Over at Twitter I am very pleased to see the number of black conservatives who have joined the MAGA ("Make America Great Again") movement. I link to every black conservative I find. However, I see many of them buying into Dinesh D'Souza's interpretations of American history, which I believe are flawed and downright dishonest. I say that as a well-read Confederate descendant who regularly disputes the Northern Myth, that the North and the 19th Century Republicans fought the Civil War to free the slaves and make black people full equals in the American dream.
I generally avoid arguments with fellow conservatives on Twitter about this history, to avoid disunity in our support for Donald Trump, and to avoid hard feelings between us. The here and now is more important than what happened 150 years ago; nevertheless, wholescale distortion of that history by D'Souza does grate on me. He is insulting my ancestors, my family, and indirectly, me. And he is not the only culprit: recently Rush Limbaugh spouted some ahistorical nonsense, comparing modern Democrats to the Confederates of the 1860s.
Yesterday a prominent conservative listed all the sins of the Democratic Party. I found his interpretation superficial. Among other claims he made was that "Democrats started the Civil War." No, Democrats did not. They exercised their Constitutional and natural right to secede from a political union, much as the U.K. recently did from the European Union. It was Lincoln and Lincoln alone who decided to go to war to prevent the South from leaving, and even plotted with his generals to push the South into firing the first shot at Fort Sumter, for propaganda purposes, as recommended by his Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Wells.
Some Republicans (like D'Souza) hate to hear it and even deny it, but yes, the two political parties have indeed changed sides since the 19th Century. Lincoln's GOP was authoritarian, anti-Constitutional, believed the Federal government to be superior to the states, supported corporate welfare for Northern businesses, high taxes, and all sorts of political shenanigans to ensure the GOP's hold on power -- like illegally forming a new state, West Virginia, to give Lincoln more electoral votes, marching the army to the polls with orders to vote for Lincoln, shutting down opposition newspapers and jailing the editors, arresting and imprisoning thousands of people on suspicion alone, illegally suspending habeas corpus, and the list goes on. Lincoln was the biggest tyrant in U.S. history, and he didn't care much for black people.
The Democrats of that time period resented and opposed the high taxes that fell mainly on the South, believed in a small and limited federal government that was the servant, not the master, of the states.
I am a Republican today because it is NOT the same party of 1860. Race relations has little to do with it. However, I am happy that black people are progressing in modern society, making more money, enjoying a better lifestyle, and more and more of them are becoming my allies and friends.
Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts
Friday, July 27, 2018
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
A Point by Point Rebuttal of Donald Douglas on "Why the Civil War Was Not About Slavery"
Donald Douglas at American Power has read the essay by Professor Donald Livingston on ""Why the Civil War Was Not About Slavery" and has attempted to rebut it. I now consider his points and offer a counter-rebuttal. Since his screed is quite long, I will ignore his ad hominem attacks on Dr. Livingston and other forays into irrelevance, and concentrate on his salient points.
My responses to each of his points are in blue text.
There's a couple of ways to respond to Livingston's essay. The first way, and more professional, is to pick apart the essay's historical and logical arguments, highlighting especially Livingston's egregious logical fallacies, historical inaccuracies, and frankly, outright lies.
Good luck with that. He has no logical fallacies, inaccuracies or lies. Your venture into ad hominem attacks merely showcases the weaknesses of your arguments.
The second way, more partisan and bloggy, is to attack Livingston as a rank ideological hack, driven by fringe ideological tendencies with about as much mainstream acceptance as Holocaust denial. Purportedly a reputable historian, Professor Livingston's professional biography includes links to some rather steamy Southern revisionist outfits --- the kind of organizations with which I'd never associate and of which I lend very little professional credence. Seriously, the guy comes off as rather a crank.
More ad hominem attacks. Not only is this unethical, but rather juvenile to boot. I am not surprised that you would never associate with any organizations that do not support your preconceived notions and prejudices. Most people with a closed mind feel the same way.
But more about that later. Let's look at a number of problems with his essay from a straightforward historical and political analysis.
First, Livingston argues that to correctly understand the debate on Southern slavery is to expand the playing field to include the entire United States, and to go back to the Founding of 1787 to grasp the universal acceptance of slavery --- with the concomitant national ideology of white supremacy --- in the Northern states, in New England America especially, shortly after the overthrow of British colonialism. By doing this, one can see that slavery as an ideological system of political, social, and economic racial domination wasn't unique to the American South, but rather was a nationwide phenomenon with uniquely Northern characteristics.
The problem with this argument is that it's an extremely simplistic straw man. I mean, I don't claim to have anything nearing a scholarly familiarity with the historical scholarship on antebellum America, North and South. But just frankly from my wide reading of history and my professional teaching of the Founding, the Constitutional Convention, and the growth of slavery throughout the 19th century, to say that slavery was a "national enormity, an American sin for which every section of the Union bore some responsibility," and to use this as an argument against those who attack the South, is simply irrelevant. Of course slavery was a national institution. Slavery was a thoroughgoing institution in all the 13 colonies by the end of the 17th century. Who argues otherwise? Slavery developed in the colonies and after the Constitution of 1787 for almost 150 years. It did break down into regional varieties, as part of the economic regionalism that took hold in the country. For example, by the early- to mid-1800s, rural agrarianism came to be predominantly associated with the South, and with the invention of the cotton gin, the Southern economy become increasingly the locus of cotton production in the U.S., on the backs of slave laborers.
So the North's huge culpability in the institution of slavery is a "straw man?" Nonsense. Livingston pointing this out accomplishes two things: (1) It demolishes the myth that the South was alone guilty of slavery, and (2) substantiates his argument that ending slavery was the obligation of the entire country, not merely the South alone. He is right in this.
The debate we're having today is the persistence of racial supremacy symbolism in the present day South, like the Confederate Flag, hardly a sign of Northern white supremacy. But the "national enormity" argument is a logical diversion, a fallacy that's easily exposed.
I have already disproved your statement above. The fact of Northern guilt and profit in slaves is not a logical diversion or fallacy, and you have exposed nothing. If the Confederate flag is to be forever associated with slavery, then so should the American flag, which flew over Northern slave ships, and represents the USA, which grew rich off of slave produced staples and taxes generated by them. It is you who are attempting a diversion, and it isn't working.
Second, Livingston argues that in antebellum American "no nation" had developed, in the sense of the national unification seen contemporaneously among the European continental states as Britain and France. Further, he claims that the national government couldn't interfere with slavery in the states, that "Congress simply had no constitutional authority to interfere with slavery in the States." This is just a bunch of ideological hooey. It is true that the U.S. remained a largely agrarian, decentralized nation-state in the early 19th century, but the argument ignores monumental developments in constitutional law that created the foundations for what legal and political analysts identify as national supremacy within the system of political federalism. Crucially, majestic Supreme Court cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland expounded nationalist doctrines that placed federal authority as supreme to conflicting state power. Of course the debate on federalism wasn't (practically) resolved until decades later, perhaps not even until the 20th century. But it's absurd to claim that there was no national ideology or national consensus on federal power in the years before the Civil War. Indeed, why would the Southern states bother developing doctrines of nullification and so forth if no national culture and constitutional power had developed?
You really are confused. Livingston is correct in stating that in 1860, the United States was a collection of sovereign states over which Congress had limited power; each resident of individual states saw his state as his country. Livingston is explaining why Congress did nothing about ending slavery before the war, and is merely giving background material that is not controversial. So why do you even bring it up?
Prior to the Civil War, people said "the United States are" and after the war, "the United States is," which illustrates the consolidation of these states into one nation. You use a lot of words to prove nothing. Livingston is right, you are wrong and way out in left field.
Livingston goes on, "Since Congress had no power over slavery, and did not want such power, the only way to abolish slavery would be through individual state action or by an amendment to the Constitution." This makes no sense. While any individual state could abolish slavery within its boundaries, all the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been passed by Congress and ratified by the states, including the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery. Further, major congressional action on slavery took place in 1808 with abolition of the international slave trade, in 1820 with the Missouri Compromise, and in 1854 with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Frankly, Congress was at the center of regulatory activity involving slavery right up to the Civil War. Maybe from the perspective of radical states rights' theory Congress "had no power over slavery," but in reality Congress did have such power and passed consequential legislation that shaped national events over decades of time.
