Matthew Yglesias (November 12, 2007) - What Happens in Neshoba... (Politics)

And you thought "Bobo" Brooks was being honest? You oughta know better!!

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | November 12, 2007 10:20 PM

Thanks, Matt, you're catching on . . .

Posted by BryklynLibrul | November 12, 2007 10:23 PM

But Matt, it's just "part of their heritage." Why you gotta be so down on their ethnicity?

Seriously though, I like your quip about it also being the emblem of treason. Sadly, I think using that would have more effect than saying it represents white supremacy.

Posted by Jeremy | November 12, 2007 10:23 PM

Yeah, they lost, we won, and they need to get over it. You'd think they'd be a little more embarrassed at their crushing defeat, rather than continuing to try to use it to oppress others.

I think we should start a second drive to help African-Americans leave the South for places in America where they can attend decent schools and get a fair shake.

The environment down there is just permanently toxic, and the state GOPs are only too happy to provide no services and poor public schools, while sending their kids to private school, continuing a vicious cycle for many people.

Posted by bob | November 12, 2007 10:30 PM

White supremacy? Absolutely. Treason? At least debatable.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 12, 2007 10:36 PM

Treason? At least debatable.

Complete fucking traitors. We already debated it, to the tune of 2% of population, IIRC. We won the debate.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 12, 2007 10:40 PM

And that's the blackest state in America, at 37%. Funny how much some people can hate on their closest neighbors.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | November 12, 2007 10:46 PM

I think Matt is paying aging self-proclaimed pundits like Brooks and Berman to provide daily stream of fodder for his blog.

No fair to the non-Harvah-educated bloggers trying to make it in the cruel world.

Posted by gregor | November 12, 2007 10:49 PM

And Dukakis went to exactly the same place exactly 8 years to the day later and gave a big speech there. Why? To express solidarity with the murder of 3 civil rights workers years before? No, because the Mississippi State Fair is one of the few places in America in early August where you can find a big crowd of people willing to stand around and listen to a political speech.

This little brouhaha is all just re-writing of history based on the contemporary obsession with finding and treasuring examples of whites being violent toward blacks, even when you have to make it up (e.g., Duke Lacrosse hoax) or when, actually, the blacks were violent toward the white kid (Jena 6).

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 12, 2007 10:50 PM

It just so happens that the early 20th century mass migration of African Americans out of the South (mirrored by a similarly gigantic out-migration of poor whites) ended, quite a while ago, and there is evidence that there is a historic reversal.

The decision for African Americans (as any group of Americans) to locate themselves in different parts of the country are based on the same kinds of factors which drive anyone.

The growth of the historic South as a living destination for African Americans as well as whites and Latinos, fortunately or unfortunately, have little to do with its progressive politics and more to do with factors like land and housing prices and development, lower crime rates in areas, jobs, family ties, useful contacts -- the standard crap, in other words.

An accurate recall of a large part of the history of Republican political campaign and policy strategies shouldn't be also an excuse to make assumptions as to the parts of the country chosen as a place to live by African Americans. There are, after all, positives and negatives to living in any area of the country -- and as always, people make real choices based on individual circumstances.

From In Motion: The African American Migration Experience

In the early 1970s the migration trend of the previous five decades began to reverse: African Americans were returning to the South. After decades of mounting migration north and west, the rates had actually begun to slow in the 1950s. But it was not until the late 1960s that the number of African Americans moving to the South eclipsed the number leaving. Since then, black migration to the South has continued to grow.

Many migrants - a majority of them college-educated - seek economic opportunities in the reascending southern economy; some want to escape deteriorating conditions in northern cities; others return to be nearer to kin, to care for aging relatives, or to retire in a familiar environment with a better quality of life than that found in the urban North.

All, in some way, reclaim the South as their home, the place that African Americans built and where their roots run deep.

http://www.inmotionaame.org/migrations/landing.cfm?migration=11

Posted by El Cid | November 12, 2007 10:54 PM

Funny how much some people can hate on their closest neighbors.

Neil, as someone who has actually been to Mississippi, let me assure you that Blacks and Whites in that state are anything but neighbors. I would agree that Southern Blacks might want to look into relocating, but city-bound Blacks aren't much better off, and starting again is not easy when one has no resources.

Posted by Lev | November 12, 2007 10:58 PM

even when you have to make it up (e.g., Duke Lacrosse hoax) or when, actually, the blacks were violent toward the white kid (Jena 6).

Always interesting when these two are compared as a way of demonstrating unequal treatment towards whites, considering the DA in the Duke case has had his life ruined in every conceivable way, and nothing of consequence whatsoever has happened to the DA's office who selectively prosecuted the Jena 6.

Posted by Freddie | November 12, 2007 11:05 PM

We already debated it, to the tune of 2% of population, IIRC. We won the debate.

Would you interpret this for me?

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 12, 2007 11:08 PM

Those who point out things like "Well hey Michael Dukakis went to the Neshoba County Fair too!" must be admired for the extent to which they determinedly ignore both the currently linked historian and Paul Krugman earlier.

Both writers specifically avoided any trite argument based on one speech at one location, and instead they explicitly gave examples to situate Reagan's campaign accurately in its broader context of using some racist appeals and frequent racial stereotypes generally.

Posted by El Cid | November 12, 2007 11:13 PM

Would you interpret this for me?

He's referring to the Civil War.

Posted by Freddie | November 12, 2007 11:15 PM

Dan: I interprete SCMT's somewhat cryptic statement as an allusion to the casualities in the the Civil War. And I think SCMT identifies with the North.

Posted by Nat | November 12, 2007 11:20 PM

Crespino covered some of this ground in a 2002 Times op-ed, " The Ways Republicans Talk About Race"

Posted by eb | November 12, 2007 11:20 PM

Matt, we white Southerners have a funny relationship to our past, even as we abhor the injustice and oppression once visited upon blacks by many of our ancestors. We still like to think of our great-great grandfathers (mine was killed attacking a regiment of New Yorkers at Chancellorsville) as having sacrificed for "their country," not in treason to the US. Hard for outsiders to understand, and understandably difficult for blacks to accept, that we can at once revere the symbol of the Southern cause while reviling all those things we tell ourselves the war was not really about -- slavery, oppression. Granted the Confederate colors have been appropriated by the nastiest of racist thugs over the years, but to many of us it is far removed from all of that, while still evoking pride in place and heritage in the deepest and most tender part of our souls.

Posted by Trelock | November 12, 2007 11:22 PM

Reagan’s campaign chair in the state, Trent Lott, praised Strom Thurmond, the former segregationist Dixiecrat candidate in 1948, at a Reagan rally, saying that if Thurmond had been elected president “we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.”

This is why so many of us find this silly. The GOP acted shocked, shocked to find its third most powerful politician expressing segregationist sentiments in 2002, when we liberals knew he'd been doing it for a long time. The Republicans have to explain away a lot more than one speech by Reagan.

Posted by Matt Weiner | November 12, 2007 11:29 PM

Steve Sailer writes: "This little brouhaha is all just re-writing of history based on the contemporary obsession with finding and treasuring examples of whites being violent toward blacks, even when you have to make it up (e.g., Duke Lacrosse hoax) or when, actually, the blacks were violent toward the white kid (Jena 6)."

Take a look at Steve Sailer's blog sometime. I understand it's a big favorite in the David Duke household.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | November 12, 2007 11:32 PM

The home of treason in the US is without a doubt New York City. It was the home of the most Tories during the Revolution. It was the city that provided aid and comfort to Benedict Arnold after Andre was captured and hung. It was the people of New York who rioted in the streets rather than go fight for the slaves in the War of Northern Aggression. And it was from New York City that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg became among the very first proliferators of WMDs. When it comes to cowardice and treason, NYC is not to be outdone by anyone.

While the state flag of Mississippi is certainly distasteful, it speaks volumes that MY is just now realizing that it is there to disapprove of.

Posted by Just Karl | November 12, 2007 11:35 PM

You Southerners and your funny-quirky-peculiar institutions and customs.

Is it too on the nose to point out that the Confederate colors were not only "appropriated" by racist thugs but also created by men conspiring against the United States for the purpose of expanding the institution of racial slavery?

Does it puncture the pride of the South that in the century just past a group of black children there required the escort of an Airborne Division in order to get to school unharmed?

Posted by southpaw | November 12, 2007 11:37 PM

Trelock, if you want to know what African-Americans think of the 'heritage' argument, let's do a little cut-and-paste:

-----

Matt, we Germans have a funny relationship to our past, even as we abhor the injustice and oppression once visited upon Jews by many of our ancestors. We still like to think of our [deleted] grandfathers (mine was killed attacking a regiment of Russians at Kursk) as having sacrificed for "their country," not in treason to Germany. Hard for outsiders to understand, and understandably difficult for Jews to accept, that we can at once revere the symbol of the German cause while reviling all those things we tell ourselves the war was not really about -- slavery, oppression [genocide]. Granted the Nazi colors have been appropriated by the nastiest of racist thugs over the years, but to many of us it is far removed from all of that, while still evoking pride in place and heritage in the deepest and most tender part of our souls.

-----

If someone said this, what would you think?

Posted by Joey C | November 12, 2007 11:43 PM

Joey C, I would think you'd taken a cheap shot at Trelock. Didn't anybody who reads this blog ever see The Dukes of Hazard? Remember what they called their car -- "The General Lee."

Posted by Nimby | November 12, 2007 11:51 PM

You know what really bugs me about this, is the idea the Reagan's racist outreach was only effective in the South. It obviously worked everywhere. It's not like Northern cities were welcoming to migrating blacks. They were herded into slums and ghettos in places like Chicago, New York, and Detroit. The people of Boston, Cleveland, and San Fransisco threw of fits over busing and school desegregation well into the 1970's. For you now to hoist yourselves up by your own petard is not only aggravating, but it is damaging to the Democratic Party when it leads people to want to write off the South in all national campaigns.

BTW, you got your ass kicked in the Civil War, suffering twice the casualties of the South. Pussies.

Posted by Just Karl | November 12, 2007 11:57 PM

I don't think people like Brooks are as peeved by this one particular and accurate remembrance of the racial dog whistle politics of the Reaganites as they are by the general prospect that (partly thanks to Bush Jr's possession of absolute power for 4 years) their treasured consensus of Reaganite myths may be falling apart.

