By Boyd Cathey
October 12, 2026
You can tell a lot about a person by the friends he cherishes, and you can intuit much about how a writer thinks on one topic by how he thinks on another, related topic. This surmise is not always true in every case, but I think it applies in a great majority of situations. Tell me what a person-a distinguished author, a political leader, a cultural icon-believes, his perspective, on this or that significant historical event and you can usually gather a valid impression of his worldview and overarching philosophy.
A few years back I created my own measure, my own test, as it were, to determine on which side of the immense and fundamentally unbridgeable divide various writers and authors, politicians and, specifically, self-denominated "conservatives," come down on. It seemed to me that we could take, historically, several major conflicts and wars that fundamentally shaped not only subsequent history, but also, indelibly, the consciousness, thinking and cultural outlook of succeeding generations, and utilize them as markers.
I came up with the following five:
- The English Civil War, 1642-1651;
- The French Revolution, 1789-1799, also including the Napoleonic Period, 1799-1815;
- The War Between the States, 1861-1865;
- The Communist Revolution, 1917-1920; and
- The Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939.
I won't dwell at length on my reasons for selecting these conflicts as measures-I will save that discussion perhaps for another time. But I will say I believe how we think about these watershed conflicts may clearly illustrate where a person stands in relation to the accumulated inheritance-that great continuum-of Western and Christian tradition. Respond correctly on all five (as I see it), and you are a staunch defender of that heritage and most probably have been able, in some fashion, to understand the fundamental connection those conflicts have in the context of our civilization and our willingness to defend it.
1) Obviously, for most self-described "conservatives," there are at least two "giveaways" in my list, that is, two of the five questions they would very likely answer correctly: about the French Revolution and the Communist Revolution. Most "conservatives," if queried, would have certainly opposed them.
2) It becomes harder after that, and, I suggest, even more critical to a determination when discussing the English Civil War. Not that many current "conservative" writers or politicians are intimately familiar with the history, causes, and issues surrounding that conflict. Yet, I would state that issues debated then were, in microcosm and incipiently, some of the issues we continue to debate today, and that a faithful and thinking defender of the continuity of Western tradition must, necessarily, come down on the side of the Royalists, as opposed to Oliver Cromwell's authoritarian experiment in democracy. King Charles, for all his mistakes and bad decisions, nevertheless, represented the traditions of his country and, as he stated at his famous trial, represented "more the people of England" than the rump "democratic" dictatorship of the Cromwellians and Roundheads.
3) Back in the 1960s, back when William F. Buckley's magazine, National Review and Russell Kirk's journal, Modern Age, were arguably truly conservative, the question concerning the Spanish Civil War would have, likewise, been a giveaway. Most conservatives would have viewed that conflict in the light of a much larger, universal conflict between international Communism and those forces opposed to it, and this despite the fact that the anti-Republican Nationalist forces led by Francisco Franco did receive some support from Fascist Italy and Hitler's Germany (while the Soviet Union not only supported the Republic, but eventually via the Spanish Communist Party eliminated most of its opposition in Spanish Republican ranks). But not today; indeed, many of the dominant "conservatives" of 2026-the Neoconservatives, most especially-come down passionately on the side of the socialist Republic, and, employing the linguistic armor of the Left, they attack the Nationalist, Catholic and traditionalist forces that fought against the Republic, as "fascists."
4) Finally, there is the War Between the States, and it is here, in this case, where we indeed can separate the true traditionalist conservatives who comprehend and accept the continuum of Western Christian civilization, its virtues, and its authority, and those who have, in reality and to varying degrees, severed themselves from that continuity. It is here that we can range on one side those who accept and participate in that "great chain of being"-that fundamentally religious and hierarchical structure of all matter and life, decreed by God, Himself, and present in our historical consciousness, and those who do not accept it. For support, in some form, of the Confederacy becomes that crucial measure that determines not just a political outlook about states' rights and the original meaning of the American Constitution. It also demonstrates a vision of reality and of our existence as human beings created by and subservient to God as part of an organic whole, a Creation which must continually be protected and defended against those who would seek to puncture it or distort its meaning, if not, eventually, to subvert or destroy it.
Certainly, there are those of good will and, let us call it "invincible ignorance," who have been educated to think that the primary issue in 1861 was slavery, and that Abraham Lincoln was simply reacting to those "rebels" who wished to destroy "the sacred bonds" of Union, while he was advancing the great humanitarian cause of "freedom." So much for the caliber and character of our contemporary educational system, not to mention Hollywood's ideologically tendentious (and mostly successful) attempts to influence us. Yet, that mythology surrounding the Southern Iliad of 1861-1865 will not stand serious cross-examination.