Not only does it make sense, it is historically accurate and makes plenty of sense. Livingston is explaining why Congress did nothing about ending slavery prior to the Civil War. He explains that Congress had limited power over slavery in the states, and did not even want the power. He cites the Corwin Amendment as proof. Congress passed it on March 2, 1862, making it illegal for Congress to ever interfere in the domestic institutions (i.e. slavery) of the states. They hoped this would stop slave states from seceding, but it didn't. That's because preserving slavery was not the major reason for secession. The Corwin Amendment was never ratified. Your long discussion goes into Congressional power and amendments made after the Civil War, and are irrelevant to the discussion.
Third, Livingston makes a number of bizarre arguments regarding President Abraham Lincoln's positions on slavery, and some of these appear to be bald-faced lies. He argues, for example, that "Lincoln did not object to slavery as long as it was confined to the South." This is again a red herring, for it's widely recognized that Lincoln was no abolitionist and that even at the time of secession in 1861, Lincoln's fundamental war aims were the preservation of union.
How is this a red herring? Livingston's essay is meant for general audiences, and cannot assume that they know as much as you do about it. His comment is meant to illuminate the fact that Lincoln was not an abolitionist, and therefore the South had no reason to believe he was going to somehow emancipate their slaves without their consent. It undermines the Northern myth that the South seceded to protect slavery, when no threat to slavery existed.
Livingston goes on with a number of selective quotations in an attempt to paint Lincoln as pro-slavery as any Southern rebel.
Now who's lying? Livingston does nothing of the sort. I have read and reread this essay several times, and I never saw any evidence of this. You're wrong.
The reality is way more complicated, as any historical review of Lincoln political career would recognize. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, for example, Lincoln made a clear distinction between his acquiescence to slavery in the North and his clearly foundational belief that the Declaration of Independence made all men equal in the eyes of God, and that in the long run the U.S. could not survive with slavery as an institution. When he said a "house divided upon itself cannot stand" it wasn't a political program of abolition as much as a recognition that at some point one side would prevail over the other, either the pro-slavery forces would prevail and slavery would win out over the land or the abolitionists would prevail and slavery would die out altogether.
Lincoln did believe that the rights described in the Declaration of Independence applied to all men, including Negroes. However, he was quite clear that Negroes could not enjoy those rights in America, but only "on their own soil." He proposed to send them back to Africa.
Livingston in fact lies about the meaning of Lincoln's statement that the United States as "the last best hope of earth." He claims that Lincoln supported colonization of American blacks back to Africa, and that "The 'last best hope of earth' referred to a purely white European polity free of racial strife, and not to a land of freedom for all as it is absurdly interpreted today." Actually, voluntary colonization of slaves and compensated emancipation were just policy alternatives that Lincoln included in his message to Congress in December 1862. A simple reading of the conclusion of his address reveals Lincoln's exceptionalism and his faith in Jefferson's ideals in the Declaration:
Livingston did not distort anything. Lincoln clearly saw slavery as immoral and contrary to natural law, as almost everyone, North or South, did. Livingston believes that Lincoln's "Best Hope" comment did not insinuate that Lincoln wanted to integrate the freed slaves into American society. Lincoln made it clear many times previous, in speeches and correspondence, that he did not want this at all. He wanted blacks out of America. If you like, I can shower you with quotations to that effect.
And it important to remember that we can't read present-day moral sentiments into history. That is, we cannot apply 21st century normative commitments to the political mores of the mid-19th century. Livingston in fact attacks his critics as adopting a presentist ideological agenda, but much of his essay employs the exact type of presentist commitments that he so decries.
I don't recall Livingston mentioning "presentist ideological agendas" anywhere. I think you are mistaken. In any case, how is that relevant to whether or not the Civil War was about slavery?
Finally, Livingston breaks down "the main anti-slavery episodes in the antebellum period," from the Constitutional Convention to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Again, there's a lot of arguments against straw men and even more tendentious connections to the historical record. I'm going to eschew a longer analysis simply to avoid repetition. Suffice it to say that Livingston provides completely decontextualized and selective interpretations of historical events, spurts of analysis that really add up to more of an ideological screed than a dispassionate historical critique.
And yet you cannot present a single example of this "ideological screed," because it isn't at all true. Further, there are no "straw men" in his arguments, no "decontextualized and selective interpretations," and you have not described any. Your comments are those of someone losing an argument, and knows it.
And that brings me to my second, more partisan and bloggy criticism of Professor Livingston. He is indeed a genuine scholar and is Professor Emeritus at Emory University and an expert on the writings of Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume.
At this point, Donald launches into personal attacks on Livingston and attempts to discredit the man by calling him a radical with radical associations, etc etc. I won't bother to refute these, as they are irrelevant to whether Livingston's essay is accurate and factual -- which it is. Read it for yourself.
Conclusions: Donald's attempted rebuttal of Livingston's argument fails and fails badly. If he has made any salient points disproving Livingston, it isn't obvious to me.
My responses to each of his points are in blue text.
****
There's a couple of ways to respond to Livingston's essay. The first way, and more professional, is to pick apart the essay's historical and logical arguments, highlighting especially Livingston's egregious logical fallacies, historical inaccuracies, and frankly, outright lies.
Good luck with that. He has no logical fallacies, inaccuracies or lies. Your venture into ad hominem attacks merely showcases the weaknesses of your arguments.
The second way, more partisan and bloggy, is to attack Livingston as a rank ideological hack, driven by fringe ideological tendencies with about as much mainstream acceptance as Holocaust denial. Purportedly a reputable historian, Professor Livingston's professional biography includes links to some rather steamy Southern revisionist outfits --- the kind of organizations with which I'd never associate and of which I lend very little professional credence. Seriously, the guy comes off as rather a crank.
More ad hominem attacks. Not only is this unethical, but rather juvenile to boot. I am not surprised that you would never associate with any organizations that do not support your preconceived notions and prejudices. Most people with a closed mind feel the same way.
But more about that later. Let's look at a number of problems with his essay from a straightforward historical and political analysis.
First, Livingston argues that to correctly understand the debate on Southern slavery is to expand the playing field to include the entire United States, and to go back to the Founding of 1787 to grasp the universal acceptance of slavery --- with the concomitant national ideology of white supremacy --- in the Northern states, in New England America especially, shortly after the overthrow of British colonialism. By doing this, one can see that slavery as an ideological system of political, social, and economic racial domination wasn't unique to the American South, but rather was a nationwide phenomenon with uniquely Northern characteristics.
The problem with this argument is that it's an extremely simplistic straw man. I mean, I don't claim to have anything nearing a scholarly familiarity with the historical scholarship on antebellum America, North and South. But just frankly from my wide reading of history and my professional teaching of the Founding, the Constitutional Convention, and the growth of slavery throughout the 19th century, to say that slavery was a "national enormity, an American sin for which every section of the Union bore some responsibility," and to use this as an argument against those who attack the South, is simply irrelevant. Of course slavery was a national institution. Slavery was a thoroughgoing institution in all the 13 colonies by the end of the 17th century. Who argues otherwise? Slavery developed in the colonies and after the Constitution of 1787 for almost 150 years. It did break down into regional varieties, as part of the economic regionalism that took hold in the country. For example, by the early- to mid-1800s, rural agrarianism came to be predominantly associated with the South, and with the invention of the cotton gin, the Southern economy become increasingly the locus of cotton production in the U.S., on the backs of slave laborers.
So the North's huge culpability in the institution of slavery is a "straw man?" Nonsense. Livingston pointing this out accomplishes two things: (1) It demolishes the myth that the South was alone guilty of slavery, and (2) substantiates his argument that ending slavery was the obligation of the entire country, not merely the South alone. He is right in this.
The debate we're having today is the persistence of racial supremacy symbolism in the present day South, like the Confederate Flag, hardly a sign of Northern white supremacy. But the "national enormity" argument is a logical diversion, a fallacy that's easily exposed.
I have already disproved your statement above. The fact of Northern guilt and profit in slaves is not a logical diversion or fallacy, and you have exposed nothing. If the Confederate flag is to be forever associated with slavery, then so should the American flag, which flew over Northern slave ships, and represents the USA, which grew rich off of slave produced staples and taxes generated by them. It is you who are attempting a diversion, and it isn't working.