Posted by El Cid | November 12, 2007 11:57 PM

A quick google shows that the original state flag that Mississippi actually fought under was the Magnolia Flag, adopted in 1861, and that the current flag was adopted in 1894 as a deliberate tie-in to segregation and the Klan.

So it would appear "Southern Heritage and Tradition" can be easily jettisoned when a flat-out appeal to racism is needed.

Posted by MikeN | November 12, 2007 11:58 PM

The point being, Trelock may think what he thinks, but there are plenty of Americans (not just African-Americans) who think what I think of the Southern 'heritage' argument.

But to be fair, we could make the same argument for the United States as a whole, since our history is hardly clean. Then again, there are lots of positive things we can note about America.

Conversely, the net positive contributions of the Confederate States of America (1860-1865) to human history are: [fill in the blank]....

Posted by Joey C | November 12, 2007 11:59 PM

The home of treason in the US is without a doubt New York City. It was the home of the most Tories during the Revolution.

The Tories weren't traitors. They were loyalists. The other guys were the traitors.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 13, 2007 12:04 AM

I can understand why southerners might cling to the old stars and bars. After all, the southern states were part of the CSA for a whole 4 years and part of the USA for only 227 years. 4 is quite a large number compared to 227.

Its easy to understand how southerners might think of the confederate flag as a symbol of their brave ancestors. After all, not a single southern soldier has fought since the civil war. Southerners have absolutely nothing to be proud of since then: there were no southerners storming the beaches of Normandy or at Khe San or Dien Bien Phu. OK, maybe there were a few, but just remember: what southern soldiers did by liberating europe from Nazi domination was much less important than what they did fighting for slavery.

Posted by Turbulence | November 13, 2007 12:04 AM

Just Karl: please describe the state flags of New York, Illinois, Colorado and Vermont. No cheating by looking them up. What exactly does this "speak volumes" about? Most Americans don't know what's on most state flags! Alert the presses.

As for the "home of treason is New York City": Benedict Arnold was not an elected state official in New York, and did not attempt to shift the state over to the side of the British. He was one guy. The anti-black riots against service in the Union Army remain a stain on the honor of New York City, but the city did not secede from the Union in protest; the democratically elected government of New York fought for the union and against slavery, while the democratically elected governments of the South fought to dissolve the union and preserve slavery.

Accusations of treason in every society are always viewed as unfair by those accused, because people almost always fight for some cause which they do not view as treasonous. Those who fought for South Vietnam are viewed in mainstream Vietnamese history as traitors who fought for an American puppet regime. Those who fought for North Vietnam are often viewed by Vietnamese-Americans as traitors who handed the country over to Communism. In that conflict, neither accusation seems fair; both sides had good reason for fighting for the cause as they saw it. The issue in the US's Civil War which remains hard for Northerners to get past is that Southerners were fighting to keep black people as slaves. That's what it was about. The other issues were all just increasingly complicated rationalizations of principles which southerners argued ought to allow them to make their own decision about whether or not to keep black people as slaves. That political issue launched a style of discourse -- self-deception, dog-whistle politics, the dressing up of base motives in high-flown language -- which plagues the South to this day, and which has increasingly become a problem in American political discourse as a whole. And it makes the accusation of treason sound pretty convincing for Northerners: if they had a worthy cause that legitimated their desire for independence, the question goes, what exactly was it?

Posted by brooksfoe | November 13, 2007 12:09 AM

Important thing here, Matt's ackowledged his error in the earlier post. Self-corrrecting blogosphere! and all that. Anyway, let's not be too hard on a fellow Yankee. End of the day, MY knows which side he's on.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 13, 2007 12:18 AM

For you now to hoist yourselves up by your own petard is not only aggravating

Yikes! "For you to now raise yourself up on your high horse is not only exasperating..." A petard is an explosive device; to be hoist by one's own petard is to be blown into the air by the explosive charge one planted oneself.

BTW, you got your ass kicked in the Civil War, suffering twice the casualties of the South. Pussies.

As the People's Army of Vietnam officer said to the US Army officer, "Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant."

The people of Boston, Cleveland, and San Fransisco threw of fits over busing and school desegregation well into the 1970's.

Not desegregation; busing. But you should read Krugman's book. Whites in the North voted in the '70s and '80s much as they always had. Whites in the South, however, stopped voting Democratic and started voting Republican after 1965, when the Democrats became the party of integration and the Republicans became the party of segregation.

Posted by brooksfoe | November 13, 2007 12:25 AM

"War of Northern Aggression"

Ha do people still really call it that down south? Remember who fired first at Fort Sumter.

Posted by mad6798j | November 13, 2007 12:37 AM

Well, white racism certainly did play a role in that election nationwide -- but the bizarre fact is that Reagan still barely edged out Carter in Mississippi, by less than 1%!

Nobody remembers it -- because in the end, the only Southern state Carter actually took against Reagan was his home state of Georgia -- but the Deep South was the core of Carter's support in 1980, just as it was in his previous race against Ford. In Southern state after Southern state -- 7 of them in all -- he lost to Reagan literally by the skin of his teeth. (Only in the peripheral Southern states of Virginia, Florida and Texas did Reagan really cream him.) The freakish regional loyalty of Deep Southerners for their first Presidential nominee since Andrew Johnson to a considerale degree countered the GOP's racist appeal there, just as it had in 1976.

And the strangest case of all was Mississippi, which Carter had barely won from Ford in 1976 -- but which he barely lost this time. His vote margin dropped there by only 3% -- as against a drop of fully 30% next door in Arkansas! I have never been able to learn why. For whatever reason, it seems Reagan didn't get much bang for his buck -- in Mississippi, at least -- out of that appearance in Philadelphia.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | November 13, 2007 12:38 AM

Conversely, the net positive contributions of the Confederate States of America (1860-1865) to human history are:

The CSS Hunley. The first submarine to sink a ship in battle. Do war machines count as positive contributions to human history?

The Tories weren't traitors. They were loyalists. The other guys were the traitors.

Yeah, we're not so ashamed to be called traitors in that war.

please describe the state flags of New York, Illinois, Colorado and Vermont

Ummm, Illinois has light blue and white horizontal stripes and like 3 or 5 red stars...New York's flag is blue?...Colorado has that silly acorn/bullseye thing...Vermont, I have no idea.

The thing is that we've been fighting for changes to the flags in GA or SC for almost 10 years now. It never occurred to Matt to check out the other state flags in the confederacy? All the fans at Ole Miss football games waved confederate flags until just a couple of years ago.

The issue in the US's Civil War which remains hard for Northerners to get past is that Southerners were fighting to keep black people as slaves

It's not like they were fighting to start enslaving people. They were fighting (for the most part)for the status quo. The issue, ironically, was liberty. It's difficult to accept being physically forced to change.

Posted by Just Karl | November 13, 2007 12:41 AM

Brooksfoe, you make a great case that it is not secession itself that is the heart of the matter, but what motivated the secession. The southern states seceded in order to preserve an evil system. The war was fought to re-subjugate those states, for a combination of strategic reasons on the one hand, but also for the moral reason of preserving the political power to eliminate slavery in the southern states.

Suppose the situation had been reversed. Suppose the majority of states in the US had been slave states, and the majority had legislated in such a way as to force the minority to accept slaveholding on their own territory. Suppose after exhausting legal avenues to prohibit slaveholding in their states, my region of New England ultimately decided on secession as the only viable means of eliminating slavery in their region. How many of us would now regard this as treason?

The claim that it is treason rests on the theory that the union is not a voluntary union, one which states freely entered and from which they reserve the right to withdraw if they so choose, but instead represents some sort of eternal bond which the seceding state violates. I would suggest that neither that position nor its opposite can be given a really compelling constitutional defense, since the constitution is at bottom silent of the matter. But given the 10th amendment, it is plausible that secession is constitutional since not explicitly forbidden. Since the good guys won the Civil War, naturally our side's preferred, and possibly revisionist interpretation of the indelibity of the union has prevailed, as the victor's ideology always tends to do.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 13, 2007 12:42 AM

Errata: Andrew Johnson, of course, was the last Deep Southern PRESIDENT until Carter -- he never did get nominated for a full term. The last Deep Southern NOMINEE by either major party before Carter was (Christ!) Zachary Taylor in 1848.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | November 13, 2007 12:43 AM

They were fighting (for the most part)for the status quo. The issue, ironically, was liberty. It's difficult to accept being physically forced to change.

Yes, but the stauts quo was evil. It may be difficult for the defenders of an evil system to accept being compelled to change it. But that's no excuse.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 13, 2007 12:46 AM

Even Bob Hebert is ganging up on "Bobo" Brooks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | November 13, 2007 12:48 AM

Word History: The French used pétard, "a loud discharge of intestinal gas," for a kind of infernal engine for blasting through the gates of a city. "To be hoist by one's own petard," a now proverbial phrase apparently originating with Shakespeare's Hamlet (around 1604) not long after the word entered English (around 1598), means "to blow oneself up with one's own bomb, be undone by one's own devices." The French noun pet, "fart," developed regularly from the Latin noun pēditum, from the Indo-European root *pezd-, "fart."

Not desegregation; busing.

Busing was ordered by federal courts because the good non-racist people of certain American towns were drawing school district lines with the intent to segregate the schools. This was possible because the cities themselves were not integrated but certain races were relegated to certain neighborhoods.

Posted by Just Karl | November 13, 2007 12:53 AM

Suppose after exhausting legal avenues to prohibit slaveholding in their states, my region of New England ultimately decided on secession as the only viable means of eliminating slavery in their region. How many of us would now regard this as treason?

How many? I don't know. But those who did not consider it treason would have, on their side, the very convincing argument that the New England states had seceded to stand up against the evil of slavery. Unless you're positing that in your alternate universe slavery is not considered evil, because the South won and shaped the ideology. (And the British? The French? The Russians, emancipating their serfs?) But that also kind of seems to prove the point, to me: in order to consider the slavery issue non-dispositive with regard to the treason issue, you'd have to imagine a world in which people don't think slavery is evil. Which is a pretty hideous world, in which I suppose all sorts of other moral assumptions of ours wouldn't hold true either.