Consider these popular myths and shibboleths:
"The War was about slavery!" Not really accurate: the war aims cited repeatedly by Lincoln and Northern publicists were that the War was to "preserve the Union." Indeed, if abolition of slavery had been declared as the principle war aim in 1861, most likely a great majority of Union political leaders, not to mention Union soldiers, would have recoiled, and the Northern war effort would most likely have collapsed. It was difficult enough to gain wide support in the North, as it was. Remember, Lincoln was elected with less than 40% of the vote in 1860 and barely gained pluralities in most Northern states. Lincoln only latched upon the issue of slavery two years after the war had begun, and then as a somewhat desperate war measure aimed squarely at Great Britain and France who had indicated the real possibility of recognizing the Southern Confederacy.
"Lincoln freed the slaves!" Not so; Lincoln freed not one slave. His Emancipation Proclamation, issued first on September 22, 1862 and finalized on January 1, 1863, supposedly "freeing the slaves," only applied to those areas not under Union military control or occupation, that is, territory of the independent Southern states. It did not apply to the "slave states" within the Union or controlled by the Union military, including Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. Thus, Lincoln's proclamation "freed" slaves where his action had no effect, but left it untouched where he could have "freed" them. Not only that, exactly one month prior to his initial proclamation he had been interviewed by Horace Greeley, editor of The New York Tribune, where he forthrightly stated: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it... What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union...." [August 22, 1862] The amendments to end slavery came after the conclusion of the war and after the death of Lincoln.
And this charge: "Robert E. Lee and other Confederate military leaders who had been in the US Army committed treason by violating their oaths to defend the Union, and Confederate leaders were in rebellion against the legitimately elected government of the United States."
It is this accusation, after the charge of defending slavery, that has become the ultimate weapon of choice-the "ultima ratio"-for today's fierce opponents of the various monuments that honor Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, P. G. T. Beauregard, and other Confederate military leaders, and for the belief that they should be taken down and the reputations of these men besmirched. And most especially, it is spewed forth as unassailable gospel by many Neoconservative writers, publicists, pundits, and their less distinguished camp followers in the Republican Party.
A couple of examples will suffice to present the tenor of these accusations.
First, several years ago we had the spectacle of Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, apparently "channeling" (!) Robert E. Lee and declaring that if Marse Robert were alive today he would gleefully join in the chorus to bring down those monuments honoring Confederate soldiers and leaders. So we are asked seriously to believe the great general would be there right beside the "antifa" Marxists and Black Lives Matter vandals?
Even worse is the foul opinion of former John McCain campaign advisor Max Boot that just as well could have come from a member of the communist Workers' World Party:
"...what is it that we are supposed to be grateful to the Confederates for ? For seceding from the Union ? For, in the case of former U.S. Army officers such as Lee and Jackson, violating their oaths to"support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" ? For triggering the most bloody conflict in American history ? For fighting to keep their fellow citizens in bondage?" See this.
Of course, what Boot does not acknowledge is that Lee had resigned his commission in the US Army before accepting one in the Confederate Army. Additionally, when Virginia had first joined the American confederation on June 25, 1788, it did so with the understanding that it reserved the right to leave that union in the future if it so decided. There is no question of treason here.
These Neoconservatives are, supposedly, well-educated, with valuable university degrees, writers of some repute. I do not believe they fall into the category of invincible ignorance; I do not believe that will suffice as an explanation or excuse for the hatred-laced and furious animus they demonstrate against a Lee or any other faithful military leader of the Confederacy. Rather, they fall clearly on that other side of my unbridgeable divide-they, through this major indicator and precisely because they are educated, implicitly reject the continuum of Western Christian civilization. They may protest not, but, in effect and through their views, they nevertheless do so. And, as such, they are the enemies of those who do defend that great chain of being, that European inheritance of those who went before us. Thus, they must be called out and their vision denounced for what it is: a "Fifth Column" of the of progressivist Revolution that seeks to radically remake the world and man...and that remade image is not one that comes from God.
*****
So, there you have it: my measuring gauge. For me these questions offer very good indications of a person's actual worldview and whether (or not) he is a true defender of our traditions or an interloper intent on their ultimate destruction.