Second, Livingston argues that in antebellum American "no nation" had developed, in the sense of the national unification seen contemporaneously among the European continental states as Britain and France. Further, he claims that the national government couldn't interfere with slavery in the states, that "Congress simply had no constitutional authority to interfere with slavery in the States." This is just a bunch of ideological hooey. It is true that the U.S. remained a largely agrarian, decentralized nation-state in the early 19th century, but the argument ignores monumental developments in constitutional law that created the foundations for what legal and political analysts identify as national supremacy within the system of political federalism. Crucially, majestic Supreme Court cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland expounded nationalist doctrines that placed federal authority as supreme to conflicting state power. Of course the debate on federalism wasn't (practically) resolved until decades later, perhaps not even until the 20th century. But it's absurd to claim that there was no national ideology or national consensus on federal power in the years before the Civil War. Indeed, why would the Southern states bother developing doctrines of nullification and so forth if no national culture and constitutional power had developed?
You really are confused. Livingston is correct in stating that in 1860, the United States was a collection of sovereign states over which Congress had limited power; each resident of individual states saw his state as his country. Livingston is explaining why Congress did nothing about ending slavery before the war, and is merely giving background material that is not controversial. So why do you even bring it up?
Prior to the Civil War, people said "the United States are" and after the war, "the United States is," which illustrates the consolidation of these states into one nation. You use a lot of words to prove nothing. Livingston is right, you are wrong and way out in left field.
Livingston goes on, "Since Congress had no power over slavery, and did not want such power, the only way to abolish slavery would be through individual state action or by an amendment to the Constitution." This makes no sense. While any individual state could abolish slavery within its boundaries, all the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been passed by Congress and ratified by the states, including the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery. Further, major congressional action on slavery took place in 1808 with abolition of the international slave trade, in 1820 with the Missouri Compromise, and in 1854 with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Frankly, Congress was at the center of regulatory activity involving slavery right up to the Civil War. Maybe from the perspective of radical states rights' theory Congress "had no power over slavery," but in reality Congress did have such power and passed consequential legislation that shaped national events over decades of time.
Not only does it make sense, it is historically accurate and makes plenty of sense. Livingston is explaining why Congress did nothing about ending slavery prior to the Civil War. He explains that Congress had limited power over slavery in the states, and did not even want the power. He cites the Corwin Amendment as proof. Congress passed it on March 2, 1862, making it illegal for Congress to ever interfere in the domestic institutions (i.e. slavery) of the states. They hoped this would stop slave states from seceding, but it didn't. That's because preserving slavery was not the major reason for secession. The Corwin Amendment was never ratified. Your long discussion goes into Congressional power and amendments made after the Civil War, and are irrelevant to the discussion.
Third, Livingston makes a number of bizarre arguments regarding President Abraham Lincoln's positions on slavery, and some of these appear to be bald-faced lies. He argues, for example, that "Lincoln did not object to slavery as long as it was confined to the South." This is again a red herring, for it's widely recognized that Lincoln was no abolitionist and that even at the time of secession in 1861, Lincoln's fundamental war aims were the preservation of union.
How is this a red herring? Livingston's essay is meant for general audiences, and cannot assume that they know as much as you do about it. His comment is meant to illuminate the fact that Lincoln was not an abolitionist, and therefore the South had no reason to believe he was going to somehow emancipate their slaves without their consent. It undermines the Northern myth that the South seceded to protect slavery, when no threat to slavery existed.
Livingston goes on with a number of selective quotations in an attempt to paint Lincoln as pro-slavery as any Southern rebel.
Now who's lying? Livingston does nothing of the sort. I have read and reread this essay several times, and I never saw any evidence of this. You're wrong.
The reality is way more complicated, as any historical review of Lincoln political career would recognize. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, for example, Lincoln made a clear distinction between his acquiescence to slavery in the North and his clearly foundational belief that the Declaration of Independence made all men equal in the eyes of God, and that in the long run the U.S. could not survive with slavery as an institution. When he said a "house divided upon itself cannot stand" it wasn't a political program of abolition as much as a recognition that at some point one side would prevail over the other, either the pro-slavery forces would prevail and slavery would win out over the land or the abolitionists would prevail and slavery would die out altogether.
Lincoln did believe that the rights described in the Declaration of Independence applied to all men, including Negroes. However, he was quite clear that Negroes could not enjoy those rights in America, but only "on their own soil." He proposed to send them back to Africa.
Livingston in fact lies about the meaning of Lincoln's statement that the United States as "the last best hope of earth." He claims that Lincoln supported colonization of American blacks back to Africa, and that "The 'last best hope of earth' referred to a purely white European polity free of racial strife, and not to a land of freedom for all as it is absurdly interpreted today." Actually, voluntary colonization of slaves and compensated emancipation were just policy alternatives that Lincoln included in his message to Congress in December 1862. A simple reading of the conclusion of his address reveals Lincoln's exceptionalism and his faith in Jefferson's ideals in the Declaration:
Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.I don't know why Livingston would so blatantly distort what Lincoln actually said, other than to chalk it up to dishonesty. Lincoln's views were complicated and developed along with the political necessities of his day.
Livingston did not distort anything. Lincoln clearly saw slavery as immoral and contrary to natural law, as almost everyone, North or South, did. Livingston believes that Lincoln's "Best Hope" comment did not insinuate that Lincoln wanted to integrate the freed slaves into American society. Lincoln made it clear many times previous, in speeches and correspondence, that he did not want this at all. He wanted blacks out of America. If you like, I can shower you with quotations to that effect.
And it important to remember that we can't read present-day moral sentiments into history. That is, we cannot apply 21st century normative commitments to the political mores of the mid-19th century. Livingston in fact attacks his critics as adopting a presentist ideological agenda, but much of his essay employs the exact type of presentist commitments that he so decries.
I don't recall Livingston mentioning "presentist ideological agendas" anywhere. I think you are mistaken. In any case, how is that relevant to whether or not the Civil War was about slavery?
Finally, Livingston breaks down "the main anti-slavery episodes in the antebellum period," from the Constitutional Convention to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Again, there's a lot of arguments against straw men and even more tendentious connections to the historical record. I'm going to eschew a longer analysis simply to avoid repetition. Suffice it to say that Livingston provides completely decontextualized and selective interpretations of historical events, spurts of analysis that really add up to more of an ideological screed than a dispassionate historical critique.
And yet you cannot present a single example of this "ideological screed," because it isn't at all true. Further, there are no "straw men" in his arguments, no "decontextualized and selective interpretations," and you have not described any. Your comments are those of someone losing an argument, and knows it.
And that brings me to my second, more partisan and bloggy criticism of Professor Livingston. He is indeed a genuine scholar and is Professor Emeritus at Emory University and an expert on the writings of Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume.
At this point, Donald launches into personal attacks on Livingston and attempts to discredit the man by calling him a radical with radical associations, etc etc. I won't bother to refute these, as they are irrelevant to whether Livingston's essay is accurate and factual -- which it is. Read it for yourself.
Conclusions: Donald's attempted rebuttal of Livingston's argument fails and fails badly. If he has made any salient points disproving Livingston, it isn't obvious to me.
Monday, June 22, 2015
Note to Confederate Descendants: Don't Back Down on the Confederate Flag #Charleston #Confederate
Note to those who support the Confederate flag: DON'T BACK DOWN.
Don't be tepid or tentative in your support of the flag. Our opposition to Northern cultural bigotry and historical (and hysterical) ignorance must be firm and unflinching. We are right, and they are wrong. View the issue with the moral clarity it deserves.
Anti-Southern bigotry is possibly one of my biggest triggers. I wrote about that some time ago, in a previous post from 2010. In that post I noted that the Civil War was then, and this is now. I said that I wanted to work with Northerner conservatives in our modern political struggles, and not refight a war of 150 years ago. However, I noted that the Civil War (better described as The War for Southern Independence) tapped deep emotions in me, and had the power to make me hate. I stated that I don't like to hate and seek to avoid that emotion whenever possible, because happiness and hate cannot coexist. This week, however, I feel the negative emotion returning.