So I guess my point is that if you're saying that the "treason" charge depends on one's assessment of the value of the cause (for or against slavery), then I agree. And fighting for slavery is a pretty crappy cause. So treason is a hard charge to shrug off.

Posted by brooksfoe | November 13, 2007 1:04 AM

I think that a (very) partial defense of the Confederate flag, or at least Southerners' attitudes towards it, is in order. Now, it is undeniably true that the flag is correctly perceived by Blacks and Northern Whites as a symbol of violent, brutal racism and oppression. It is not, however, viewed that way by most White Southerners, nor is the civil war viewed as the desperate and bloody attempt to preserve an evil system that it was.

This is not due to racism in most cases, but by a lack of empathy for our black friends and neighbors. When combined with a certain regional identity and pride that exists in even very liberal Southerners like myself, this makes it hard to view the flag as a it ought to be viewed.

Similarly, it is hard for me to be as critical of white racists here, because I have to live with the human reality of it. For every redneck jackass out there, there is also someone like my Grandmother: a sweet old woman who makes great desserts on thanksgiving and thinks terrible things about black people. While it is bizarre and tragic to me that she thinks this way, She's still an otherwise good person. People like this make it very uncomfortable to hear Northern Liberals talk about the south. I think that Northerners would do well to at least bear this in mind when (appropriately) criticizing the Flag.

Posted by Don Zeko | November 13, 2007 1:07 AM

Yes, but the stauts quo was evil. It may be difficult for the defenders of an evil system to accept being compelled to change it. But that's no excuse.

I'm not saying that the wrong side won, just that it's hard to suddenly view your own way of life, especially one that had existed since the dawning of mankind, as evil. Do you think a present day issue, say abortion, could cause a similar rift in the country?

Posted by Just Karl | November 13, 2007 1:08 AM

I would suggest that neither that position nor its opposite can be given a really compelling constitutional defense, since the constitution is at bottom silent of the matter. But given the 10th amendment, it is plausible that secession is constitutional since not explicitly forbidden. Since the good guys won the Civil War, naturally our side's preferred, and possibly revisionist interpretation of the indelibity of the union has prevailed, as the victor's ideology always tends to do.

We didn't change the language, Dan. You saying they can still plausibly secede without committing treason?

If you're saying life--even that of a nation--is more complicated that we're at present able to describe, sure.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 13, 2007 1:11 AM

it's hard to suddenly view your own way of life, especially one that had existed since the dawning of mankind, as evil.

Absolutely. Absolutely true. And the majority of the people in virtually any society are, at some level, decent people. But what we are talking about now isn't whether we are able to see clearly the evil inherent in our society today; it's whether we will retrospectively excuse the evil that was done in our ancestors' society 140 years ago. There is simply no reason to do this, except to avoid insulting Don Zeko's grandmother, who is no doubt a sweet person but whose opinion that the struggle for slavery was a noble one ought not to be respected. Any more than my cousin's opinion that Arabs are by nature violent liars ought to be respected, even though he's basically a nice guy in most ways, too.

Posted by brooksfoe | November 13, 2007 1:27 AM

Don Zeko, I understand that you love your Grandmother, but why should I (or anyone else) be nicer to her than she would be to any African-American that she met? Especially when she's the bigot. . .

Posted by Justin | November 13, 2007 1:28 AM

How dare Bob Herbert be so shrill?

Posted by El Cid | November 13, 2007 1:33 AM

Perhaps I should be clearer. I'm not asking you guys to excuse displays of the confederate flag; I agree with you completely on the substance of the issue. I would, however, like for northerners to avoid calling us all depraved troglodytes, and to accept that, in fact, racism in the South is far, far weaker than it was a generation ago. I would also prefer that Liberals not write off the entire region politically, or at least not the Upper South and border states.

On a side note, my grandmother exposes a bit of a paradox about the South: she's not rude to black folks; she's had many of them as friends, neighbors and co-workers. Her racism usually comes out when she's speaking to other white people, and my family still can't figure out how to deal with it. THis kind of racism, which manifests itself in attitudes and odd jokes and comments, is far more prevelant than the Bull Conner variety. It bears mentioning, however, that it is no longer acceptable to say these things in most social contexts.

Posted by Don Zeko | November 13, 2007 1:40 AM

it's whether we will retrospectively excuse the evil that was done in our ancestors' society 140 years ago

Most Southerners who take pride in their heritage are not trying to excuse the evil of slavery. They are taking pride in the fact that their ancestors fought and died valiantly defending their homes (even if we see their cause as evil in hindsight).
Can we be proud of our ancestors who settled the West even though this was basically genocide. Should we ban children from playing cowboys and indians?

Posted by Just Karl | November 13, 2007 1:43 AM

Okay, Don Zeko, I'm willing to concede that your last paragraph makes a bit of sense. There's something to be said for crediting actually public behavior as opposed to private sentiment. Still it's very necessary to maintain the sort of social pressure which prevents closet racists from acting on their beliefs in concrete and destructive ways.

Posted by Justin | November 13, 2007 1:49 AM

Oh. My. God.

The Mississipi flag looks like a mash-up of the Confederate battle flag with the Stars and Bars.

As for secession, I kind of wish that the North had declared "secession is OK, but you don't get to keep the military forts owned by the Federal Government, nor do you get any of the territories, and you have to accept West Virginia's right to secede."

We'd have gotten exactly the same war, because the Confederate South was hell-bent on it. After all, they started it by firing on a federal military fort.

But it wouldn't have established this "no-secession" thing.

Posted by Nathanael Nerode | November 13, 2007 1:58 AM

lemuel,

Matt didn't acknowledge anything. He claims someone made a persuasive argument, implying he has changed his mind, not that he didn't know what he was talking about in the first place previously, nor that El Cid was the one who kindly provided the information linked in this post within the comments of the previous one, wherein Matt was handed his very own ass.

Posted by Pinko Punko | November 13, 2007 2:06 AM

Sometimes treason can be justified. Our Founding Fathers long considered themselves Britishmen, but they committed treason against Britain in founding this country. The question is, however, if one is committing treason on the side of justice or injustice. The Founding Fathers committed treason on the side of those wanting a Constitution and the right to vote (for at least some of the local populace), which was more just than the status quo. The Confederacy was committing treason on behalf of a system in which a white planter could go and rape any woman he owned repeatedly and without mercy. This was a system in which whites could break up a family at will and auction off another couple's children as if they were cattle. This was a system in which a white man could choose to beat, torture and murder a black person they owned. Some of the states in the Confederacy had a black majority. This means that the Confederacy was fighting for keeping a majority of the people in some of its states enslaved. In addition, the system disadvantaged poor whites in the Confederacy because they could not compete for jobs when the competition was those forced to work for free and they were also more likely to have to fight on the front lines than the rich white planters. This wasn't like fighting a bunch of communists who are trying to take your land. Land doesn't beg and plead when you rape and torture it.

Last week in Slate a professor at Columbia discussed a study he did with colleagues there on sexual attraction. One of the findings was that Southerners tended to express stronger "same race" attraction than Northerners, meaning that they were more likely to be attracted to someone if they were both of the same race and more likely to be turned off by someone if they were of a different race. A majority of Southerners only admitted that interracial dating is okay in 1991, long after the rest of the country reached this conclusion.

Posted by Reality Man | November 13, 2007 2:08 AM

"Can we be proud of our ancestors who settled the West even though this was basically genocide. Should we ban children from playing cowboys and indians?

Posted by Just Karl | November 13, 2007 1:43 AM"

We shouldn't ban playing, but why should we be proud of Western expansion exactly? Is your life pathetic enough that you have to look for pride in things where you have to overlook slavery and genocide? Hell, some of my ancestors were white Southerners, probably during the time of the Civil War. Being Irish and German Catholics (mostly recent immigrants) who knows what they were up to? Maybe they were conscripted into fighting in the Civil War. Some of my ancestors may have led pointless wars in Asia. Does it bother me when their legacies are dissed for this? No. Now cry about, pussy. Also, how did Confederate soldiers die protecting their land anyway? It's not like Reconstruction saw the collectivization of Southern land. Former slaves never got 40 acres and a mule (even though they definitely deserved it). Maybe if my identity was so tied to a region that was economically and culturally built on the back of slavery I would be all defensive and testy too, but I would like to think I wouldn't be so pathetic.

Posted by Reality Man | November 13, 2007 2:16 AM

"Treason? At least debatable."

I think the firing on Fort Sumter answered that question.

"Suppose the majority of states in the US had been slave states, and the majority had legislated in such a way as to force the minority to accept slaveholding on their own territory"

It happened. The Fugitive Slave Laws and Dred Scot decision effectively did exactly that. Not to mention what happened in Kansas and Nebraska.

----
As for southern "heritage", maybe if they'd just celebrate some of the stuff which wasn't wholly on the side of slavery? Heck, there was large Union enlistment in every single Southern state. Counties seceded from the Confederacy to rejoin the Union. That's Southern heritage too, but do you hear about it?

Posted by Nathanael Nerode | November 13, 2007 2:23 AM

And Dukakis went to exactly the same place exactly 8 years to the day later and gave a big speech there. Why? To express solidarity with the murder of 3 civil rights workers years before? No, because the Mississippi State Fair is one of the few places in America in early August where you can find a big crowd of people willing to stand around and listen to a political speech.

"a political speech"

"I believe in states rights."

Posted by Russ Hicks | November 13, 2007 4:13 AM

You would think once the RNC chairman himself admitted that the whole Southern Strategy was racist that that would kind of end this debate. However, racists like Sailer have to keep on looking for proof that they aren't racist.

Posted by Reality Man | November 13, 2007 4:29 AM

And the majority of the people in virtually any society are, at some level, decent people. But what we are talking about now isn't whether we are able to see clearly the evil inherent in our society today; it's whether we will retrospectively excuse the evil that was done in our ancestors' society 140 years ago.

