit New Hampshire today and “linger into Primary Tuesday.” GOP consultant Ron Kaufman said lower turnout should help candidates who have spent a lot of time in the state tending to retail politicking. Donald Trump “has acknowledged that he needs to step up his ground-game, and a heavy snowfall could depress his figures relative to more organized candidates.”

A Shake-Up in the Offing in the Clinton Camp?
2 days ago

Anticipating a primary loss in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Hillary and Bill Clinton “are considering staffing and strategy changes” to their campaign. Sources tell Politico that the Clintons are likely to layer over top officials with experienced talent, rather than fire their staff en masse.

Trump Is Still Ahead, but Who’s in Second?
1 days ago

We may not be talking about New Hampshire primary polls for another three-and-a-half years, so here goes:

  • American Research Group’s tracking poll has Donald Trump in the lead with 30% support, followed by Marco Rubio and John Kasich tying for second place at 16%. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 53%-41%.
  • The 7 News/UMass Lowell tracking poll has Trump way out front with 34%, followed by Rubio and Ted Cruz with 13% apiece. Among the Democrats, Sanders is in front 56%-40%.
  • A Gravis poll puts Trump ahead with 28%, followed by Kasich with 17% and Rubio with 15%.
CNN Calls the Primary for Sanders and Trump
23 hours ago

Well that didn’t take long. CNN has already declared Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump the winners of the New Hampshire primary, leaving the rest of the candidates to fight for the scraps. Five minutes later, the Associated Press echoed CNN’s call.