Why? Because Yankees, liberals and Southerners ignorant of their own history keep re-invading the South. They buy into the Northern Myth. Intellectually lazy, they go along with the popular mythology that casts the Confederates into the role of villain. They dishonor our Confederate ancestors and grossly misrepresent their cause. Now they want to finish the wishes of General Sherman to exterminate all Southerners completely, by insisting that the Confederate flag be relegated to museums, viewed only as a dishonorable artifact.
"We must show manners to those who find the flag objectionable," they write. Why is it that we must show manners but they do not? Why do their feelings count but not ours?
Arm yourselves with knowledge of Southern history. I suggest you can do that by reading a previously posted article by Professor Donald Livingston of Emory University, "Why the Civil War Was Not About Slavery."
Sunday, June 21, 2015
The Confederate Flag Stays: Deal With It
As a Confederate descendant who is well read on the history of the War for Southern Independence, I revere the Confederate flag. It is the flag of my country and my ancestors. In light of the Charleston murders, we are now seeing a lot of liberals and mainstream Republicans calling for the removal of the flag from public display.
Mitt Romney tweeted that the flag should come down. He tweets
Take down the #ConfederateFlag at the SC Capitol. To many, it is a symbol of racial hatred. Remove it now to honor #Charleston victims.
I answered him with this:
The point is, a flag means different things to different people. We Confederate descendants do not accept Mitt Romney's definition or our flag, nor that of the Daily Kos, Karl Rove, Jeb Bush or any other cultural bigot who wishes to bully us into accepting their skewed view of history and their narrow, superficial and ignorant opinion of what the flag means.
Here are the motivations of the flag haters:
1. Moral vanity. Nothing pleases a liberal more than asserting his alleged moral superiority over someone else. What is an easier way to pose and posture as a great humanitarian, then to further cultural bigotry against the South?
2. To legitimize the Northern Myth, the huge lie that the North invaded the South to free the slaves because they were just so morally righteous and broad minded and enlightened. The truth is that the North hated blacks, wanted them kept out of the new territories, made laws prohibiting their presence, and planned to deport them all back to Africa or elsewhere. They went to war to force the Southern states back into the Union for economic reasons; slavery had nothing or very little to do with it. An independent South would have free trade and open ports, thus ending the Northern tariff on imported goods. A massive relocation of jobs and revenues would quickly flow from the North to the South. This would have created an economic boom in the South, but would have impoverished the North, who depended on the South continuing to pay 80% of the taxes collected by the federal government, and whose dock workers, shipping companies, railroads, textile mills and warehouses would soon find themselves out of work. Yes, this is all well documented in the newspapers of the time. When asked why he would not simply let the South go, Lincoln exclaimed "Let the South go? Who will pay my tariff?"
3. To legitimize the consolidation of the once sovereign states into subordinate entities inferior to and controlled by the federal government. Today this is effectively being accomplished through federal courts, who overturn state laws and legislate from the bench.
4. To legitimize the federal government's "right" to invade the individual states and make war on their citizens, using force to impose its will. We are continually moving in that direction today. A nationalized police force is in the works. Once accomplished, all American states will be effectively occupied by the federal government.
Here's why we will never agree:
Taking down the flag would mean acquiescing to bullies who wish to force their viewpoint on us, a viewpoint that is erroneous, insulting, self-serving and false. It would mean replacing our superior knowledge of history with the superficial myths the flag-haters learned from popular media, Hollywood and Northern-biased textbooks. It would also require us to legitimize the slander that our flag represents racial hatred and is thus a dishonorable symbol. We will not allow knowledge to be replaced with ignorance, or truth with falsehood. We will never agree to your slander.
History, or what is alleged to be history, is a major political weapon. The fight over history will largely influence how current and future generations see the Republic: as a collection of sovereign states with the right to self-govern and even secede, or as consolidation of those states into an increasingly oppressive federal tyranny from which there is no refuge, remedy or escape.
Leave our flag alone.
Mitt Romney tweeted that the flag should come down. He tweets
Take down the #ConfederateFlag at the SC Capitol. To many, it is a symbol of racial hatred. Remove it now to honor #Charleston victims.
I answered him with this:
@MittRomney I regret voting for you Mitt. The flag stays. Take down the flag of Utah, it's a symbol of a false prophet and polygamy.
And of course, there's "Old Gorey" that many associate with invasion of the South, war on women and children, the genocide of the American Indian, the theft of Hawaii from its Queen and its people, and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Oh yes, and it flew over Northern slave ships who brought the slaves to America in the first place.
And of course, there's "Old Gorey" that many associate with invasion of the South, war on women and children, the genocide of the American Indian, the theft of Hawaii from its Queen and its people, and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Oh yes, and it flew over Northern slave ships who brought the slaves to America in the first place.
The point is, a flag means different things to different people. We Confederate descendants do not accept Mitt Romney's definition or our flag, nor that of the Daily Kos, Karl Rove, Jeb Bush or any other cultural bigot who wishes to bully us into accepting their skewed view of history and their narrow, superficial and ignorant opinion of what the flag means.
Here are the motivations of the flag haters:
1. Moral vanity. Nothing pleases a liberal more than asserting his alleged moral superiority over someone else. What is an easier way to pose and posture as a great humanitarian, then to further cultural bigotry against the South?
2. To legitimize the Northern Myth, the huge lie that the North invaded the South to free the slaves because they were just so morally righteous and broad minded and enlightened. The truth is that the North hated blacks, wanted them kept out of the new territories, made laws prohibiting their presence, and planned to deport them all back to Africa or elsewhere. They went to war to force the Southern states back into the Union for economic reasons; slavery had nothing or very little to do with it. An independent South would have free trade and open ports, thus ending the Northern tariff on imported goods. A massive relocation of jobs and revenues would quickly flow from the North to the South. This would have created an economic boom in the South, but would have impoverished the North, who depended on the South continuing to pay 80% of the taxes collected by the federal government, and whose dock workers, shipping companies, railroads, textile mills and warehouses would soon find themselves out of work. Yes, this is all well documented in the newspapers of the time. When asked why he would not simply let the South go, Lincoln exclaimed "Let the South go? Who will pay my tariff?"
3. To legitimize the consolidation of the once sovereign states into subordinate entities inferior to and controlled by the federal government. Today this is effectively being accomplished through federal courts, who overturn state laws and legislate from the bench.
4. To legitimize the federal government's "right" to invade the individual states and make war on their citizens, using force to impose its will. We are continually moving in that direction today. A nationalized police force is in the works. Once accomplished, all American states will be effectively occupied by the federal government.
Here's why we will never agree:
Taking down the flag would mean acquiescing to bullies who wish to force their viewpoint on us, a viewpoint that is erroneous, insulting, self-serving and false. It would mean replacing our superior knowledge of history with the superficial myths the flag-haters learned from popular media, Hollywood and Northern-biased textbooks. It would also require us to legitimize the slander that our flag represents racial hatred and is thus a dishonorable symbol. We will not allow knowledge to be replaced with ignorance, or truth with falsehood. We will never agree to your slander.
History, or what is alleged to be history, is a major political weapon. The fight over history will largely influence how current and future generations see the Republic: as a collection of sovereign states with the right to self-govern and even secede, or as consolidation of those states into an increasingly oppressive federal tyranny from which there is no refuge, remedy or escape.
Leave our flag alone.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Rush Limbaugh Is IGNORANT of American History and the Civil War; My Rebuttal
Rush Limbaugh really showed his ignorance of American history and the Civil War today. He voiced some feel-good myths that are easily refuted, and should be.
Here are his statements and my correction:
1. The Founding Fathers only allowed slavery at the formation of the United States to appease the Southern states and encourage them to join the union. The Northern states opposed slavery and hated it and wanted to get rid of it.
Horse feathers. MOST of the Founding Fathers were slave owners or slave traders, including George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Patrick Henry. Of the 55 men at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1777, no less than 30 were slave owners.
Twelve of the thirteen original colonies were slave states. There was no significant opposition to slavery by the Northern states. In fact, the Northern states were enthusiastically getting rich through slave trading. For every slave they sold to the South, they sold 20 more to Cuba, Brazil and the West Indies. Massachusetts, that great bastion of abolitionism, enslaved the Pequot Indians and sold them into slavery outside the continent. Rhode Island built and maintained an impressive fleet of ships designed and used specifically for slave trading. Northern textile mills used Southern cotton, planted and harvested by slaves, without any moral objections whatsoever.