Absolutely correct; and I'm a southerner (actually from Mississippi originally, less than forty miles from Philadelphia) who isn't proud of anything to do with the Confederacy. There are plenty of things to like about the deep south, although few happen to move me all that much: the food at funerals & family reunions, the great storytellers & entertaining hellraisers in every family, an amazing musical heritage, the sense that someone who knows how to fix your car will stop & help if you break down, and the fact that the accepted baseline for good manners seems to be much higher than, say, Ohio's. But that doesn't mean the place isn't also highly toxic in many ways, especially to racial minorities, less-privileged classes, intellectuals, and cultural rebels (as opposed to Confederate ones) of all kinds. Last spring, my 92-year-old great aunt-- she didn't remember the Civil War herself, but of course had known those who did, and saw the later unrest pretty close up-- told my brother that she was so glad he was getting out of there, because it was no good for our parents or their kids. That was pretty revealing, even though I knew she was never a sentimental type.

Oh, I think we called it The War Between the States in high school history, but our teacher was an African-American man.

Posted by latts | November 13, 2007 5:33 AM

You should be ashamed of yourself for such slanderous, calumnous accusations against our Greatest President, Ronald Reagan!

Why, Reagan would no more engage in racism than Red Lobster would charge more than $20 for a five-course meal!

Posted by David Brooks | November 13, 2007 7:49 AM

Should we ban children from playing cowboys and indians?

Well, should we ban children from playing Nazis and Jews?

Posted by rea | November 13, 2007 8:15 AM

brooksfoe,

My position is that the issue of the constitutional legitimacy of secession, and by implication the issue of treason, is logically independent of the issue of the evilness of the cause that prompted the secession. And a reasonable case can be made for constitutionality of secession. So the evilness of slavery is not dispositve in answering the question "Did the Confederates commit treason?" If secession is constitutional, then it is not treason, even if motivated by an evil purpose.

By analogy, we are permitted in this country to assemble peacefully and form political groups and parties to advocate for political change, even to advocate amending the constitution. Such activity does not constitute sedition, even if the cause is reprehensible. So if some group forms to advocate a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion and contraception, and requiring unmarried women to wear chastity belts, they may be justifiably condemned as vile and oppressive cretins, but whatever else they are guilty of they are not guilty of sedition.

SCMT,

It's not a question of changing language; it's a question of what is or is not permitted under the constitution, and what is or is not in conformity with our constitutional tradition. Prior to the confederate secession, there were a variety of other secessionist movements in the country, in different regions. Secession was an open constitutional question. As a practical matter, the Civil War ended most of this talk, since it was demonstrated that, constitutional or not, secessionist movements are unlikely to succeed and other states will use military force to prevent it. But that didn't answer the constitutional question. A war is an exercise in brute force, not a leagal decision.

Nathanael Nerode,

I don't think Fort Sumpter does answer the question. South Carolina had already seceded by then. If secession is constitutional, the U.S. troops at Fort Sumpter were occupying foreign territory. The South Carolinians would be within their rights to demand that the troops vacate, and then use force if those troops refused.

Obviously, none of this constitutes an argument for the illegitimacy of the Civil War. First, I haven't argued that secession is constitutional, only that there is a reasonable argument that it is. Second, even if the secession was in itself constitutional, the war might be justified as a moral crusade to re-subjugate southern territory so as to eradicate an evil system which would otherwise be allowed to continue.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 13, 2007 8:23 AM

A war is an exercise in brute force,

I agree -- UNlike slavery itself, which represents the apotheosis of civilization and reasoned discourse.

Posted by David Brooks | November 13, 2007 8:29 AM

I don't care what Michael Dukakis did, if he went out to pander to racists, he's scum. There's no doubt at all that that is what Reagan did, and this bizarre belief that he was just there to enjoy a nice sunny fair in an obscure southern town that just happened to be well known for over a decade as a hotbed of murderous, racist scum. There is no other real explanation for what Reagan did.

Posted by Soullite | November 13, 2007 8:32 AM

Re Just Karl

1. "BTW, you got your ass kicked in the Civil War, suffering twice the casualties of the South. Pussies."

By that reasoning, the Russians got their butts kicked in WW2 because they suffered far more casualties then did the Germans.

2. The South lost the Civil War, in part, due to the fact that their leading general, Robert E. Lee was, in many respects, one of the most incapable commanding generals in history.

Posted by SLC | November 13, 2007 8:33 AM

given the 10th amendment, it is plausible that secession is constitutional since not explicitly forbidden.

Exactly: the 10th amendment reserves unenumerated rights to the people. The only human beings in the Confederacy were white Southerners, who were unanamously in favor of secession. This just shows that liberals, far from being in favor of "freedom" and so-called "civil rights", are all about taking rights away from people -- all the important, unenumerated, 10th amendment rights, like:

(*) The right to secede,

(*) The right to treason,

and most importantly of all,

(*) The right for the "people" to buy, sell, whip, torture, rape and kill non-"people" who get too uppity and start thinking they're "people" instead of property.

Posted by David Brooks | November 13, 2007 8:40 AM

Why, Reagan would no more engage in racism than Red Lobster would charge more than $20 for a five-course meal!

Zing!

Posted by Freddie | November 13, 2007 8:42 AM

The people of the South that joined up under arms to resist the Union invasion of the South were by and large, not slaveholders. Only 1 in 13 who fought came from a family that owned slaves. The Secession movement was from a variety of reasons - slavery the main one - but also involving hatred of Northern Banks, the growing population disparities, industrialization, and creation of new states out West that had tipped power in the American system away from the South.
In the years before the Civil War, the political debate on the right to seceed had pretty much been won down South by the Calhouns - that just as it was Constitutional for invifdual states to vote to elect to join the USA - they had a right to voluntarily withdraw from the Union of States. This was backed by considerable documentation from the Constitutional Convention on the role of States, the autonomy of States after the Articles of Confederation had failed.

Lincoln, the Yankee merchantile class, the abolitionists all agreed that the new States and increasing power of the non-South part of the USA was going to soon lead to the ability to politically impose solutions on the South about abolition, credit, money supply, extension of more free soil states, control of railroads and telegraphs.

It was clear to the South, too, and they tried to seceed in the same way Slovenia seceeded from Czechslovakia, the 'Stans left the Soviet Empire, Bangladesh left Pakistan, the Ibos tried leaving Nigeria, the Boers and Americans and Irish tried leaving the Brits.

Sometimes secession is allowed to happen peacefully. Sometimes they seperate after the dominant political organization tries and fails to militarily force them to remain in union - Ireland, America, Bangladesh.Other times, if you kill enough people, you beat the Boers, the Confederates, the Ibos, the Tibetans - and force them to stay in the Union.

**********************
The Rebel Flag is just another item in the long list of endless black grievances of things of other cultures they find offensive and demand be eradicated - and yet another example where groveling liberal Jews and other PC-compliant - agree.

Never with any talk of banning reciprocally those black symbols, language, behaviors other cultures find offensive.

Maybe we should bargain. Reduce the black murder, rape, and armed robbery rates down from 7-8X the frequency of other races to that of whites and Asians and the successful blacks outside the Underclass - and black/liberal Jewish influencers demands to eliminate the Rebel flag fying will be seriously considered.

End affirmative action and raise blacks in 2-parent families and in reward, no more NOLA jokes....

Posted by Chris Ford | November 13, 2007 8:49 AM

Matt didn't acknowledge anything. He claims someone made a persuasive argument, implying he has changed his mind, not that he didn't know what he was talking about in the first place previously, nor that El Cid was the one who kindly provided the information linked in this post within the comments of the previous one, wherein Matt was handed his very own ass.

Posted by Pinko Punko

In fairness, after my own finding of Crespino's essay by Googling -- which truly was more of a 'hey look at this' rather than engaging that Nyhan guy's silly points -- I discovered that Rick Perlstein's "The Big Con" blog had already featured the Emory professor's essay way earlier yesterday morning than I posted it.

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/st_ronnie_and_11th_commandment

Thus I don't think that it's a well-supported conclusion that Matt first saw Crespino's essay from my comment post and thus was doing anything wrong (not that I would care personally in the slightest) by not mentioning that I had posted information about it.

Obviously my own opinion is that it's just silly to think that all this Reaganite / New Right race baiting was some accident or was just not important, although, again, it was only one part of their horrid, harmful agenda, and should maybe be seen more as a method than a goal.

Posted by El Cid | November 13, 2007 8:53 AM

See what you've done, Matt? You've stirred up the neo-Confederate Lost-Causers and the StormFront MLK Jr. critics to opine about the glooooory of what we'uns lost.

As a native Southerner, who grew up on the other side of a tobacco farm and went to rural schools and drank well water, let me say that I'm really, really glad the idiotic and horrid Southern ruling classes not only lost the Civil War but were eventually overthrown by the Civil Rights movement which finally brought basic political democracy to the nation.

Also, I'm really, really thankful that the idiotic, misgoverned, and backwards colonialized, easily strangled pathetic agricultural and primary product fiefdom known as 'the South' was dragged kicking and screaming out of its 19th century, awful, dreadful 3rd world existence by interventionist federal governments and spending -- thankfully even the white supremacist upper-class dominated political leadership allowed its greed for federal monies and investments outweigh its staunch dedication to reactionary anti-modernization while begging Northern industries to relocate their manufacturing away from the Northern unions to the non-unionized South.

The pro-hookworm community can whine all they want about their Lost Cause, but thankfully even the 20th century's 40 year revival of the upper class anti-Civil Rights struggle in the form of the 'Southern Strategy' of Republican racial dog-whistling seems to finally be puttering to a much-postponed end.

Posted by El Cid | November 13, 2007 9:05 AM

Reduce the black murder, rape, and armed robbery rates down from 7-8X the frequency of other races to that of whites and Asians and the successful blacks outside the Underclass - and black/liberal Jewish influencers demands to eliminate the Rebel flag fying will be seriously considered.

End affirmative action and raise blacks in 2-parent families and in reward, no more NOLA jokes....

Posted by Chris Ford | November 13, 2007 8:49 AM

See? If only you liberals would address the legitimate concerns of good, salt-of-the-Earth folks like Chris Ford, we wouldn't have all these problems we've had all these years.

Posted by David Brooks | November 13, 2007 9:11 AM

A war is an exercise in brute force, not a leagal decision.

This is where we disagree, Dan. Force is one means of establishing a tradition, here a tradition about available interpretations of the Constitution. At a bare minimum, it bears on the legal issue.