Slaves were used in the North just as long as they were needed, and were then sold to the South once immigrants (like the Irish) were plentiful enough to replace slavery.
2. Fifty thousand soldiers died in the Civil War to abolish slavery. Not even close, Rush. Over 600,000 soldiers died in the Civil War (estimates put the number at around 640,000). At least 300,000 were Union soldiers. They did not fight to free the slaves, they fought to force the South back into a political union that they no longer wanted, for the usual reasons: to maintain the ability to tax and rule. For more details, see the scholarly essay by a university professor who actually knows what he is talking about: Why the Civil War Was Not About Slavery, by Donald Livingston, Emory University. The "fighting to free the slaves" myth was created after the war to give a false veneer of righteousness to Northern aggression.
So Rush, as someone who listens to you regularly, I must advise you to SHUT UP with regard to the Civil War and the Southern states, since you are wrong on the facts, and since you are alienating many Americans who are Confederate descendants, many of whom are conservatives.
BY THE WAY, Rush, I have defended you against liberal attacks on several occasions. But when you are wrong, I will refute you.
Here are his statements and my correction:
1. The Founding Fathers only allowed slavery at the formation of the United States to appease the Southern states and encourage them to join the union. The Northern states opposed slavery and hated it and wanted to get rid of it.
Horse feathers. MOST of the Founding Fathers were slave owners or slave traders, including George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Patrick Henry. Of the 55 men at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1777, no less than 30 were slave owners.
Twelve of the thirteen original colonies were slave states. There was no significant opposition to slavery by the Northern states. In fact, the Northern states were enthusiastically getting rich through slave trading. For every slave they sold to the South, they sold 20 more to Cuba, Brazil and the West Indies. Massachusetts, that great bastion of abolitionism, enslaved the Pequot Indians and sold them into slavery outside the continent. Rhode Island built and maintained an impressive fleet of ships designed and used specifically for slave trading. Northern textile mills used Southern cotton, planted and harvested by slaves, without any moral objections whatsoever.
Slaves were used in the North just as long as they were needed, and were then sold to the South once immigrants (like the Irish) were plentiful enough to replace slavery.
2. Fifty thousand soldiers died in the Civil War to abolish slavery. Not even close, Rush. Over 600,000 soldiers died in the Civil War (estimates put the number at around 640,000). At least 300,000 were Union soldiers. They did not fight to free the slaves, they fought to force the South back into a political union that they no longer wanted, for the usual reasons: to maintain the ability to tax and rule. For more details, see the scholarly essay by a university professor who actually knows what he is talking about: Why the Civil War Was Not About Slavery, by Donald Livingston, Emory University. The "fighting to free the slaves" myth was created after the war to give a false veneer of righteousness to Northern aggression.
So Rush, as someone who listens to you regularly, I must advise you to SHUT UP with regard to the Civil War and the Southern states, since you are wrong on the facts, and since you are alienating many Americans who are Confederate descendants, many of whom are conservatives.
BY THE WAY, Rush, I have defended you against liberal attacks on several occasions. But when you are wrong, I will refute you.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Is Venezuela on the Brink of Civil War?
Well, well, it appears that popular opposition to Venezuela's communist leaders is reaching a critical point. Bigger and bigger crowds of demonstrators are rallying against the socialist insanity, and the Marxists are nervous. This reminds me of Chile in 1973, when communist leadership had ruined the economy and left the people in dire straits. Massive protests occurred there too, when grocery store shelves were empty and there were no more jobs. Finally, the Chilean military decided it had to act, and deposed the moronic Marxist Salvador Allende. American leftists to this day swear to God Almighty that Chile would have become a socialist paradise had not President Nixon "declared economic warfare" on the "democratically elected" Socialist Allende. Socialism never works, but leftists never run out of excuses for the failure.
Venezuela is now experiencing the same kind of economic dislocation, because socialism destroys prosperity, it never, ever creates it. You can order a doubling of the minimum wage, as Allende did, and the result will be widespread unemployment and businesses closing their doors. Socialism is a radical religion that believes in a kind of perpetual motion, that you can eliminate production and magically have more, that you can kill the Kulaks and dispossess the producers, and somehow the goodies will just keep flowing like manna from heaven.
Socialism always fails, but there is no end of the fools who will continue to impose it on the populace, thinking that this time it will work. And if it doesn't, if millions starve, well then, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.
More at Powerline.
Venezuela is now experiencing the same kind of economic dislocation, because socialism destroys prosperity, it never, ever creates it. You can order a doubling of the minimum wage, as Allende did, and the result will be widespread unemployment and businesses closing their doors. Socialism is a radical religion that believes in a kind of perpetual motion, that you can eliminate production and magically have more, that you can kill the Kulaks and dispossess the producers, and somehow the goodies will just keep flowing like manna from heaven.
Socialism always fails, but there is no end of the fools who will continue to impose it on the populace, thinking that this time it will work. And if it doesn't, if millions starve, well then, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.
More at Powerline.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Freakout Nation Freaks Out Over a Child's Hat
The Northern Myth (that righteous Northerners fought the Evil South to free the slaves) is a matter of religious faith for the ignorant, a paean to the mighty federal government, who has the right to compel any of the formerly sovereign states to do what it wants, to invade those states with armies, make war on the population therein, and kill and destroy until the will of the populace is obliterated. This is a blueprint for internal tyrants to reduce Americans to utter despotism, and even those conservatives who buy into it are promoting the unbridled power of the centralized government.
 |
| Grave of a Black Confederate Cavalry Trooper |
I commented over at Freakout Nation, and was quickly banned from further commenting. Ignoramuses do not appreciate any light allowed into their desiccated brains.
 |
| And He's Wearing a Kepi See Confederate Memorial Here |
 |
| Real Confederate Soldiers Notice the Tan on the Confederate in Upper Right? |
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Mainstream Media On Board to "Pulverize, Delegitimize" the Republican Party
Thomas Lifson at American Thinker discusses the extreme bias of the Legacy Media (also known as the Democrat-Media Complex). His column today begins:
This latest development again underscores the deepening divide between right and left in America. It could have easily been foreseen that it would come to this. For years the left has had a near monopoly on information and news reporting, and this monopoly has borne fruit, the biggest of which is Barack Obama.
At this point in our history, I do not see an electoral pathway to preserve the liberties bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. It may require another American Revolution or civil war. Possibly the best alternative is peaceful secession of the various states, forming new associations and new unions based on commonly-held values.
I doubt, however, that the left will allow a peaceful solution. They are all about power and force. What you or I want is not a concern to them. We are mere putty to be molded to their will and vision.
The radical leftists who have staffed up the legacy media are losing all pretenses of being neutral reporters, and coming out of the closet as rabid partisans lately. It is one thing to openly swoon over Barack Obama at off-the-record events, which keeps the general public out of the loop, while privately reaffirming media solidarity as partisans. But it is quite something else to put one's name on a publication which argues for delegitimizing opposition to the Anointed One.Slate online magazine advocates the same thing today: destroy the GOP. Remove all barriers to the Left's communization of the nation once known as the United States of America. With victory in sight, the left is impatient to seal the deal, finish the job: destroy American liberty and replace it with a collectivist tyranny.
This latest development again underscores the deepening divide between right and left in America. It could have easily been foreseen that it would come to this. For years the left has had a near monopoly on information and news reporting, and this monopoly has borne fruit, the biggest of which is Barack Obama.
At this point in our history, I do not see an electoral pathway to preserve the liberties bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. It may require another American Revolution or civil war. Possibly the best alternative is peaceful secession of the various states, forming new associations and new unions based on commonly-held values.
I doubt, however, that the left will allow a peaceful solution. They are all about power and force. What you or I want is not a concern to them. We are mere putty to be molded to their will and vision.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Feinstein's Bill to Destroy the 2nd Amendment: It Is Way Past Time to Openly Defy the Federal Government
The federal government is now the enemy of freedom and the Constitution, and it is time to openly defy it. Diane Feinstein, US Senator from Marxist California, has proposed a federal gun control bill that will make numerous existing handguns and rifles illegal. The bill would create a federal database of gun owners, and require photographing and fingerprinting gun owners. Like hell, bitch.
You can read the details of this Orwellian overreach at Powerline today.
Every day seems to bring a new federal outrage to light. Absolutely nothing that the Party of Treason does surprises me anymore. If this bill ever passes, I will personally defy it. I will neither obey nor recognize such a law. Meanwhile, I will seek to purchase a Glock handgun and a Bushmaster rifle, and begin regular shooting practice with them, at shooting ranges; and I will seek professional instruction on the safe handling and use of such firearms. I will register such weapons with my state, as indeed I have no choice; but I recognize the constitutionality of state law. I will not register any firearms with the federal government. I will rejoin the NRA.
Reasonable gun control laws should be passed by the states; the federal government has no such authority. It is time for "civil disobedience" to the Marxists now in control of the nation, and we must prepare ourselves for civil war in the event the Feds decide to play rough.
Note to state governments: get off your asses and protect the constitutional rights of your citizens. Nullify such laws and arrest any federal officials who attempt to enforce them. Call up state militias if necessary to oppose federal force, e.g. by such agencies as the BATF.
Business as usual is not an option. At the very least, it is time to discuss and plan for such contingencies at the state and local level. It is time to draw a line in the sand.
You can read the details of this Orwellian overreach at Powerline today.
Every day seems to bring a new federal outrage to light. Absolutely nothing that the Party of Treason does surprises me anymore. If this bill ever passes, I will personally defy it. I will neither obey nor recognize such a law. Meanwhile, I will seek to purchase a Glock handgun and a Bushmaster rifle, and begin regular shooting practice with them, at shooting ranges; and I will seek professional instruction on the safe handling and use of such firearms. I will register such weapons with my state, as indeed I have no choice; but I recognize the constitutionality of state law. I will not register any firearms with the federal government. I will rejoin the NRA.
Reasonable gun control laws should be passed by the states; the federal government has no such authority. It is time for "civil disobedience" to the Marxists now in control of the nation, and we must prepare ourselves for civil war in the event the Feds decide to play rough.
Note to state governments: get off your asses and protect the constitutional rights of your citizens. Nullify such laws and arrest any federal officials who attempt to enforce them. Call up state militias if necessary to oppose federal force, e.g. by such agencies as the BATF.
Business as usual is not an option. At the very least, it is time to discuss and plan for such contingencies at the state and local level. It is time to draw a line in the sand.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Zen and Lawrence Auster
I have read several books on Zen and some from ancient philosophers like Epictetus. I know the theory of releasing petty annoyances, letting them blow through you like wind through an open window. Otherwise, you become Neal Rauhauser, utterly obsessed with every wrong or perceived wrong and willing to dedicate all of your being to making your tormentors pay, pay, pay!
Okay, here they are.
1. Last Friday when I left my motel room to return home after a week's work, I forgot to pack three good business shirts, and left them in the drawer of my room. I called, they said they would keep them safe for me until I returned the following Monday. Now they are saying they can't find them, and the maids (who stole them) say they haven't seen them either. I generally leave a tip for the maid on checkout day, but no more tips for thieves. I hope Jose or Jesus (pronounced "Hey Zeus") enjoys the shirts.
2. Lawrence Auster is one of my favorite online writers and we agree closely on many things, except for one subject near and dear to my heart, the Southern Confederacy for which my ancestors fought 147 years ago. Last week Auster wrote that the Confederates "brought war on themselves" and repeated other simplistic Yankee propaganda that would insult the intelligence of a boll weevil. I struggled with the idea of writing a blistering rebuttal, but in the end refrained. Larry is seriously ill with pancreatic cancer and winning an argument with him seems rather unimportant in light of that.
With that said, I will assume the Lotus position and begin my mantra. On second thought, I think I'll watch television instead.
Okay, here they are.
1. Last Friday when I left my motel room to return home after a week's work, I forgot to pack three good business shirts, and left them in the drawer of my room. I called, they said they would keep them safe for me until I returned the following Monday. Now they are saying they can't find them, and the maids (who stole them) say they haven't seen them either. I generally leave a tip for the maid on checkout day, but no more tips for thieves. I hope Jose or Jesus (pronounced "Hey Zeus") enjoys the shirts.
2. Lawrence Auster is one of my favorite online writers and we agree closely on many things, except for one subject near and dear to my heart, the Southern Confederacy for which my ancestors fought 147 years ago. Last week Auster wrote that the Confederates "brought war on themselves" and repeated other simplistic Yankee propaganda that would insult the intelligence of a boll weevil. I struggled with the idea of writing a blistering rebuttal, but in the end refrained. Larry is seriously ill with pancreatic cancer and winning an argument with him seems rather unimportant in light of that.
With that said, I will assume the Lotus position and begin my mantra. On second thought, I think I'll watch television instead.
Friday, April 20, 2012
I Find Myself Defending the Democratic Party. What's Up With That??
Lately I have had to defend the Democratic Party against brazen falsehood by some folks on the right. Ann Coulter, PaganTemple, and some guy at Human Events have decided to push a big lie in order to make the Republican Party seem enlightened and virtuous, and the Democratic Party "the Party of Slavery."
Today, in the here and now, the Republican Party supports individual freedom to a much greater extent than the modern Democratic Party. But casting the Democrats as "the Party of Slavery" is unethical, inaccurate and unfair. Slavery was an American institution, not a Southern one, one in which the North was both foundational and highly responsible. The Republican Party was a sectional party, representing the interests of the North; as such, they were highly antagonistic to the South and anxious to keep their high tariffs in place, which fell most heavily on the South, for the benefit of the North.
The early Republican Party was against allowing slavery to enter the new territories, those areas that had not yet become states. They did so because (1) they did not want to compete with slave labor for jobs (a reasonable position) and (2) they hated blacks. The early Republicans called themselves "the White Peoples' Party." They were not the eternally virtuous and enlightened society that Ann Coulter pretends.
After their totalitarian crushing of the independence of the Southern people, the Republicans then got busy mass-murdering American Indians, appropriating Hawaii by deposing its queen, and acting like the gun-boat thugs they were in fact.
I am a Republican today because it is the best choice among two evils. However, I resolve to be a friend of the truth before I am a friend to the Republicans.
Today, in the here and now, the Republican Party supports individual freedom to a much greater extent than the modern Democratic Party. But casting the Democrats as "the Party of Slavery" is unethical, inaccurate and unfair. Slavery was an American institution, not a Southern one, one in which the North was both foundational and highly responsible. The Republican Party was a sectional party, representing the interests of the North; as such, they were highly antagonistic to the South and anxious to keep their high tariffs in place, which fell most heavily on the South, for the benefit of the North.
The early Republican Party was against allowing slavery to enter the new territories, those areas that had not yet become states. They did so because (1) they did not want to compete with slave labor for jobs (a reasonable position) and (2) they hated blacks. The early Republicans called themselves "the White Peoples' Party." They were not the eternally virtuous and enlightened society that Ann Coulter pretends.
After their totalitarian crushing of the independence of the Southern people, the Republicans then got busy mass-murdering American Indians, appropriating Hawaii by deposing its queen, and acting like the gun-boat thugs they were in fact.