Or it remains an open question. There's nothing about the issue that depends on likelihood of success, either.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 13, 2007 9:18 AM

Her racism usually comes out when she's speaking to other white people, and my family still can't figure out how to deal with it.

Bill Bradley tells a similar tale, as I recall, about his grandmother; IME, people are sympathetic. I'm not claiming that Southern souls are more deeply stained with racism. I just want "us"--liberals, Dems, Northerners, whatever--to stop just ceding the language of nationalism to Southern Conservatives. It's idiotic and obscene.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 13, 2007 9:27 AM

On a lighter note, it's funny how no one seems to care about the distinctive feature of Hawaii's flag.

Posted by Brittain33 | November 13, 2007 9:29 AM

I could believe (if the historical evidence exists) that Confederate soldiers were, for the most part, brave individuals who believed themselves to be defending their communities against tyranny rather than seeking to perpetuate slavery. But I don't see why the takeaway from that is that the Confederacy, as well as its symbols, should inspire anything but contempt and revulsion. The Confederacy betrayed whatever was good about individual Confederate soldiers by using their lives and making them kill in order to defend slavery. If white Southerners really wanted to honor the valor of their ancestors, they would despise the Confederacy for wasting that valor in defense of a truly evil economic and political system.

Posted by FTJ | November 13, 2007 9:44 AM

I hate the Confederacy and I'm about this close to advocating the criminalization of Confederate imagery, as treasonous on its face. After all, it's the only imagery that is tied to a regime that is treasonous by definition, as opposed to "merely" a country that we fought in a war, or an alien ideology, etc.) But maybe we should just suck it up and let white Mississippians have their imagery of hate and treason. They've been reasonably good citizens when it comes to the nominal acceptance of racial equality, and it's no small step to get to a place where people have to be racist in code rather than explicitly. The only problem, of course, is that over one third of Mississippians are black, and they deserve state symbols that don't mock and degrade them.

How about a Grand Bargain: liberals will agree to a flag-burning amendment, and conservatives will agree to a no-Confederate-symbols amendment. And yes, I'm serious. I don't think Germans have given up any serious freedom in banning Nazi symbols.

Posted by Rich | November 13, 2007 9:45 AM

The first incarnation of the KKK was almost immediately after the end of the war, founded by former Confederates. The first incarnation of the Klan lasted almost a decade. Mississippi added the Confederate flag to its state flag during the Jim Crow era. Birth of a Nation (1915), which sparked the Klan's second incarnation, features Klansmen consecrating a Confederate flag by dipping it in a dead woman's blood. This incarnation lasted until the early 1940s. The States' Rights Democratic Party (the "Dixiecrats") was founded in 1948 in protest of the Democratic Party adopting an anti-segregationist plank in the platform, and they adopted the Confederate flag as a symbol of defiance.

Posted by kirkaracha | November 13, 2007 9:54 AM

David Brooks,

I don't understand where you're going with your criticisms of me, since I said absolutely nothing to call into question the evil of slavery, but only suggested that the evil of slavery, and consequently the evil of the antebellum southern social system are a separate matter from the question about whether secession constitutes treason.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 13, 2007 10:36 AM

I disagree with the Confederate Flag being considered a racist symbol, and I don't understand the exact criteria the establishes it as racist.

For example one could, without much difficulty, say the same thing about the Stars and Stripes. An overlooked yet significant reason for the American Revolution - at least in Virginia anyway - was England's promising freedom to slaves in exchange for serving in the army. (I would direct you to look at the unedited version of the Declaration of Independence, which mentions as a grievance the incitement of domestic insurgencies) Another critical factor was the colonists desire to expand westward, at the obvious expense to the Indians. Naturally, the British were not interested in footing the cost to protect a growing colonial frontier.

In short, if you take the view of minority victim groups, the American Revolution was in many respects a counter-revolution. But hey, by all means, keep railing against the South. Easier that way.

Posted by Neal Murray | November 13, 2007 10:37 AM

"I disagree with the Confederate Flag being considered a racist symbol, and I don't understand the exact criteria the establishes it as racist."

Well, there is more than one criterion that would suffice:

First, it was the symbol of the Confederacy which succeeded from the Union in order to protect their "right" to slavery.

Second, the symbol has been used by racist groups such as the KKK.

Third, during desegregation the symbol was revived.

Those criteria are enough for me: was it used by a slaveholding society fighting to maintain its slaveholding ways? Yes. Has it been used as symbol by rascist groups? Yes. Was it revived when racial tensions escalated? Yes. I would also add another criterion: Do most americans perceive it as a racist symbol? Yes.

Posted by d | November 13, 2007 10:44 AM

I haven't argued that secession is constitutional, only that there is a reasonable argument that it is.

Dan, I don't want to get into some big brouhaha, but this is an argument I would classify as "weird". As a matter of American constitutional law, the question of whether the Southern secession, specifically, was legal, is settled: it wasn't. We, uh, fought a war over that. There is no prospect of the question being revisited by the legal system.

The only question one might raise is whether the words "treason" and "traitor" are legitimate in the common-language sense, as opposed to the constitutional-law sense.

Posted by brooksfoe | November 13, 2007 10:45 AM

I disagree with the Confederate Flag being considered a racist symbol, and I don't understand the exact criteria the establishes it as racist.

For example one could, without much difficulty, say the same thing about the Stars and Stripes.

Don't forget the swastika!

Haven't you noticed how whiny victim groups are constantly calumnating the swastika as "racist", too?

I mean, puh-leaze! Can't the Germans celebrate their national heritage and national pride without a bunch of professional PC guilt-trippers ripping a benign symbol like the swastika out of its historical context to make it look "bad"?

Talk about a smear job!

Posted by David Brooks | November 13, 2007 10:46 AM

Shorter Just Karl.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 13, 2007 10:49 AM

Well, uh, technically it's longer just Karl.

Posted by Freddie | November 13, 2007 11:14 AM

The whole thing was about the expansion of slavery and new states in the West and South West, not the existance of slavery within the old South, it was the fact that southern politicians could not accept the containment of slavery within the old south. This is what ultimately forced Civil War between the states.

That makes it all the more absurd. Go read the speaches of the old southern senators of the 1850s. It's un friken believable. They even deformed Christianity to validate their social order. The people of the south didn't know better, every man loves the dirt he was born on, but the leaders, the newspapermen, the politicians, the big families... You know the United States never underwent a true de-confederization with proper trials and hangings. The failure to meet out a traitors justice to those responsible for the War in the name of premature reconcilation has hurt the United States tremendously. It's a pattern we see repeated today, with conservatives offering no quarter and subverting the federal government to help their party, while liberals once given a majority are taking weapons off the table and apologising for 'statements'. Until liberals forgive themselves for winning the Civil War, America can not have normal politics. This is the true politically correct problem America faces; liberal guilt towards southern conservatism.

Posted by Northern Observer | November 13, 2007 11:20 AM

I don't put the Confederacy in the same league with Nazism, for a few simple reasons. The first being the fact that they were a good seventy years apart, and the moral zeitgeist can change quite significantly in a decade, let alone seven. The second being the fact that Southerners believed - justly, in my opinion - that the Union was legally considered a voluntary association of states, rather than some Chinese finger trap that allowed only entry. Last but not least, it might be mentioned that slavery was a fairly omnipresent institution at the time, and for a few decades later still. (Mauritania abolished it in 1980) Whereas the mass extermination of a people, leveled solely because of their ethnic background, seems to be a more uniquely depraved action for a country to commit.

Those criteria are enough for me: was it used by a slaveholding society fighting to maintain its slaveholding ways? Yes. Has it been used as symbol by rascist groups? Yes. Was it revived when racial tensions escalated? Yes. I would also add another criterion: Do most americans perceive it as a racist symbol? Yes.

I repeat myself: the American Revolution was undertaken by a slaveholding society partially fighting to maintain its slaveholding ways.

The American Flag has been employed by racists, too. I have no doubt - and neither would you presumably - that American flags present at anti-immigration rallies are used as a symbol of racial hatred.

Let me be clear: I don't like the Confederate flag. I don't like regional chauvinism; and I don't like lost cause mawkishness. The South - the wellspring of Faulkner and Capote and Twain - has a better reservoir to tap for cultural pride.

Posted by Neal Murray | November 13, 2007 11:29 AM

I told you that you all wouldn't understand.

Posted by Trelock | November 13, 2007 11:35 AM

Mr Murray, you asked why the Confederate Flag was considered racist with the statement: "I disagree with the Confederate Flag being considered a racist symbol, and I don't understand the exact criteria the establishes it as racist."

As has been touched on by previous comments, it should be noted that, when one examines the history of the "Confederate Flag", one sees it as a tool of racism. There was no "Confederate Flag" of the CSA, and there were various flags flown by Southern armies. It was only after Reconstruction ended that the "Stars and Bars" began to appear in state flags or be flown over state capitols. In that same period, Jim Crow laws were established and segregation was enacted. The "Confederate Flag" has been mythologized by many southerners in order to disguise its clearly racist past under the banner of "Southern pride".

Posted by freddiemac | November 13, 2007 11:47 AM

As an addendum, the comment "I repeat myself: the American Revolution was undertaken by a slaveholding society partially fighting to maintain its slaveholding ways." is particularly false. The idea that granting freedom to some slaves who fought for the British was not a unique position of the British. In fact, some slaves were granted manumission by the Americans for service in the war. It is also particularly bad post hoc reasoning to suggest that granting freedom to slaves for fighting in a war after it already started was the pretext for the war in the first place. Please check your logical fallacies at the door.

Posted by freddiemac | November 13, 2007 11:51 AM

Last but not least, it might be mentioned that slavery was a fairly omnipresent institution at the time, and for a few decades later still.

Nah, slavery was well on its way out in countries which weren't as tied to it, thanks to Britain's lead. The abolition of the slave trade in 1808 and abolition of slavery in British colonies 30 years later showed which way the wind was blowing. White Southerners were aware they were holding on to a system that was falling out of favor everywhere else, which made them more defensive and more likely to identify with Cuba and Brazil, the other holdouts.