I am a Republican today because it is the best choice among two evils. However, I resolve to be a friend of the truth before I am a friend to the Republicans.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Why The Civil War Was Not About Slavery
By Donald W. Livingston, Professor of Philosophy, Emory University
Reprinted With Permission
 |
| Donald W. Livingston |
Another historian writes “that Southerners seceded over one thing and fought over one thing, slavery.” A recent biographer of Robert E. Lee says of Lee “He was a leader in the Southern rebellion, in which so many fought so nobly for such a bad cause.”2
Robert Penn Warren, a Pulitzer Prize poet and novelist, witnessed the birth of this new style of writing history in the early 1960s, and wrote a devastating critique of it in The Legacy of the Civil War. Through the myth of a holy crusade to abolish slavery, Americans had illegitimately acquired what he called a great “treasury of virtue.” Even historians who know the myth is a distortion have generally not written history in a way to criticize it. The National Park Service has ordered every Civil War battlefield park in the nation exhibit the theme that the war was “about slavery.” This was the theme of Ken Burns’ TV series on the Civil War in which Lee was presented as “a traitor.” The series was very popular and prompted the conservative columnist George Will to gush that it was a demonstration of what television is for. The myth has been taught for generations in public schools and colleges. References to it are frequently heard in political speeches, commemoration speeches of all kinds, the media, in film, and in sermons from mainline churches. People in Argentina, Tokyo, Paris, Moscow and Australia who know next to nothing about American history know that the Civil War was “about slavery.” The upcoming sesquicentennial year commemorating the beginning of the War to Prevent Southern Independence promises to be a long, extended speech explaining how the war was “about slavery.” The myth, however, is not true. What is essentially wrong with it is not that it obsessively focuses on slavery while omitting facts contrary to the myth (though it does that), but that it reads a moral meaning into the conflict over slavery that did not exist. It leads us to believe that the North’s “antislavery” was a correct response to the moral challenge, whereas the South was “pro-slavery” and reprehensibly turned its back on the moral challenge. In what follows we shall see that what Warren called America’s great “treasury of virtue” is filled with fool’s gold that morally corrupts all who exploit it.
The first thing to appreciate is slavery was, from the very first, a national enormity, an American sin for which every section of the Union bore some responsibility. This, however, is not how we have been trained to think. We think of slavery as an alien and “un-American” practice confined to the South in the 19th century. But an honest look at American history reveals a quite different picture. Slavery was woven into the economic, political, and cultural fabric of the Northern states from the beginning. The first African slaves were brought to New England in 1638 in exchange for enslaved Indians. Boston began importing slaves from Africa in 1644. For 164 years New Englanders sold slaves throughout the Western Hemisphere.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Secession and Slavery: Must we agree with the latter in order to agree with the former?
With the 150th anniversary of the Civil War approaching next year, we are hearing a lot of propaganda from the left about secession and slavery.
Apparently, the New York Times and Charles Johnson (of Little Green Footballs), say the South is "rewriting history" by celebrating the sesquicentennial of Southern secession by not mentioning slavery. It is obvious what is going on here: the left wants to politicize history. They are insisting that the Northern myth of the war continue as the official history of the war between the states, i.e., that the North fought the South to force them to give up slavery over moral grounds and in support of racial equality and freedom for all. The evil South, however, seceded rather than give up their slaves and therefore, started the Civil War.
Actually, the actual scenario is a bit more complicated than that. I will go into it a bit more in subsequent posts. However, the Northern-biased historians and the left want to fix this myth in the minds of the current and future generations, and they insist that any acknowledgement of Confederate or Southern history be indelibly linked to slavery. You are officially forbidden to mention "Confederate" without also mentioning "slavery." The same rule, however, does not apply to celebrations of the Fourth of July, where we honor former slave holding secessionists George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, to name but two, who led the fight for American independence.
It is important to state that the right of secession, which did exist and continues to exist, is not dependent upon the 19th century system of slavery. Nor was the right of secession ended by the Civil War or by a subsequent Supreme Court erroneous edict that secession in unconstitutional.
Secession is indeed constitutional and may become necessary in the near future, if the historic power grab of the Democrats and the left cannot be stopped, and Islamization of Western Civilization continues. Secession, however, will be a last resort, when all other avenues have failed.
Related Posts:
To Hell With It, Let's Just Secede
A Secession Option for Liberty-Loving Americans, by Walter Williams
Serious Discussions About Secession
Lawrence Auster, of View From the Right, Discusses Secession
Apparently, the New York Times and Charles Johnson (of Little Green Footballs), say the South is "rewriting history" by celebrating the sesquicentennial of Southern secession by not mentioning slavery. It is obvious what is going on here: the left wants to politicize history. They are insisting that the Northern myth of the war continue as the official history of the war between the states, i.e., that the North fought the South to force them to give up slavery over moral grounds and in support of racial equality and freedom for all. The evil South, however, seceded rather than give up their slaves and therefore, started the Civil War.
Actually, the actual scenario is a bit more complicated than that. I will go into it a bit more in subsequent posts. However, the Northern-biased historians and the left want to fix this myth in the minds of the current and future generations, and they insist that any acknowledgement of Confederate or Southern history be indelibly linked to slavery. You are officially forbidden to mention "Confederate" without also mentioning "slavery." The same rule, however, does not apply to celebrations of the Fourth of July, where we honor former slave holding secessionists George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, to name but two, who led the fight for American independence.
It is important to state that the right of secession, which did exist and continues to exist, is not dependent upon the 19th century system of slavery. Nor was the right of secession ended by the Civil War or by a subsequent Supreme Court erroneous edict that secession in unconstitutional.
Secession is indeed constitutional and may become necessary in the near future, if the historic power grab of the Democrats and the left cannot be stopped, and Islamization of Western Civilization continues. Secession, however, will be a last resort, when all other avenues have failed.
Related Posts:
To Hell With It, Let's Just Secede
A Secession Option for Liberty-Loving Americans, by Walter Williams
Serious Discussions About Secession
Lawrence Auster, of View From the Right, Discusses Secession
The 150th Anniversary of the American Civil War: Understanding History and the Cause of Freedom
My friend Donald Douglas has a post on the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War, or as we Confederate sympathizers prefer to call it, the War for Southern Independence. I generally like to steer clear of discussions about that war, because I fear some deep well of emotion will be tapped in my soul and I become filled with pure, unadulterated hatred for the North and for Yankees. Well, not exactly; a pure and deep hatred for the Yankees and Northerners of the 19th century, all of whom are long dead.
I don't want to go there, because hatred is an ugly emotion and it is impossible to feel happy and feel hatred at the same time. I would rather avoid such feelings whenever possible. However, I do have my triggers and they are wired to strong emotions.
The Civil War was then and this is now. No Yankee bummers still live who burned down the South, murdered civilians, destroyed private homes and farms, raped Southern women, starved Confederate POWs (or used them as human shields against artillery). The current generation of Northerners are not responsible. It would be stupid to hate the descendants of the Northern side, especially since many of them are now valued friends and allies in a new struggle for state sovereignty and individual freedom.
Instead of refighting old wars of 150 years ago, we need to focus on the current struggle against liberalism, socialism and big government tyranny. The left would love to use the sesquicentennial of the Civil War to divide conservatives, make them hate each other, in a divide and conquer strategy. We have to be smarter than that and not allow it.
However, there are very strong reasons why the true history of the Civil War be told, one without either Southern or Northern bias, if that is at all possible (it isn't, but we must try). Modern politicians often rewrite history to justify political actions in the here and now. History becomes a political tool for achieving modern political ends. Carl Sandburg's celebrated volumes on Abraham Lincoln, or so I've read, were largely a disguised justification for Roosevelt's New Deal. (Carl Sandburg was an avowed socialist.)
In George Orwell's 1984, the apparatchiks of some future tyranny are constantly rewriting history to justify current events. The reason is simple: "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." It is for this reason that, though I wish to avoid unnecessary strife between myself and modern Northern allies in the cause of freedom, that I must sometimes publish articles about the Southern Confederacy and the cause for which my Confederate ancestors fought.
I am currently seeking reprint permission for the best article on the causes of the war that I have ever read. It is "Why the War Was Not About Slavery," by Professor Donald W. Livingston of Emory University. It appeared in the September/October issue of Confederate Veteran magazine, a publication of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, of which I am a member. That article will put the history of the Civil War into a much more accurate context than now exists in popular culture.
I don't want to go there, because hatred is an ugly emotion and it is impossible to feel happy and feel hatred at the same time. I would rather avoid such feelings whenever possible. However, I do have my triggers and they are wired to strong emotions.
The Civil War was then and this is now. No Yankee bummers still live who burned down the South, murdered civilians, destroyed private homes and farms, raped Southern women, starved Confederate POWs (or used them as human shields against artillery). The current generation of Northerners are not responsible. It would be stupid to hate the descendants of the Northern side, especially since many of them are now valued friends and allies in a new struggle for state sovereignty and individual freedom.
Instead of refighting old wars of 150 years ago, we need to focus on the current struggle against liberalism, socialism and big government tyranny. The left would love to use the sesquicentennial of the Civil War to divide conservatives, make them hate each other, in a divide and conquer strategy. We have to be smarter than that and not allow it.