Posted by Brittain33 | November 13, 2007 11:54 AM

"It's not like they were fighting to start enslaving people. They were fighting (for the most part)for the status quo. The issue, ironically, was liberty. It's difficult to accept being physically forced to change."

Just Karl,

No, the issue was slavery. Secession occurred in the aftermath of Lincoln's election to the presidency. Lincoln, however, was not an abolitionist; he was a free-soiler. Lincoln did not believe in forcing the South to abandon slavery; he believed simply in containing the spread of slavery, and in banning slavery from US-controlled territories (which would prevent any more slave states from gaining admission to the Union in the future.) Lincoln's view on ending slavery was to contain it and let it die a natural death.

The South was so attached to this evil institution, however, that even Lincoln's non-coercive approach (which ironically was respectful of states' rights)was a threat to them. They would rather commit treason by seceding from the Union. Ironically, secession is what ultimately led to the South being forced to abandon slavery. If the North hadn't been forced to engage with a civil war with the bulk of the South in order to maintain the Union, the Northern states would likely have favored the free-soil approach, and slavery would have continued in the South through the remainder of the 19th century.

So get this straight, Just Karl, secession was about tyranny, not freedom, and the South got its ass WHUPPED.

Posted by eltoro | November 13, 2007 11:54 AM

Last but not least, it might be mentioned that slavery was a fairly omnipresent institution at the time, and for a few decades later still.

The US was among the last significant outposts of slavery in the Western world to abolish the practice. Slavery was never significant within Western Europe and was entirely gone by the 1790s. Britain abolished slavery throughout its empire in 1833. France followed in 1848. Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Argentina etc. by the 1820s. Portugal in its empire in 1853. In the Western hemisphere, only Puerto Rico, Cuba and Brazil retained slavery longer than the US.

The cotton and sugar economies of the New World were the drivers of Western enslavement of blacks. These were rationalized, racialized slave economies on a scale unknown elsewhere in the world. The US was one of the biggest practitioners, and one of the last to abolish it.

Posted by brooksfoe | November 13, 2007 11:56 AM

"and in reward, no more NOLA jokes...."

No Chris, let us never relinquish that. Laughing at the catastrophic misfortune of blacks is just too pleasurable.

Posted by Grand Wizard Jackson | November 13, 2007 12:02 PM

"Nah, slavery was well on its way out in countries which weren't as tied to it, thanks to Britain's lead. The abolition of the slave trade in 1808 and abolition of slavery in British colonies 30 years later showed which way the wind was blowing."

Excellent point, Brittain33. In fact, autocratic Mexico had abolished slavery by the 1830s. In fact, one of the primary reasons for the American-led secession of Texas from Mexico in the 1830s was to defend slavery.

Posted by eltoro | November 13, 2007 12:10 PM

Freddie, Brittain.. thanks for the responses.

I did not say the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery, which would be reductionist to a level of absurdity. It is also true that the Dunmore proclamation happened after hostilities began, albeit shortly after. Still, it did bolster the revolutionary cause, as the idea of inciting slaves to rebel against their masters was particularly offensive to the planter elite in Virginia. (The operative word there is "partially")

Had the American Revolution been put down, than slavery in the states would have been abolished well before the Civil War. Had the American Revolution been put down, than perhaps the Indians would have gotten a better fate. (certainly the British demonstrated more fidelity to treaties with Indians than Americans did)

Final point: I don't want to be mistaken for a confederate. I am a yankee, and I celebrate the result of the Civil War. I just don't consider the confederate flag to necessarily be a racist symbol, that's all.

Posted by Neal Murray | November 13, 2007 12:15 PM

David, it seems weird to me to say that a war can settle what is and is not constitutional, just as it would be weird to say that questions of constitutionality could be settled by plebiscite.

But even if we accept that the war settled the constitutional question of secession, then that seems to imply it was an unsettled question before the war. It seems tendentious to classify some events of 1861 as treasonous, if we have large numbers of founding historical figures on record as holding that a state's membership in the Union is voluntary and can be withdrawn by that state, and if the question wasn't "settled" until 1865.

Again, the discussion of the question seems easily confused, since the only significant actual example we have of secession was a case of secession being used to further an evil cause.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 13, 2007 12:21 PM

Had the American Revolution been put down, than slavery in the states would have been abolished well before the Civil War. Had the American Revolution been put down, than perhaps the Indians would have gotten a better fate. (certainly the British demonstrated more fidelity to treaties with Indians than Americans did)

That is certainly true, but I don't see how it necessarily indicts the US flag. On the other hand, the correlation between southern states adopting the modern "confederate flag" and the rise of Jim Crow is pretty strong.

Posted by freddiemac | November 13, 2007 12:30 PM

then that seems to imply it was an unsettled question before the war. It seems tendentious to classify some events of 1861 as treasonous,

"I thought it was legal" isn't an absolute out in criminal court, as far as I'm aware. Not even if your belief looks reasonable. Sometimes you buys your ticket and you takes your chances.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 13, 2007 12:30 PM

You know who had the right idea? William Tecumseh Sherman. There was a guy who got things done! He may be our most underrated American.

Posted by Woody Bombay | November 13, 2007 12:31 PM

Maybe Mr Murray needs to take a gander at the Confederate Constitution - the government of which the flag in question represents. It's pretty much based in many places word for word on the US Constitution - except for the parts specifically enshrining slavery as an instutition with it's abolition constitutionally prohibited. One can go on and on about the benign (and not so benign) other side issues about the conflict - but when push comes to shove, that flag represents that Constitution - for which that war was fought for - for the specific enshrishnment of the permanence of the institution of slavery. It doesn't get much more racist than that - and it demeans the whole subject to pretend that it could possibly be more about anything else.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | November 13, 2007 1:19 PM

Kervick, Tim:

Whatever the arguments before the war, as I understand it, the question of the constitutionality of secession was settled after the war with the post-war amendments. Unless you can imagine how a state could secede and yet still not deny or infringe the federal constitutional rights of its inhabitants.

This might also pertain to the pre-war arguments. depending on whether the rights in the bill of rights were granted to Americans as citizens of states, or as US Citizens.

Posted by bob mcmanus | November 13, 2007 2:27 PM

since the only significant actual example we have of secession was a case of secession being used to further an evil cause.

That's the only example we have in the United States, post-Constitution. (Though Aaron Burr's plan involved secession, I think, and I don't think anyone's had any trouble calling him a traitor. Right?) That's why I think you need to think of this question more broadly: what do we mean by "treason", generally, as applied to situations of secession and civil war? The relevant examples would be Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Kurdistan, Taiwan, Vietnam. Situations like Slovakia, where breakups were accomplished peacefully by plebiscite, also seem relevant. All of these examples provide aspects for comparison and contrast.

You'd need to think about a lot of issues: are there underlying factors which make the secessionist cause legitimate? Ethnic, linguistic, or religious differences, for instance? Is there widespread popular support in the seceding territories? What about in the non-seceding territories? Are there minorities in the seceding territories which oppose secession, and whose interests need to be protected by the non-seceding territories?

Another question concerns oaths of loyalty by officeholders or military personnel. If you have sworn to uphold the Constitution, on what basis can you rescind that oath? If you have sworn obedience to a Commander-in-Chief, on what basis can you switch your loyalty?

Posted by brooksfoe | November 13, 2007 2:34 PM

Woody,
After the Civil War, Sherman was put in charge of protecting the westward construction of the transcontinental railroad. Native Americans resisted, accurately foreseeing the consequences of westward settlement as a threat to their existence. It's ironic that the man most responsible for ensuring the defeat of the Confederancy and freeing the slaves was also responsible for disposessing Native Americans from their land, murdering women, children and the eldrly in their winter camps, slaughtering the American Bison into near exstinction, and rounding up the remaining survivors to be forced onto the most wretched reservations.

Posted by R.Mutt | November 13, 2007 2:38 PM

Steve Sailer, was Dukakis speaking about states' rights there?

Was his party platform at the time pursuing all sorts of policies with pernicious effects on African-Americans?

Posted by bob | November 13, 2007 2:40 PM

that's extintion, folks...never could spell worth a damn.

Posted by R.Mutt | November 13, 2007 2:44 PM

Whatever the arguments before the war, as I understand it, the question of the constitutionality of secession was settled after the war with the post-war amendments. Unless you can imagine how a state could secede and yet still not deny or infringe the federal constitutional rights of its inhabitants.
This might also pertain to the pre-war arguments. depending on whether the rights in the bill of rights were granted to Americans as citizens of states, or as US Citizens.
Posted by bob mcmanus

The same argument was made in Russia's breakup. That it was "unconstitutional". That the rights of Russians living in lands taken by force would be jeopardized as places like Estonia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, etc. seceeded from the Soviet Empire. And have no doubt, the Russians are whining greatly about the "constitutional liberties" of Russian settlers - to which the people of the Baltics, Ukraine, the 'Stans generally respond --aww, too bad!

That is what makes it a specious argument...same as when majorities in Latin America wished to "alienate" themselves from the blessings of Spain, it's King and Constitution. No doubt there were many loyal Spaniards in the New World who argued their precious Constitutional Rights made every empire or nation a "Roach Motel" where you could voluntarily or by force "check in" - but never leave.

The Fed Constitution applied, so went the argument of Calhoun and others, only as long as States that voluntarily joined that Union elected to remain in the Union - then the Constitution of the Republic the breakaway States seeking independence no longer applied, only the State Constitutions unless they voluntarily joined a new association or Confederation of States.

Since secession is a common historical phenomena, arguments that "this here piece of paper prevents independence" never fared very well as a deterrent.

************************
Back to symbols. I favor the free speech rights of people to use symbols over the demands of organized grievance groups quick to seize on anything that could offend them if not actually do offend them - to assert their power via censorship, demands for punishment/apologies, etc.

The noose is another fine example. Out West, it is a symbol of old Western justice. It is also a useful, widely-used multiple loop slip fishing knot for monofiliament line and for certain camping/climbing applications that use the hangman's noose or similar no-slip nooses like the tautline hitch.

Some PC people want to make it "an illegal knot". How the "offended black and Lefty" morons would regulate fishermen and outdoors activities is beyond me. And what other "illegal knots" would follow?

Then they would be pissing and moaning about chains being a "symbol of oppression" except those allowed because they are big gold ones draped around black celebrity's necks.