However, there are very strong reasons why the true history of the Civil War be told, one without either Southern or Northern bias, if that is at all possible (it isn't, but we must try). Modern politicians often rewrite history to justify political actions in the here and now. History becomes a political tool for achieving modern political ends. Carl Sandburg's celebrated volumes on Abraham Lincoln, or so I've read, were largely a disguised justification for Roosevelt's New Deal. (Carl Sandburg was an avowed socialist.)
In George Orwell's 1984, the apparatchiks of some future tyranny are constantly rewriting history to justify current events. The reason is simple: "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." It is for this reason that, though I wish to avoid unnecessary strife between myself and modern Northern allies in the cause of freedom, that I must sometimes publish articles about the Southern Confederacy and the cause for which my Confederate ancestors fought.
I am currently seeking reprint permission for the best article on the causes of the war that I have ever read. It is "Why the War Was Not About Slavery," by Professor Donald W. Livingston of Emory University. It appeared in the September/October issue of Confederate Veteran magazine, a publication of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, of which I am a member. That article will put the history of the Civil War into a much more accurate context than now exists in popular culture.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Paul of Powerline is WRONG: The Right Proclamation in Virginia
Paul now objects to the Governor of Virginia issuing a proclamation to honor Confederate history by making April "Confederate history month." It seems the Governor removed the anti-slavery language from the proclamation that had been tacked on it before. That was absolutely the right thing to do. The war wasn't about ending slavery and the North largely hated blacks; didn't want them in the new territories, not because they opposed slavery but because they opposed the presence of blacks and the additional political clout that might accrue to the South, enabling it to better resist Northern tariffs.
Paul says Confederate soldiers were "honorable" even though they fought for the wrong side. Horseshit, Paul. They fought for the right side, but the right side doesn't always win. And when they lose, they have to endure many decades of slander, myth and outright lies.
It is a shame that liberals (and Northern myth zealots like Paul) have politicized history by rewriting it for the purpose of advancing modern political issues. So Confederate descendants must now apologize for their ancestors at every turn, in order to tacitly approve and confirm the Northern myth, i.e. that the North didn't (illegally and immorally) invade the South for conquest, territory and taxes, but did so because they were morally outraged about slavery, filled with glorious self-righteousness and dedicated to the equality of man, no matter what the price in blood and treasure. Yeah, right.
I'll tell you what I think, Paul. The next time any Northern states want to honor Yankees, they should do so, but only with language that denounces Indian genocide, war crimes against civilians, Northern racism, arson and theft, and imperialism against other states and territories (ask the Hawaiians about the latter).
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Mark Levin is a Flaming Ignoramus on the Civil War
Mark Levin is an excellent writer and has given a lot to the conservative movement. However, his increasingly asinine remarks on the radio about the American Civil War and the Confederate States of America compel me to finally call him out.Yesterday the Irate One stated that the Confederacy represented an "illegitimate form of government" based on "dangerous rebellion." What a load of happy horse sh*t. If that is true of the Confederacy, it is also true of the United States, who came into being in the same way: through secession and a declaration of independence. Furthermore, the Confederate States were not in "rebellion" to the Constitution or anything else. They were merely exercising their right to self-government under the very American concept of "the consent of the governed." They were merely following the legal means of seceding as outlined in textbooks at West Point, as commonly understood since the beginning of the American republic: sovereign bodies that accede to a union of political states may also secede from the same union when it suits their needs and purposes to do so. Abraham Lincoln himself stated as much in a speech to Congress while he himself was but a congressman:
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Any government that forces a population into its fold through force is tyranny. The Northern states were on the side of tyranny during the Civil War. They did not fight to "free the slaves" as is commonly and erroneously taught to every third-grader; they fought to force the South back into a union it no longer wanted; the slaves were totally negotiable. The Civil War was like most wars, fought over territorial control, the right to govern and the right to tax. Similar situations today: China's invasion of Tibet and its desire to annex Taiwan; Russia's desire to annex Georgia and its former colonies.
Abraham Lincoln was a flaming disaster to the United States, clearly the worst president in our history. He started a war of tyranny and subjugation and killed 630,000 people in the process. Yet, Lincoln is Mark Levin's hero. It figures.
YOU'RE AN IDIOT, MARK.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Note to Crooks and Liars: I Too Am a Member of Sons of Confederate Veterans
David Neiwert of the aptly named leftist "Crooks and Liars" blog thinks he has discovered something significant. Rep. Joe Wilson, Republican from South Carolina, is a member of the "Neo-Confederate" Sons of Confederate Veterans. Aha! Well that no doubt explains Wilson's recent, apt description of Obama as a "liar." Wilson must be a racist, because Confederate = racism. A nice simple formula for simple minds and the intellectually dishonest. Well I beg to differ. Let me explain...I am a life member of Sons of Confederate Veterans. The organization has been around since 1896, originally organized to care for Confederate veterans of the Civil War and to safeguard their memory and history. It was known that the victors write the history books and that the South would be largely slandered and slimed by Northern historians. The Sons would be a counterbalance to their bias.
..
..
The Sons is not some kind of racist or extremist organization. Our main activities include memorials and memoriams, seminars and conventions. We spend a lot of time in cemeteries, repairing old graves and obtaining headstones for those unmarked and long-forgotten veterans. We often cooperate with the Sons of Union Veterans for mutual goals. (Say Crooks & Liars, are the Sons of Union Veterans "Neo-Yankees"? The Sons of the American Revolution "neo-colonists"? Just asking.)
..
..
The Sons is a non-profit organization that is exempt under IRC 501C(3). Membership is open to any male who is a lineal or collateral ancestor of a Confederate soldier, sailor or marine. The organization has members of many races and creeds, including white, hispanic, Jewish, black, Chinese, American Indian, Catholic, Protestant, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican and Libertarian. When you insult the Sons, you insult a broad spectrum of humanity.
..
..
The Sons of Confederate Veterans has no political purpose or agenda and ousts any members connected with hate groups. Nitwit Neiwert stresses the fact that the Southern Povery Law Center thinks the Sons are "racist" and "Neo-Confederate" (whatever that means), but anyone in the know is well aware that the far-left SPLC is an egregious fraud. They call everybody racist and constantly exaggerate the number and size of "hate groups" in order to bring in dues from the gullible public -- and even Rush Limbaugh has said as much. They are the richest of all non-profit organizations, with funds that are in the millions of dollars. They have been denounced as a fraud by many people, including prominent liberals.
..
..
The American Civil War was not some simplistic fight between good and evil. It was a complex cultural event centered mainly around the issue of secession. The war was NOT fought to end slavery, but to force the South back into a union it no longer wanted. It was a war of conquest, more about the right to taxation and control of territory than it was anything else. Slavery was a side issue, falsely portrayed as a priority after the war to give moral justification for the North's invasion and the loss of 640,000 lives.
..
..
Oh yes, do I support secession? You bet your ass I do. Just like our Founding Fathers did.
..
..
Via: The Other McCain
Via: Crooks and Liars
Via: Memeorandum
Sunday, November 02, 2008
A Second American Civil War?
The Gallup poll today has Obama back in the lead at 146% to -86% over McCain. Or something like that. Apparently, the American people can't wait to elect a corrupt, ignorant and America-hating Marxist. That'll sure solve all of our problems.I wonder if the Democrat Party has finally and irreversibly rendered the compact between the states inoperable. Has the basis for the Union been fatally damaged? Can the United States of America continue as it was designed by the founding fathers? Personally, I have my doubts. I don't know about you, but that's not the America my forefathers fought for, not the America I inherited or the one I want to leave to my children and grandchildren.
If Obama is elected, options for resistance to a new socialist, extreme left rule must be considered and discussed. Those options include secession, nullification of federal laws by individual states, and civil disobedience to Supreme Court edicts that undermine rather than express the intent of the Constitution.
Some feminist liberal idiot wrote this week that if Obama is not elected, there will be a second American civil war and that "blood will run in the streets." That's fine with me. Bring it on, bitches. I've got my Civil War musket ready, an 1856 Enfield rifled musket. I just need to buy some minie balls and I'm still looking for my Confederate kepi. But I'll be ready. Count on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