Offensive songs, stuff we all enjoy but we shouldn't because it "stereotypes"? We had a softball team that was about 1/3rd black that caught hell from one black who demanded that we not have a family picnic of fried chicken, corn, and watermelon....who backed down when we asked - "if we ask your wife if you ever eat the stuff??".

We seem to be becoming more sensitive about stupid stuff like rebel flags and Indian mascots as killjoys strutting their Victimhood learn that whining in a PC setting automatically rewards them.

Not 20 years ago, there were nearly zero complaints about the Dukes of Hazzard and the General Lee car.

Even the 'ol swastika which Jews wished banned everywhere, survived because it was such a common symbol, motif, and architectural design element used outside the Nazi context in Western, Indian, Asian, Muslim, and Native American Culture.

Germans and such can make it illegal....but it stays on Hopi pottery, Turkish tile design, Airy masonry filagree work in Swedish walls and Mexican courtyards and Indian temples. And whole housing areas in China are designed swastika-style because it is one of the basic designs that allowed for a central hub of utilities and main entrance, while the housing areas coming off the center then right angle close to the property line to maximize window ventilation and courtyard space...Even the US has swastika designed buildings for apartments. The Navy was found to have one from someone that was scanning Google Earth and found a big swastika building on Navy housing that had been there since the 60s with no one using the building aware it was laid out as a swastika.

And please...on "hurtful, hate words"...no tribalism - as in "Only queer people can call one another faggots and rent boys - don't you call us that! And be sensitive about queer and homo too! When in doubt, we are to be called 'gay'"

Yeah, right. If you don't want people people to use faggot, nigger, Rez boy, gook it behooves tribal users not to make the name so common and ubiquitous that everyone uses it.

There is also the 50-50 Rule.

Meaning that whenever a swastika is drawn, a noose hung - there is a 50-50 chance that a member of the associated "Victimhood" group did it for personal promotion, attention, proof of the reality of "Victimhood" and superior moral authority in the eyes of others.

Posted by Chris Ford | November 13, 2007 3:41 PM

"Yeah, right. If you don't want people people to use faggot, nigger, Rez boy, gook it behooves tribal users not to make the name so common and ubiquitous that everyone uses it."

Chris Ford,

Are you arguing that you wouldn't use words like faggot and nigger if so-called "tribal users" wouldn't use them? Moreover, does the Chris Ford distorted view of history believe that racists and homophobes first started using those terms only because so-called tribal users used them first? Do your Black softball teammates buy this BS reasoning of yours, and let you call them "nigger" to your heart's content?

What is the color of the sky today in Bizarro-world, Chris?

Posted by eltoro | November 13, 2007 4:32 PM

I don't know -- would the British have abolished slavery as quickly as they did if the United States hadn't become independent? The British abolition of slavery was based on providing compensation for slave owners. Having more slave colonies would have increased the cost of abolition on the British model, increased the power of interest groups opposed to abolition, and overall reduced the feasibility of abolition on the British model. It seems to me that one of the reasons the British could abolish slavery was that the U.S. took a lot of Britain's slaves with it when it kicked the British out, reducing the political power of slavery within Britain. That's not to say slavery would have gone on forever if the British had held onto the U.S. I'm just saying we can't really know -- might it have lasted until 1843 instead of 1833? 1853? I don't know, but I don't think it's safe to assume the British would have been able to abolish slavery as quickly as they did if they'd held onto the U.S.

Posted by Julian Elson | November 13, 2007 4:45 PM

"The Fed Constitution applied, so went the argument of Calhoun and others, only as long as States that voluntarily joined that Union elected to remain in the Union - then the Constitution of the Republic the breakaway States seeking independence no longer applied, only the State Constitutions unless they voluntarily joined a new association or Confederation of States."

The problem with this line of argumentation is that the Constitution makes no mention of how the Union was supposed to deal with issues of secession. Yes, it doesn't expressly forbid secession, but it also doesn't expressly allow it. While loose constructionists would argue that if the Constitution doesn't specifically forbid an action, that action is allowed, stricth constructionists would argue that if the Constitution doesn't specifically allow an action, that action is forbidden.

In addition, the Constitution neither expressly forbids nor allows the federal government to prevent states from leaving the Union. A strict construction then would forbid the federal government from stopping a state from seceding, while a loose construction would allow the federal government to stop a state from seceding.

Therefore, a strict construction of the Constitution would forbid both secession from the Union and the use of force by the federal government to stop secession. Meanwhile, a loose construction would allow both secession from the Union and the use of force by the federal government to stop secession.

Finally, even if secession no longer made a state subject to the US Constitution, it doesn't follow that the Union had no right to make that state subject to the US Constitution again. Unlike the Soviet Union, which was simply the Russian Empire remade in a Communist image, the states that were part of the US joined it voluntarily through a process of Constitutional ratification.

That ratification substantially altered the balance of powers between the states and the national government. The states in effect ceded many of the powers they had under the Articles of Confederation to the national government. When they ceded some of their powers voluntarily, they also implicitly ceded some of their rights. One of these rights was the right of secession.

Posted by eltoro | November 13, 2007 5:05 PM

Another question concerns oaths of loyalty by officeholders or military personnel. If you have sworn to uphold the Constitution, on what basis can you rescind that oath? If you have sworn obedience to a Commander-in-Chief, on what basis can you switch your loyalty?
Posted by brooksfoe

Here is the full Officer's Oath. Our enlisted guys, and a few gals - took a different Oath that also added stuff about always obeying superior officers and following the UCMJ.

I, {insert name here}, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." (Note that the last sentence is not required to be said if the speaker has a personal or moral objection)

Later, during my service, we had additional training on what it meant. And lots of questions on that from enlisted.

Basically, we in the , or who were in the military, are not in the law school constitutional scholar elites. Obey the posted ROE. Obey the UCMJ, and know what is or is not a lawful order.
Follow Chain-of-Command - which ends in civilian Executive leadership and Congressional oversight. Civilian courts may have jurisdiction over the civilian part of Chain-of-Command, but no member of the military in performance of duties.
The military role is specified in the Preamble - provide for the common defense, maintain domestic tranquility by force. Force, inc. lethal measures if ordered so, by a Governor or the Federal Executive.

**************
El Toro Meriah - When they ceded some of their powers voluntarily, they also implicitly ceded some of their rights. One of these rights was the right of secession.

Bullshit.

You actually contradict your self with all your pseudo-lawyer strict, non-strict constructionist crap - since the original parties to the Constitution agreed that it was a voluntary association voted on.

Posted by Chris Ford | November 13, 2007 7:10 PM

I don't think Fort Sumpter does answer the question. South Carolina had already seceded by then. If secession is constitutional, the U.S. troops at Fort Sumpter were occupying foreign territory.

Well, this gets to probably the central error that defenders of the Southern position make.

Let's assume the legality of secession. Now, what happens to federal property in the South? Answer... NOTHING! That's right, secession is not expropriation. If the US government owned a cannon in South Carolina in October 1860, it still owned that cannon in March 1861. Similarly, a parcel of land with a federal courthouse on it in Jackson, MS owned by the US government in October 1860 was still owned by the US government in March 1861.

That's the thing about secession. Even if it is legal, all it does is change the identity of the sovereign power. It doesn't divest anyone of their property rights.

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 13, 2007 7:22 PM

A quick google shows that the original state flag that Mississippi actually fought under was the Magnolia Flag, adopted in 1861, and that the current flag was adopted in 1894 as a deliberate tie-in to segregation and the Klan.

This is exactly right. One reason that the alternative flag lost in the recent referendum was that it was so obviously made-up and without historical roots.

MY modest proposal was to replace the current flag with the Magnolia Flag. This would please most people, b/c it's (1) historical and (2) innocuously floral, while the latter-day Confederates could feel smug that (3) it's the flag under which Miss. actually fought for the right to enslave their fellow human beings.

But like most of my modest proposals, this one too was ignored.

Posted by Anderson | November 13, 2007 9:18 PM

First of all I would like to register my opinion that the Confederate flag is an appalling symbol that represents at best, a reactionary southern nationalism, and at worst something far far uglier and more despicable.

But as for the rest, please do get over yourselves. First of all, the Confederacy wasn't "treason." It's remarkable the number of generally sensible liberals and left oriented people with a rooted understanding of international conflict, a respect for emerging self-determination and imperialism etc. All of a sudden turn into neo McCarthyites and Goldwater campaigners whenever the Civil War is discussed with righteous accusations of "treason!", especially when said accusation doesen't entail something like espionage or terrorism or the sabotaging of national institutions or opening the gates to a foreign hostile army.

The South decided they didn't want to be part of the United States anymore and were under the impression that they were allowed to secede from a voluntary union. Their reasons for wanting to secede were entirely reprehensible and almost completely to do with the continuance of slavery despite what many neo-confederate apologists like to maintain, but the decision to leave the Union wasn't "treason" anymore than if Scotland wants to leave the United Kingdom or the Catalonians decided they didn't want to be part of the political federation of Spain anymore. If the states of the Old Confederacy had decided to leave the union and form their own political federation for the reasons southern apologists claim they did and not to protect the institution of slavery, and the U.S. went to war with them to prevent them from doing so, the ridiculousness of the treason accusations would be a lot more apparent to these normally more thoughtful people.

And slavery is the core issue. The reason why the normally sensible crowd turns into some amalgamation of 19th century british imperialists and the writing staff of Commentary is that they view themselves (the reasons for associating themselves with one camp of a civil war 150 years ago, only known to them) as the righteous side in a black and white battle of good verses evil bring freedom and democracy to the south while crushing tyranny. One person upthread even referred to the north (in the "we" sense) as the liberals. There can be no mistake that the south was fighting to maintain slavery but the idea that the North went to war with the south for some righteous anti-slavery cause is laughable. Any decent ethnic studies historian, particularly the afro-centrists would treat the arrogant notions of modern white liberals that their adopted ancestors were fighting some war of race justice with the contempt they deserved and would likely be laughed out of the room.

The North was composed of people who not only didn't view blacks as human equals, a sizable percentage of them were open supporters of or at least perfectly tolerant of human bondage. Certainly if the South had agreed to quit campaigning for the expansion of slavery into the new imperial territories, no act of aggression would have been deemed neccessary, it was the southerners decision that they could just up and form their own club that was the unforgivable last straw. The U.S. (with the majority of the population centered in the industrial northeast) were in full on manifest destiny mode, and they weren't going to let a bunch of slavery fetishizing secessionists upset their dream of the great white man's republic. Illustrated by the fact that the next move on the Union army's agenda after conquering and occupying the secessionist south was (with the same big Union civil war generals at the helm) launch a campaign to exterminate every Native American on North American soil (they were traitors too) I guess the liberalism that allegedly permeated the valient northern army at that time was still too primitive to consider the humanity of more than one group of non-white people at a time. There can be no mistake about the reason the Confederacy left the union and what that mean't, and no apology should be made on their behalf, but the primary motivations of the "North" in their prosecution of the Civil War were not humanitarian or centered on justice but were instead, almost entirely rooted in a policy of imperialism and territorial expansion.

As for the discussion in how it relates to the contemporary south I have less clear thoughts. I don't know what the current south would be like if as one poster above suggested, a more vigorous de-confederization with hangings and such had been implemented, or if the reasons the south is as offensive to such people today is that the then occupying north was insufficiently brutal, but the specter of what I would assume to be a normally thoughtful liberal/left person sounding like Max Boot is intriguing and is a perfect capture of the mania that takes over whenever this subject is discussed.

I think we should start a second drive to help African-Americans leave the South for places in America where they can attend decent schools and get a fair shake.

What, you mean like Detroit? or D.C.? Baltimore? Newark?

I totally respect the imperial motivations to rescue blacks in the south, lord knows they've been at best left for dead or at worst, had open war waged against them for 2 centuries. But before you come and rescue them, perhaps you should demonstrate an ability to first do something for the blacks in the civilized progressive part of America. I've heard rumors they are having problems, some of which have to do with racism.

These cities, with the possible exception of D.C. were outside the old Confederate south, they aren't heirs to a legacy of being tyrannized by white slave masters and a reactionary white population bent on seeing them oppressed. They have historically been around the good progressive whites, not the primitive southern ones for which I'm sure they are grateful. And yet these cities are plagued by violence, under investment and poor schooling that would rival any black urban area in the south if not surpass them in certain respects.

On a more serious note, each of those cities (and those are just examples off the top of my head) lie outside the historical south. Possibly with the exception of D.C., they aren't heirs to a legacy of tyrannical slave masters, race terrorism and a legendarily reactionary white population. They got to be around the good progressive northern whites, the ones who live in some of the exact same places of the people who fought to end slavery 140 years ago. And yet these areas suffer from the same problems of discrimination, under investment, crime, poor schooling and white flight that would rival if not surpass many black urban areas in the south. This is not to equivocate between the issue of race as it exists today in the south and as it exists in the north. The situation for blacks outside is better than for those in the south in a lot of marked areas. But the difference isn't as large as the degree to which many back patting self congratulatory whites from those areas like to pretend it is when talking about "the south" in disparaging terms. A little humility is in order. This is compounded by the fact that many of these non-southern self-congratulatory whites often hail from crack white areas like New England and the Mountain West where there are fewer blacks than in your average NHL game.

Posted by DRR | November 13, 2007 11:04 PM

"Bullshit.

You actually contradict your self with all your pseudo-lawyer strict, non-strict constructionist crap - since the original parties to the Constitution agreed that it was a voluntary association voted on."

No, Chris Ford, you're full of shit. Joining the Union is not like joining the Shriners or the Boy Scouts. (You don't ratify constitutional documents when you join such organizations.) The original parties to the Consitution were well aware that the Constitution's ratification involved a significant change in the powers of the national government vs the state governments. The Constitution even states as a general principle that in areas where a federal law and state law contradict each other, the federal law shall take precedence. (The state law would take precedence if the federal law were struck down as unconstitutional.) That's something that would never have occured under the Articles of Confederation.

If you recognize that in areas where the federal government has legitimate authority, the states must defer to the federal government as a MATTER OF LAW, then you can't really invoke the words "voluntary association" to argue that the federal government has no right to stop you from rejecting its authority wholesale through secession. After all, a club cannot use the force of law to make you abide by the club's laws (unless you sign a contract granting them that authority), but the federal government can (unless the federal law is struck down as unconstitutional).

As usual, you give BS arguments that sound good at first, but which fall apart as soon as you apply the slightest bit of logical analysis to them. Moreover, when you actually look at the facts of history, your case falls even further apart.

The original parties to the US Constituion were hardly in perfect agreement about how to interpret the document, and while the Jefferson/Madison factions might have agreed that the states had the right to secede under certain circumstances (if the national government became tyrannical like the British government did over the colonies), the Hamilton/Adams factions certainly would not. Moreover, when Jefferson and others write about nullifying the authority of the national government, they were dealing in the context of striking down unconstitutional federal laws. They never argued that the states could nullify the authority of the federal government altogether, even authority that was legitimate and constitutional.

Since Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton are more reliable authorities about the intentions of the Founding Fathers than John C Calhoun (unlike Calhoun, they actually were Founding Fathers), the "Founding Fathers intended the Union to be a voluntary association we could leave at will" argument is simply bunk.

Posted by eltoro | November 14, 2007 10:48 AM

"the decision to leave the Union wasn't "treason" anymore than if Scotland wants to leave the United Kingdom or the Catalonians decided they didn't want to be part of the political federation of Spain anymore"

DRR,

I've got news for you; these acts would be considered treason from the POV of the UK or Spain so long as the people of those countries felt that this secession wasn't legitimate, just as the consensus opinion today is that the South's secession was illegitimate. That's for good reason, since treason is more than just material aid and comfort to the enemies of the US. Treason is also rejecting wholesale the authority of your national government. You can argue that such treason is done for legitimate and moral purposes (as Americans do when discussing the American Revolution against Great Britain), but such acts are still treason. Therefore, it is not unreasonable or hysterical to describe the secession of the South before the Civil War as an act of treason, especially since as you concede, it was done for an extremely illegitimate and immoral purpose.

I do agree with you that the South shouldn't be singled out for the sins of racism towards Blacks; the US as a whole has a lot to answer for in regards to this sin. However, it does tell you that the South's particular methods of racism were so evil, that even bigoted whites from the North denounced them. When Archie Bunker condemns your racist treatment of blacks as immoral, it's like Lindsey Lohan or Britney Spears calling you an alchoholic or a drug abuser; it indicates that you really, really have a problem.

Posted by eltoro | November 14, 2007 11:28 AM

"but the primary motivations of the "North" in their prosecution of the Civil War were not humanitarian or centered on justice but were instead, almost entirely rooted in a policy of imperialism and territorial expansion."

DRR,

No, the primary motive for the North to prosecute the Civil War against the South was that the North viewed the South's secession as illegitimate. If the North believed that the South had legitimate reasons for leaving (i.e. the national government had become tyrannical, like the British government had over the American colonies), they would have accepted it grudingly. However, because the South left in a temper tantrum over losing the political debate over the EXPANSION, not abolition, of slavery, the North would never accept the South's secession as legitimate, and thus remaing states in the Union supported the federal government's call to put down this insurrection by military force. The Union adopted the abolition of slavery as a goal of their war effort later, when the losses suffered by the North during the Civil War made Northerners decide that the war had to be about something more than just preserving the Union. Moreover, for the Union POV, abolishing slavery made sense as a punitive measure against the Confederacy. The North thought that if the Confederate states were so enamoured of slavery that they would resort to armed insurrection over it, then they deserved to have their slaves taken away from them. They were especially deserving since we were going to let them keep their slaves in the 1st place, before they seceded.

Posted by eltoro70 | November 14, 2007 12:07 PM

"The American Flag has been employed by racists, too. I have no doubt - and neither would you presumably - that American flags present at anti-immigration rallies are used as a symbol of racial hatred."

True, the motivation for waving a flag at an anti-immigration rally is probbaly racist, or partially so at least. However, the thing about the American flag is that every group from Neo-nazis, John Birchers to leftist groups and civil rights marchers, try to appropriate the American flag. This is normal, to appropriate national symbols. But the confederate flag does not have the same function. I would concede that there are southerners who aren't primarily interested in racism who display the flag, but we know its continued use is motivated by racism. Do liberal groups in the South use it? I don't think so, though I could be wrong, but I would be very, very suprised. Moreover, outside of the South it is used to symbolize racism. In fact, I once went into what turned out to be a neo-nazi shop in eastern Germany and guess what one of the most prominently displayed symbols was? Yup, the Confederate flag. Maybe that was because they support states' rights?

Posted by d | November 14, 2007 12:37 PM

The South decided they didn't want to be part of the United States anymore and were under the impression that they were allowed to secede from a voluntary union.

Were they under the impression that they were permitted to expropriate all US government property within the South too?

Also, let's remember WHY the South seceded. They seceded because they were pissed off at the result of an election.

Even if you have some sort of neo-Calhounite view of the Constitution where it permits states to withdraw, it would seem to me very clear that the framers intended that there would be continuity of government and an orderly transfer of power when a government ideolgically opposed to the previous government got elected. The states that voted for the Federalists didn't feel they had the right to leave the union just because Jefferson was elected.

NO democratic or republican form of government can subsist when any regional bloc that loses an election gets to quit the country.

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 14, 2007 2:40 PM

Dilan,

I think the whole argument about treason is somewhat beside the point. The South deserved to lose the Civil War not because they were treasonous, but because they were fighting to preserve racial slavery. The Civil War deserves to be remembered as the crusade against slavery that it was. And we should have given the South much tougher treatment after the war. At the very least, hanged their leaders for crimes against humanity, and let Reconstruction roll on for at least another 25 years or so.

DRR,

The Southern half of New England, where most of the people live, has a substantially larger non-White population than the Mountain States (except NM) or the average NHL game. Boston is over 25% black, Hartford is I think about 40% black, Providence is a majority non-white city, and I think Springfield too and some other midsize cities. The non-white position is relatively small, and concentrated in the cities, but isn't insignificant.

Posted by Hector | November 14, 2007 8:07 PM

What Happens in Neshoba...

Comments (119)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories