Apparently, many NASCAR fans have a penchant for Confederate Flags, and some of them are upset about this editorial discouraging people from flying the Confederate Flag at a race at the California Speedway. They decided to come into the newspaper’s website and overwhelm the comments section with all the typical arguments. The same kind of comments I delete from here nearly every day.
Check out a few of the lovely comments. Let’s begin with this racism apologist RT:
We are constantly reading from sports writers like yourself that too many times politics are brought into sports yet here you are starting a debate that doesn’t need to be debated. The fighting of the Civil War was not about slavery but of state’s and man’s freedom to govern themselves. Once that war ended the healing between brothers started and continues. Shame on you for fueling this debate and stick to what you are supposedly paid to do and write about sports. Or better yet, transfer to the commentary section.
What strikes me about RT’s comment is how he decided that the Civil War was not about slavery, but about “man’s freedom to govern themselves.” Geez, I guess he has forgotten that slaves did not have the freedom to govern themselves because they were enslaved. (Grammarphiles I know this is a tautology :)) ) I’m also curious who the healing was with; does he mean between whites in the north and the south? Does he mean whites and blacks? I’m not sure, but this is the classic, “why are you even daring to talk about racism strategy?” Where some racism apologist minimizes racism, pretends to be a neutral/unbiased observer, and subsequently chastises the person acknowledging racism by telling them politely to shut up. Classic colorblind racist strategy.
Next we have GM. Who decides to play the “southern heritage card,” follows it up with nice rant against California, and then argues that he is a college professor who teaches constitutional law.
No, I agree as a proud Southerner who grew up in the shadow of the Darlington raceway and knew many of the early NASCAR drivers that the Confederate flag should not be flown at NASCAR events–in California that is. We would not want the proud symbol of our heritage and coursge in withstanding 142 years of illegal US occupation of our homeland to be smeared by being flown in the most socialist and un-American state in the union. To ignorance we can only say that no slave ship ever flew a Confederate flag. Our ancestors fought for the freedoms that had been written into the Constitution. When Lincoln proposed a Constitutional amendment that would protect slavery if the South would support his tariffs that would have, and did, bankrupt the South, the reponse was that slavery was dead and they would not support him. So please don’t fly our flag. As an educated, non-racist, Southern college professor who teaches American Constitutional history and government, I do not want it desecrated by ignorance Yankees who have no idea what it means.
I love how all of these southern heritage folks very conveniently forget that racism is part of that heritage. Don’t get me wrong I don’t think racism is unique to the south, but this country was built on the blacks of slave labor (I caught this typo and decided not to change it because it is just too ironic-the word is supposed to be backs.). The Confederacy was organized, in part, to uphold the state’s rights’ to retain slavery. If this guy has a PhD, I would hope that he had learned this in his history classes.
Next we have LDT, who can’t find anything “racist and regressive” about the south. In fact, I think LDT is still fighting the Civil War.
Lincoln fought against the constitution of the United States and everything that the U S stood for. He began the striping of power from the people that is so obvious today. He also did away with the only power that the people and that States had to keep the federal government within the constitution and that was the right of secession!
I wonder what LDT thinks about the Iraq War. Ok, sorry…I just thought the Civil War was over.
Next up is the classic “you are the real bigots strategy.” It is first used by a poster with the initials HBO, but then Charles comes in to save the day for the “you are the real bigots” racists.
Why is OK for blacks and other minorities to display pride in their heritage but when whites (especially southern whites)display pride or even indicate that they are proud of their heritage, they are immediately labeled racist and insensitive to others? This double standard has got to stop. If you are offended you have every right to leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay. If someone were to found a White Coaches Association or a National Association for the Advancement of White People you can bet Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have a field day with the ensuing media circus. NASCAR’s roots aren’t in the north or the west or the east, it was started in the south and people should be proud of their heritage. There was a time when you weren’t anybody in NASCAR unless you had some “shine” in your background.
If you only knew, how many times I hear this crap. The NAACP was founded for the same reasons as the Confederacy? Well let’s investigate this. You can find more about the origins of the NAACP here, but I would just like to highlight this quote:
The NAACP was formed in response to the 1908 race riot in Springfield, capital of Illinois and birthplace of President Abraham Lincoln. Appalled at the violence that was committed against blacks, a group of white liberals that included Mary White Ovington and Oswald Garrison Villard, both the descendants of abolitionists, issued a call for a meeting to discuss racial justice. Some 60 people, only 7 of whom were African American (including W. E. B. Du Bois, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, and Mary Church Terrell), signed the call, which was released on the centennial of Lincoln’s birth. Echoing the focus of Du Bois’s militant all-black Niagara Movement, the NAACP’s stated goal was to secure for all people the rights guaranteed in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution, which promised an end to slavery, the equal protection of the law, and universal adult male suffrage, respectively.
Gasp!!!! The NAACP was founded by white people, gasp again!!! I guess they were race traitors, sell-outs, or anti-white bigots because giving black people their rights under the law obviously means taking rights away from white people. Especially, their right to own slaves and fly the confederate flag. (Yes, I know I’m being unusually sarcastic and snarky, but how else do you respond to these people.)
Then, we have the “I know a black man who supports the Confederate Flag” argument. Because if we can find one Black person who supports this, then it must be Ok. This guy doesn’t realize it works better when the one black guy you cite is also your friend, but I digress. Let’s get to the quote from LF:
We’ve been through this many times before: hate groups have no right to define the meaning of the Confederate flag. The flag means different things to different people. I have even heard that a black man said that he wanted to kiss this flag because it reminded him that he is probably much better off in the USA than he would have been in Africa. The Civil War is by far the greatest legend of American folklore. Without Confederate flags, America would not look like America anymore. These attacks on Confederate flags are cultural genocide. To me, the flag has little or no present-day political or social significance. I see the flag as a fun thing and also as a symbol of the South, peace, tolerance, and national unity. When we fight over this flag, we set a very poor example for places where civil wars are still going on, like Northern Ireland. Also, censorship and attempted censorship of Confederate flags impair objectivity in the interpretation of history concerning the Confederacy.
I’m not even going to bother with the rest of the argument, but I have to admit that it is rather hilarious to bring up genocide. Dude why don’t you go talk to some American Indians about genocide. Now that’s a real genocide. Plus, doesn’t genocide involve mass killings. When was the last time white southerners were killed in mass, and don’t use the Civil War because nobody was fighting to kill off white southerners. The fight was over maintaining the Union. And last but not least, you have to ask yourself why the KKK and other hate groups so love the confederate flag. Which came first the KKK or the Confederate flag?
Ok, this guy GL just can’t judge time properly, and he uses the “I know a black man who supports the Confederate Flag” argument, so I had to throw him into the mix for a good laugh.
The Rebel Flag is not a hate symbol, racist, It has nothing to do with that this is all opinion not fact because it happened almost 2000 years ago and you people who want to ban it from sports and everything need to get over it! I can give you millions of people who will play sports with the rebel flag flying above and most people can and will do it because it is a flag not a hate and racist symbol. I know Cowboy Troy played with charlie Daniels with the flag draped behind them and Cowboy Troy is black too and the guy who played Sherrif Little on the dukes goes to dukesfest every year and signs General Lee’s with the flag on top and I know a black man in one of the carolina’s also had the flag on a pole and walked up and down a Highway and proved the flag does not and will never stand for racism and a lot of black people fought for that flag wether you wanna believe it or not. So leave our flag alone dang you people!
If these folks don’t think the flag is offensive and it is about southern pride, not white supremacy, can somebody please tell me why they always have to find somebody black to back them up? However, I am very happy to learn that the US has been around for well over 2000 years!
Now if all else fails and you can’t convince them that the Confederate flag is not a symbol of hate, you can always blame the Jews like JM:
Any sign of white racial consciousness and racial solidarity is deemed “hate,” “racism,” — evil-ism by egalitarianists, and pretend-egalitarianists, (with 99.9% of the politically correct in the latter). While Jews and nonwhites are encouraged to be racially conscious, to organize along racial lines, to appoint racially defined leaders, and to discriminate when it serves their ethnic interests — whites are punished for showing just a hint of racial aggression. Why do you think that where Jews live as a majority, Israel, they aggressively, sometimes violently promote the interests of the majority. Where Jews live as a minority, they aggressively, sometimes violently, promote the interests of minorities.
Racists, you gotta love ’em. It doesn’t matter what the subject most of their arguments are the same–ignore the topic at hand, chastise the person willing to acknowledge racism, deny/minimize the existence of racism in the past or present, say your opponents are the real bigots, look for a lone person of color to support you, and blame the Jews.
Before we get to the comments, I would like to admonish people to stay away from shameless NASCAR or southerner jokes. The problem isn’t auto racing or southerners; it is racism. While there may indeed be survey data that suggests racial prejudice is higher among white southerners, they are by no means alone in using these arguments. There are also many white southerners who are on the side of racial progress, and many northerners who are not; let’s not turn this thread into an excuse to make blanket generalizations about southern folks. These kind of arguments come up every time the subject is racism.
Footnote: Several of these people put their first and last names. I am not reprinting their names in their entirty because I don’t want them Googling themselves and trolling around this site. I am not trying to protect their identities, and if you want to see their names, you can click on the link to the article.
[Response to Robert regarding Amanda moved to another thread.]
Robert, quoting Charles, wrote:
So as long as we add on “white liberals” to “black people” in the list of people we’re rejecting, it’s magically no longer problematic to be continuing a long practice of “challenging” black people?
So as long as we add on “white liberals” to “black people” in the list of people we’re rejecting, it’s magically no longer problematic to be continuing a long practice of “challenging” black people?
I don’t know whether it’s problematic; it’s not simple racism at that point.
Quite right. It’s now complicated racism.
Ampersand:
The quote from William Thompson refers to a white flag, which suggests to me that he was referring to the second national flag of the CSA, not to the battle flag. In fact, Googling the quote brings up this page, which says that he was indeed referring a proposed (and later enacted) redesign of the national flag.
That the battle flag, and not the peacetime flag, is used as an emblem of Southern pride is, IMO, mitigating rather than damning. While secession was mostly about slavery, the war was not. The war was about the North refusing to let the South secede peacefully, not out of a desire to end slavery, but out of a desire to “save the union.”
Slavery, of course, is reprehensible, but the right of secession is a legitimate issue, and that’s what the war was ultimately about. Not that I think the typical person waving the Confederate battle flag around is actually thinking about the right of secession, but he’s probably thinking about something a lot closer to that than to “Yay, slavery!”
Wow, a whole buttload of posts, so I apologize in advance if I miss any.
“So it is hard to argue that they seceded in order to preserve their right of secession. ”
it’s a good thing Im not arguing that then. :)
“You’re wrong about this point; the right for states to govern themselves concerning slave owning was something the Confederacy was explicitly against. All states had to fully support and legalize slavery, according to the Confederate constitution.”
Hmm, Im not finding that.
http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html#A6Sec5
here’s a link, if you could point it out for me because I could just be missing it.
“I am specifically objecting to the use of “Southern culture” to mean “Southern Culture excluding all black people,” which pheeno in particular (but far from exclusively) has been doing continuously. ”
Slavery is as much a part of black history as it is white history. And, my own people’s history, seeing how blacks weren’t the only slaves. We just got sold off to people in the carribean more often than kept here.
So when Im discussing southern culture, Im including my own. Which isnt white.
” Not that I think the typical person waving the Confederate battle flag around is actually thinking about the right of secession, but he’s probably thinking about something a lot closer to that than to “Yay, slavery!” ”
At least Im not. Im not that much of a masochist and dont own a confederate flag and think WEEEE! My ancestors were captured and sold! Awesome!
First, I was born north of the Mason-Dixon line and at least one of my ancestors fought on the Union side (one Jonathan Davis, a wheelwright from Pennsylvania …), while there are none who are known to have fought for the Confederacy :)
As late as the 1850’s the stereotype of the stupid southerner was being advanced as a justification for disenfranchising the south in order that the northern objective of abolishing slavery might be achieved. What should have been a matter of amending the Constitution turned into a game of brinkmanship with the northern states bent on taxing the southern states into oblivion. The primary source of revenue for the entirety of the United States was import duties and the majority o that burden fell to the southern states.
It’s worth pointing out that slavery was not abolished in the north due to morality, but rather because it became an economic burden. Northern farmers sold their slaves down south, then slowly worked to outlaw the ownership of the slaves they’d owned.
The present situation as regards such issues as same-sex marriage, the right to die, medical marijuana are, constitutionally speaking, quite similar to the matter of slavery. Under the terms of the Constitution, slavery was permissible regardless of how morally reprehensible it might have been to those who were so inclined to believe so. The legal right to regulate slavery, solely within the confines of a state’s border, belong to each state separately, with the Federal government having only the right to regulate slave trade between the states (see “Commerce Clause”).
What the northern states could not accomplish within the confines of the Constitution it attempted to do through protectionistic tariffs which served primarily to funnel wealth from southern states to northern. After a half century of such behavior, the south was greatly impoverished and forced to seek capital from the north.
While I find the Battle Flag of the Confederacy a particularly troublesome thing to fly, the sentiments of many who plaster it all over everything they own are ones I can agree with — the Federal government does not have the power to create a single homogeneous culture and legal environment. If California wants medical marijuana, Oregon wants death with dignity, Massachusetts wants same sex marriage, and Utah wants polygamy, the Federal government should have no say in the matter. It is because of the same appeals to “morality” that we find ourselves in our present situation. Opposition to all four of those examples is not based on Constitution amendments requiring a super majority of 3/4ths of the states, but rather on ordinary legislation requiring 50% plus one vote. Legalized morality is the legacy of the Civil War and the abolition of States Rights its political outcome.
Quite right. It’s now complicated racism.
Exactly. Which puts it right in line with pretty much everything we do here in America.
I don’t particularly like the Confederate flag, or Confederate nostalgia. Although my sensibilities are, theoretically, in favor of anyone who claims a right of disassociation, on balance I find myself supporting the Union side of the question, precisely because the disassociation was sought for evil ends.
But at the same time, so many heritages which are held by their owners as being precious have things at their heart which are every bit as evil or even worse. It is part of being a fallible species; we make terrible mistakes even as we pursue the good. I’m equally uncomfortable telling Red-diaper grandbabies to pretend that grandma never belonged to the party.
Section 9 Clause 4
(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
So the confederacy could never end slavery.
Article 4 section 2
(1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.
So if you own a slave in one state you owned it anywhere.
Article 4 section 3 clause 3
(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
Basically any new state had to be a slave state.
They also added the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach federally-appointed state officials, and the power to distribute “bills of credit.”
Oops, i forgot to close a tag up there. Also, they don’t require that all states be slave states, but you had to start out that way, and you had to honor the property rights of another states slave owner, and the CSA could never make you not be a slave state.
So, it’s not explicit that everyone be a slave state forever. But that’s about the effect.
The south left so that they could own slaves.
Joe,
I’m not a student of Confederate constitutional law by any stretch, but I believe that the issues with the preservation of slavery within the Confederate states were related to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
As I wrote above, slavery within the Northern states was not first outlawed. Slave owners in those states found that slavery was not economically viable. States such as New York, which at one time had been quite agricultural, slowly industrialized and slavery was ill-suited to industry. Northern slaves were sold down south. It was after the north had been rid of slavery, with the south paying for those slaves, that the north sought to outlaw, without promise of compensation for those slaves.
Here’s the Fifth Amendment —
It’s good that we think of slavery as morally reprehensible today. It helps people understand that slavery is wrong everywhere it happens, even if the laws of that region say it is legal. But at the time the ownership of African slaves was not viewed as universally morally reprehensible — there were those Americans who believed slavery was appropriate and those who did not. Right or wrong, owning people — white, brown, red, yellow — was viewed the same way one might own a tractor or plow or combine today. A slave was property and the United States Constitution guaranteed to property owners that their property was not going to be confiscated.
There is no doubt in my mind that slavery would have continued to fall out of usage in much the same way it had gradually fallen out of usage in the 200 years prior to 1860. Virginia, at the time the Confederacy was forming, looked to be going towards the Union side. It would not have been the only slave state, or the only state with slaves, to have sided with the Union. It was the use of military force against a state by the Federal government which pushed Virginia to side with the Confederacy.
Northern Profits from Slavery
Against that sort of history, laws preserving slavery strike me as less about preserving slavery and more about avoiding a repeat of the experience of one region concluding that slavery was wrong, and then exporting that decision to other states.
It was not hard to see where freed slaves went. Northern states which had had African slave populations became increasingly white. As the 1840’s drew to a close and the majority of northern states purged themselves of their African populations, the political pressures against southern and slave owning states intensified. Whereas northern states which outlawed slavery might have compensated slave owners for the property they’d lost, there was no such proposal on the table for southern slave owners. The move towards abolish in the north, which had become nearly complete in the 1840’s, set the stage for the Compromise of 1850.
FurryCatHerder I pretty much agree with you.
My point is not that the Union went to war to end slavery. They didn’t. They went to war to keep the south from leaving the union. My point is that the slave states left the union primarily because the wanted to preserve their right to treat black people as property.
I think it’s disingenuous to say that it was about states rights and not be specific on the right in question; The right to own other people.
And I agree, the move away from slavery was motivated more by economics than morals.
One of the nice things about using capital to allocate resources is that free people typically out produce slaves.
Joe,
I don’t think it’s the least bit disingenuous to claim that it was about States Rights. Would you say that DOMA is a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Or that it’s just about keeping queers down? If you focus too closely on the specifics of what DOMA and the Civil War were about you miss the larger picture — the use of force and coercion to control the actions of others in an extra-Constitutional manner. The irony is that the Constitution was drafted precisely to limit the powers of the Federal government.
Yes, of course, the Civil War was fought about Slavery. It was fought about Slavery, however, because Slavery was the issue that others (the North) used to justify violating the Constitution. But once the Constitution had been “broken” through the use of Slavery as the excuse, subsequent violations of original intent — that the Federal government existed to protect from foreign invasion, make trade uniform, and provide for a republican form of government — became easier. It is not by accident that the Commerce Clause is so easily used to violate States Rights. The events of the 1850’s, as well as the preceding decades, proved to states that to resist the federal government was to invited armed occupation. States have not forgotten that lesson.
There was a way out of this catastrophe, the Civil War. In my considered opinion. (Did I mention that I hold a graduate degree in American History, not that that means much?) Furthermore, I will contend that some people at least in leadership in 1800 in the United States knew what the way out was, but no one wanted to pay the price. (I think I could pretty much prove that last statement given enough time.) (By 1850 it was probably too late.)
Here’s the way out:
1. Gradual emancipation of the slaves, probably over two generations. (Children born after Date X to be freed at Age Y.)
2. An intensive education program for those destined for freedom, and probably for all slaves. Perhaps a provision that even older people would be eligible for freedom upon completion of X years of education. The North would have had to pay for the lion’s share of this because the South did not have the capital.
3. Some kind of stake for the newly freed. Maybe not the “40 acres and a mule” which was much discussed at the time, but something. Again, an expense mostly borne by the North.
4. Fair compensation to the slaveowners for the loss of their human capital. Ditto.
No one had the balls to sign up for this, partly because it would have required all sides to admit the justice of their opponents’ positions, partly because no one, North or South, was prepared to integrate the African slaves into American society on terms of equality, and partly because it would have been very very expensive, even considered in money.
Expensive unless you compare the cost to the alternative, to what really did happen: an entire region of the country devastated (much of which has yet to recover), the death of a substantial proportion of an entire generation (to say nothing of collateral damage), the release of hundreds of thousands of illiterate and impoverished former slaves into an economy which had no place for them, the permanent anger and sense of grievance of millions of people on both sides, black and white. Makes the other program look like a good deal, huh.
Furry, I pretty much agree with you about States’ rights. It’s a great pity that the issue over which this was fought was human bondage, which indeed painted the better cause – a limit on federalism – in irretrievably dark colors.
“4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
So the confederacy could never end slavery.”
Individuals could. They just couldnt force everyone else to follow suit through laws.
“3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
Basically any new state had to be a slave state. ”
If a slave state joined, they could remain a slave state without worrying about being forced into abolition. If they wanted to become a slave state they could. If someone wanted to live there and they owned slaves, they could. A state didnt HAVE to be a slave state to enter into the confederacy, but they could not force residents to free their slaves. Basically, the government, state or federal couldnt force you to give up slaves.
I absolutely can not believe that on a progressive blog we can’t all agree that the confederate flag is offensive and shouldn’t be a part of public events. But I suppose that is what good debate is all about.
Bottom line, anything that is held up by the KKK as a symbol of pride is something I would deem racist.
I don’t have a problem with being proud of who you are or where you are from, and I think the stereotypes against the south as horrible, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to utilize a symbol that is so wrought with racist baggage, whethere or not you INTEND for it to be about racism or not (here we get back to that sticky intent issue).
I’ve said in other forums (not here) that I think the “white trash” parties that stupid college and 20 something professionals have – yes it is a rising trend – is just as problematic as the “gangsta” parties because they are. I’m not suggesting that poor or working class southern whites haven’t experienced hardhsip or discrimination – they most certainly have and do, but that doesn’t make using the confederate flag as a symbol of pride any less offensive.
Whoever said upthread that the confederate flag is just as much about states rights as the swastika is a tibetan peace sign is right. It may have started out one way, but no average person is going to see a bumper sticker with a swastika on it and think, “Wow, I bet that person is a peacelover.”
Susan,
Yeah, there was an out. And you’re right, no one wanted to give an inch on either side. Which has been one of my points when I started posting (its since spread out *L*) as a response to the snarky ” shoulda let em leave, southerners are just racist” type comments. Contrary to popular belief, the north wasnt a shining example of abolition and humane treatment. And for people to act like it was while making snarky comments that stereotype the south is like..well, its like the “Injun” killers calling the slave owners evil. Neither side should be held as an example of equality defenders.
That all men are created equal left out women, Native Americans, the Irish, the Polish, ect ect ad naseum.
Kate L:
Hah, I thought this inability to come to an consensus on anything was what being a liberal was all about ;D
How come my blockquotes always come out bold? They don’t look like that in the preview. Weird.
[Dephenestrated: Make sure that you put a blank line both before the opening blockquote and after the closing blockquote. –Amp]
Kate: This is a progressive blog insofar as all the bloggers are progressives. But it’s not safe to assume that all the people writing comments are progressives. (Robert, for instance, is an unabashed conservative.)
Article 4 section 3 clause 3
(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
So a new confederate state did have to be a slave state.
Pheeno writes:
With all due respect, Pheeno, have you noticed that nobody on this thread has made any such claim?
I think your anti-stereotype arguments would have more credibility if you weren’t so obviously invested in stereotyping folks from the North.
No one has claimed that Confederate law forced every individual to own slaves. That’s a red herring.
By the way, what’s wrong with governments forcing people not to own slaves? This seems to me like something all decent governments should do; that the confederacy elites didn’t want to do isn’t a point in their defense, it’s further evidence that they were a bunch of racist assholes. (Which doesn’t mean that I think the folks running the North were non-racists, or were saints.)
This makes no sense. First of all, by definition, if a state cannot “force residents to free their slaves,” then it’s a slave state. That’s what being a slave state means.
Secondly, you’re wrong to say that a state “didn’t HAVE to be a slave state to enter into the confederacy.” “In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government…” That means that all entering states have to have “the institution of negro slavery,” or they couldn’t join up.
Edited to add: Whoops, cross-posted with Joe, who made the same point I did. Sorry about that.
“With all due respect, Pheeno, have you noticed that nobody on this thread has made any such claim? ”
I’m sorry, I didnt realize every sentence I posted had to be directed specifically to the posters here. Notice I didnt say ” contrary to the popular belief on this thread”. You might take that into account before you assume things.
“No one has claimed that Confederate law forced every individual to own slaves. That’s a red herring.”
No, it’s interpreting the line you quoted. If Im going to claim people here are arguing that, I’ll add ” people here claim yadda yadda”.
”
By the way, what’s wrong with governments forcing people not to own slaves? ”
Nothing.
“That means that all entering states have to have “the institution of negro slavery,” or they couldn’t join up.”
No, it means the institution of slavery will be recognized (as in allowed) and upheld (as in enforced, so people didnt have “property” taken by the state). If no one in the new states owned slaves, they could still join. They just couldnt prevent anyone from owning slaves.
A slave state is one where it’s legal to own slaves.
Is there some other definition for ‘slave state’ that I’m not aware of?
Again pheeno, why do you think the south wanted to leave the union? If your answer is ‘states rights’ than specifically which rights?
If a new state joined and no one in that state owned slaves, they couldnt be forced to start owning slaves. By asserting any new state HAD to be a slave state or they couldnt join you’re ignoring that completely and inaccurately claiming new states had to have slaves and owners or they’d be denied.
“If your answer is ’states rights’ than specifically which rights? ”
specifically
the right to own property(including but not limited to slavery)
the right against illegal property siezure (including but not limited to slaves)
where governing laws and regulations should come from
the right of their people to govern themselves
As far as I’m concerned any state the views people as property is a slave state. If it’s legal to own slaves you’re in a slave state. Even if for some odd reason no one in your state chooses to do so. So it looks like we’re just disagreeing on what a slave state is.
“If your answer is ’states rights’ than specifically which rights? ”
specifically
the only difference between the CSA and USA from the above list had to do with slaves.
Just out of curiosity, are you playing devils advocate? Or do you actually believe your position?
Really?
Which “people” have this right to govern themselves in a slavery-friendly state? Only some people, right?
Blacks, women and Native Americans (just to name a few) didnt have the right to govern themselves living in non slavery states either, so only some people had that right period, no matter which side of the mason one lived.
“Just out of curiosity, are you playing devils advocate? Or do you actually believe your position? ”
Do you actually believe states rights ONLY encompassed the right to own slaves?
Had the north also tried to outlaw horses, ownership of horses would have been specifically included in the confederate constitution.
A little off topic, but this kind of thing, statements that “the people of the South wanted or thought this or that” (or pheeno’s statement about the “right of the people to govern themselves”) used to burn me up back in the 1960’s when I was a graduate student in American History.
Because of course it wasn’t “the people of the South” or “the South” or “Southerners,” it was some people in the South, to wit, the white people. In some places the white people weren’t even in the majority.
This kind of talk, formerly common in academic circles (and I am hoping that it is now extinct) is a tacit statement that the black slaves weren’t people, right? They were property. That’s what the white people in the South thought before 1865.
But when statements like that get made in 1965 or even in 2007, something is gravely wrong. Because really the black people were people, just as much as the whites were, and someone who cannot yet figure that out is a public menace.
Kate writes:
There’s more to politics than “I’m progressive, therefore I think thusly”. I’m a political mutt — right of Reagan on some things, left of Marx on others. One thing I have learned over the decades is to look at positions without regard to party affiliation of the position holders.
The Civil War is an important lesson — Civil Wars tend to be that way. Unfortunately, many of the lessons of the Civil War aren’t taught, except by people who wave Confederate flags. They might be bigots, but they are still out there trying to teach a lesson that’s long since been forgotten.
No i believe that the south left the union mostly from a desire to preserve the institution of slavery. That was the ‘right’ they cared most about.
But at least now I know you’re sincere.
Yay, thanks!
(funny typo: dephenestrated was my IM name for years, until I forgot the password, got a new computer, and got locked out of the account and had to ditch it)
Joe writes:
Did you read any of what I wrote about how the North was taxing the South into oblivion?
Slavery wasn’t abolished in much of the north until the 1840’s. But during that same time massive wealth transfer was occurring from the south to the north. Slavery was the straw that broke the camels back, it was also the issue which the North could use best to its advantage. It couldn’t hardly admit that it was unfairly passing laws that took money from the south and sent it up north.
Study the damned war. What happened is too important to just repeat the tired old “The south wanted to preserve slavery” line. In the early 1800’s the south was stripped of much of its wealth by the concerted efforts of northern states. Given that slavery wasn’t outlawed but less than 20 years prior to the attack on southern soil by northern troops (and New Jersey was a slave state until the END of the Civil War …), slavery just wasn’t the reason.
After the war the North continued to strip the South of wealth, both in terms of spoils of war and in terms of carpetbaggers.
If the north had tried to outlaw, say, murder – would any state have seceded? But it wasn’t about murder, or horses; the specific right at issue was human slavery (unless you have a non-hypothetical one you’d like to mention). Slavery isn’t just any random right, it’s the right to rob other people of every one of their rights.
So when you say something like
it sounds disturbingly as though you agree with the premise that human beings can be deemed property – which is about half a step away from being a-ok with slavery overall. The enslavement of a race can’t be discussed only in the abstract, as though real people weren’t involved. I’m sure that some hardcore animal rights activists would disagree, but to equate people to horses in this case strikes me as either disingenuous or sociopathic.
“it sounds disturbingly as though you agree with the premise that human beings can be deemed property ”
Human beings *were* deemed property. Acknowledging that isn’t anywhere NEAR agreeing with it. It’s not even in the same universe. And my post sounds *nothing* at all like I agree with it.
“but to equate people to horses in this case strikes me as either disingenuous or sociopathic.”
if you bothered to read, you’ll notice *I* didnt equate people with horses. I said if the north had outlawed horses ALSO, horses would have been specifically mentioned AS WELL.
The “rights” (since I now evidently have to qualify each and every word lest someone think I agree with slavery or think it was a right for fucks sake) the north specifically attacked were specifically placed into the confederate constitution. Had the north specifically attacked something else, whatever else that may have been would also have been specifically placed into the confederate constitution.
“The enslavement of a race can’t be discussed only in the abstract, as though real people weren’t involved.”
Well *my* people were involved and look, Im discussing parts of it in the abstract. So obviously it can be, unless you think Im racist against myself and advocate the slavery of myself and my race. If you’d prefer, I can name names of family members related to me that were enslaved when discussing it.
FCH,
Your version of history seems to require that the South did not hold significant power in the Federal government (“In the early 1800’s the south was stripped of much of its wealth by the concerted efforts of northern states”). This is strangely out of sync with my understanding of the distribution of power in the pre-Civil War period. Given the majority control of the Supreme Court by Southerners, the routine control of the Presidency by Southerners (only the two Adamses, Van Buren, Pierce, and Buchanan were not Southerners (and none were elected without substantial Southern support)), and the careful legislative balance between the South and the North in the Senate, how exactly was the North enforcing these unjust laws on the South?
In fact, the tariffs were supported by a mix of Northerners and Southerners (certainly, predominantly Northerners), and were only extremely high between 1828 and 1832 (during Andrew Jackson’s presidency). At the time of the Civil War, they had been substantially reduced since the Walker Tariff of 1846.
Two interesting web sites this discussion has led me to:
Tax history
Slavery in the North
Anyway, can you cite some sources for the claim that “the south was stripped of much of its wealth?”
defenestrated,
While I’m not agreeing with pheeno on much, I definitely think that the accusation that pheeno is supporting slavery is both silly and offensive.
pheeno,
So you agree that the property right that the southern states seceded in order to defend was the right to own slaves? But you feel that this is only because that is the property right that they believed that the the Federal government was likely to attack? That seems like a distinction without a difference from saying that the southern states seceded in order to protect the right to own slaves, i.e. the secession happened over slavery.
Ditto.
Ok, one more time
Slavery was not the *only* reason for *either* side.
The north cared less about slavery than is being promoted and the south had a handful of other issues along WITH slavery for seceeding.
Honestly, how many of you would believe a government stripping you of a “right” is going to stop at one? And after they used force and several hundreds of thousands of people were killed (not all white, male, soldiers or slave owners mind you) would that validate your fears or invalidate them? Would you be likely to forget that even to this day as you drove by a wal mart sitting on what had been family owned land for generations, with the knowledge that ancestors were NOT slave owners, yet had their property taken by the government and given to someone else? Would that confederate flag take on an altogether different meaning for you? For me personally, the US flag that flew over the Union was waved by people who not only slaughtered and enslaved my Native American ancestors, they stripped land from my few white ancestors who werent even slave owners. Yet it holds less offense or racist implications than the confederate? Not from where Im sitting.
I entirely understand how my comment read that way, and I’m sorry that it did. My emphasis (in my head) on the abstraction of the whole subject to the extent that we’re no longer talking about what actually went on; on the ‘disingenuous,’ because that’s what I feel like the horse hypothetical was in the context of having been asked what specific rights apart from slavery were at issue. I was being overly rhetorical in trying to make that point, but I really didn’t mean to imply that anyone here supports slavery.
Again, apologies. Carry on.
…emphasis ( ) was on…
verbs help, no?
Okay, if you’re switching back to arguing about how the war was viewed after the fact, and what the war meant (and means) in retrospect, than I can see your point somewhat more. Certainly, in retrospect, the Civil War is viewed by white Southerners as something more complicated than just slavery (although, strangely, it never seems to be viewed as being about how the white ruling (slave-owning) class completely fucked over the white non-slaving owning class, which it certainly was).
I don’t think anyone is agreeing tahtthe flag doesn’t offend someone.
The disagreement comes from the question as to whether offending someone = “should not be part of public events”.
I have no trouble with the fact that some folks view the flag as racist. I have no trouble with the fact that some folks view it as nonracist–as a symbol of personal struggle, or family heritage, or conservatism.
This is especially apposite because this was a battle flag, and (hello? Why is this not acknowledged here in this discussion?) most of the people who fight in wars are ordinary folks. Cannon fodder, as it were. Some probably fought because they wante slavery;… many probably fought, and died, for other reasons: their friend ws fighting; they were embarassed not to go; they knew their lands would be destroyed by the Union army; they were drafted; etc etc etc. There’s obviously some place for memories that aren’t attached to “blacks are property”.
What’s wrong with offense?
I’m offended by overt displays of religion.
I’m offended by overt public displays of sexuality.
I don’t especially like a veriety of things (as do we all)…
So what?
Honestly, how many of you would believe a government stripping you of a “right” is going to stop at one?
I know! And the Confederacy NEVER stripped anyone of their rights, no suh!
It’s like he doesn’t understand that enslaving people IS stripping people of rights, regardless of whether the law deems those people human or not.
[Flame-war-bait deleted by Amp.]
Is anyone talking about making it illegal to fly a confederate flag at the speedways?
Or are people just saying it’s in incredibly bad taste and incredibly offensive and the people who do it are jackasses for not finding it important that their actions tacitly condone the hideous abuses that were enacted on enslaved Africans?
If no one’s talking about using a government club to take the flag out of the event, then I fail to see how you asking “do people have the right not to be offended?” is relevant, Sailorman. If the offended people aren’t talking about making it illegal, then they’re discussing the fact that they’re offended.
Do people who are being offensive have a right not ot be criticized?
“Okay, if you’re switching back to arguing about how the war was viewed after the fact, and what the war meant (and means) in retrospect, than I can see your point somewhat more. Certainly, in retrospect, the Civil War is viewed by white Southerners as something more complicated than just slavery (although, strangely, it never seems to be viewed as being about how the white ruling (slave-owning) class completely fucked over the white non-slaving owning class, which it certainly was). ”
The non slave owning class was fucked over by both sides. Non whites were fucked over by both sides.
In certain situations, surely… one can (and should) be just about as wary of someone flying the US flag as of someone flying or displaying the Confederate battle flag.
Me, though… while I assume, for safety’s sake, that anyone displaying or flying the Confederate flag is racist, there is not necessarily that immediate assumption of anyone flying the US flag.
“It’s like he doesn’t understand that enslaving people IS stripping people of rights, regardless of whether the law deems those people human or not.”
she.
Who happens to be non white and happens to understand that more than you know.
pheeno,
I’m not really sure that you do fully grasp the interconnections between confederate ideology and slavery in this case. I feel like your argument is more on the line of both the north and the south promoted racism, why single out the south. Why single out the confederate flag?
As much as I can agree that any symbol can be used for multiple purposes or misused, I don’t really see the Confederate flag in this day and age being used for good purposes. Like it or not the confederate ideology and state rights ideology is directly related to racist ideology. If people are not convinced of that, I highly suggest reading this blog, which tracks the neo-confederate movement. I have been reading for a long time, and you start to see the interconnections between neo-confederates other hate groups like the KKK, Aryan Nation, and Council of Conservative Citizens.
The link quoted from brandon Berg up thread leads to the Lew Rockwell blog, which is also a ne0-confederate site.
Like it or not the confederate ideology and state rights ideology is directly related to racist ideology.
Are the people of Massachusetts racist (sorry, part of “racist ideology”) for setting their own marriage laws? It’s states’ rights that allows them to do that.
I think it’s unhelpful to characterize theories of government according to the moral failures of one particular set of early adherents to the theory. If you want to play that game, as a collectivist you’re personally standing on a particularly blood-drenched patch of ideological ground.
the confederate version of state rights ideology, not state rights ideology in general
I’m not aware that there’s a “confederate version”. States’ rights is states’ rights, whether you want the freedom to oppress blacks or the freedom to liberate gays, in contravention of the national position.
But I could be wrong. Rachel?
I think states rights are great. I’d LOVE to see more states tell the federal government to go away on a number of issues including but not limited to;
Marriage, minimum drinking age, assisted suicide, and drugs. I really think the federal government has far too much power.
But i know people use states rights as a cover when they really mean that they don’t like black people.
Racists stole a good idea (states rights) and messed it all up.
Omigod, I agree with Robert!
Both the North and South benefited from slavery, as many products which were made from raw materials tied in with slavery in the South were manufactured and sold as finished products up North. That’s one reason why Unitarians in New England for example, were late to join the abolitionist movement because many of them owned businesses that sold products manufactured from materials, i.e. cotton produced in the South.
The North knew that it relied on the raw products produced with slave labor in the South to benefit its own economy, and it’s much easier to secure that raw product cheaply from states within your own country than from another sovereign nation.
This country has a long tradition of trying to secure cheap access to resources in other sovereign nations, i.e oil in the Middle-East including Iran and bananas and other fruit in nations in Central and South America. When these nations try or succeed in nationalizing these industries or enforcing taxes or other expenditures on corporations in the United States, then the United States intervenes in different ways by sponsoring military coups to overthrow governments or to involve itself in assassinations of leaders or the overthrow of countries more directly through its military and/or intelligence resources. That’s happened in Iran, Iraq, Guatamala, El Salvador, and other countries.
So yes, Lincoln, a blatent racist himself, was going to rein in the South to “preserve” the Union. Yeah right. The Emancipation Proclaimation was not an ordered that valued the lives and even the freedom of Black men, women and children living under chattal slavery but interestingly enough, not in regions under the control of the Union forces in several states, but it was done through pressure of abolitionists in the North and to beef up military forces in regions of the South to fight the confederate army when its numbers were getting depleted, though the troops were racially segregated of course.
The Confederate Constitution makes it clear that slaveholding was never going to go away while that country existed if no single state could ban it under the federal body of law that bound the states together through their adherence to it. So as said on this one issue, “states’ rights” rights clearly took a backseat in importance.
Slaves would remain the backbone of the southern economy. Not every southerner would own slaves, in fact I believe most didn’t, but they all lived and benefited to various degrees from slavery if they were White. Just like the people in the North.
In fact, even when the 13th Amendment was passed, you had the sunset laws, the black codes(revised from the slave codes), debt peonage, “share-cropping” and other measures taken to get around the prohibition against slavery(except in the penal system). There’s other ways to exploit Black people and their labor besides chattal slavery. The end of slavery just pushed people to rethink their strategies for doing so. Jim Crow was able to exist and thrive for years before the federal government intervened.
That said, the confederate flag represents a system that fought for the continued enslavement of Black people to further its economic gains and the American flag represents a system that fights for the colonization and enslavement of Black people and other people of color to further its economic gains. Because the American flag is still around, there’s still a chance to change that meaning somewhat depending on what this country does to change its way of doing business in the present and the future though I’ll believe that when I see it. Hopefully, some day there will be a generation where that can happen, though I don’t think I’ll live to see it. And it has to be much more than just rewriting its history to make it more palatable and we haven’t advanced past doing that yet in our history.
Many obviously do see the Confederate flag as a racist symbol because I’ve seen a fair share of the confederate flag out my way including one on a huge flag pole across the street from a high school where over 90% of the students are Black. My boss and I were there for a press conference and she’s Black and from the South and just shook her head at it, sadly. Then she took out her camera and photographed it.
The confederate flag, however, would have to be elevated through revising history. There’s really no redeeming it. I found out one of my city’s police officers tattoed the confederate flag to his body, but no one except presumably fellow officers in the locker room what he had done. If people had known, they probably would have raised it as an issue in terms of challenging his right to police their communities.
Your intent here is ambiguous, and I’d like you to make it clear. What exactly is it that you want us to think about Lew Rockwell’s web site?
“Oh, well, I for one assumed we were all following your lead and calling anyone one didn’t know (presumably b/c they couldn’t be bothered to actually pay attention to these sorts of things) “he”.
But, so long as we’re all clear that you’re not white and know more than us, we can all happily ignore all those African American voices. We have your voice to speak for all people of color. That’s helpful, it’ll make it so much easier to only have to go to one person to find out what my opinions should be. ”
Yours was a typo. Im aware you’re female and have been for some time. I may not post here as frequently as some, but I do lurk and read.
I *have* to make it clear Im not white because thats the assumption anytime I post, and there’s been several posts here alluding to the idea that *only* white supremacists defend the confederate flag. But, Im not black just indian so of course in a discussion of slavery we get overlooked. Evidently, slavery of blacks is the only allowed topic and viewpoint. My POC viewpoint isnt important at all, I guess because enough of us werent enslaved.
Maybe *you* havent noticed, but when discussion of slavery comes up its only black and white. Well, as a race belonging to neither, *I* notice and *I* give *my* voice that would otherwise be left out. Sorry if I dont feel my race is of lesser importance in a discussion of slavery.
Also, Im telling you what *my* opinion is. Not what yours should be. If you feel threatened by me stating my opinion as a member of a race left out of damn near every racial topic (unless its about mascots, thats the only one we ever get) thats your issue.
Charles S writes:
Sure — go read “Tax History”. It describes in detail what happened. You might also pay careful attention to Calhoun’s arguments and particularly his “40 bales theory”.
“If you want to play that game, as a collectivist you’re personally standing on a particularly blood-drenched patch of ideological ground. ”
Pretty much.
And Im starting to find those that defend the Union about as offensive as they find the people who defend the confederates. They’re defending a nation of people who slaughtered mine in a mass genocide and stuck the survivors in dumps no one else wanted to live in, and starved them near to extinction. Oh but they had good intentions over ending slavery? Well how nice for them. A bit too late for a great deal of my race. And last i checked, to this day a great deal of us are stuck in shitholes suiciding left and right. But hey, the Union abolished slaves so YAY them.
Not.
“Actually, that hasn’t been the argument here ”
Actually, yes it has. It’s been stated more than once.
” I thought only white supremacists defended the flag with states rights”
“racists use states rights to excuse slavery”
ect ect.
“that that doesn’t negate the offensiveness the symbol holds for so many people ”
Havent argued that. In fact, not once have I said anyone should not or could not be offended by that symbol. Not once. I have, however, more than once said these are *my* personal feelings over it. Mine. Alone.
No dear, thats what you *think* Im doing.
What I’m actually doing is engaging in a discussion and giving my personal opinion about a symbol and what it personally means to me. And Im qualifying my race because it’s been assumed more than once that only white people could have a point of view that differs from the confederate flag is teh evol. (since we’re bringing up extrapolation of others intentions onto everyone else)I’m also qualifying my race because no one else factors mine in. You havent. Others havent. There was one token sentence in one post that mentioned “other races”. What you and others bring up is the symbol and what it means to one race. What about the rest of us? there *were* more than 2 involved in this issue. And if you dont mind, Im going to speak my opinion as one.
And on that note, I would just like to say thanks to Rachel, who does manage to include Native Americans when she discusses race. (and not by delegating us into a vague “others” category. I cant tell you how lovely it is to discover Im an “other”)I know I dont speak for all of us, but many of us do feel rather discarded and forgotten about when the race topic comes up. And it doesnt help to get responded to with crap like ” you dont speak for all POC” as if Im white and trying to dictate what minorities feel based on my white priveledge POV, when I disagree with something. It’s as if we’re some non existant race that doesnt count, because we only existed in the cowboys and indian days of the wild west or something. We’re the dodo bird of races.
Pheeno and Bean, please cool it.
This thread has turned into a fascinating display of left/liberal treatment of those oh-so-valued minority voices that don’t happen to be left/liberal. Although, actually, pheeno’s position is pretty left/liberal from an abstract perspective; it just doesn’t kiss the ass of white elite liberals and give them cookies for their brave stance against the Confederacy.
Pheeno has a genuinely different perspective than what’s ordinarily aired, and it’s revelatory just how much hostility and indifference towards that perspective exists here. I doubt that she and I agree on any policy issues (though we seem to have a lot of agreement on questions of fact) but I, personally, appreciate hearing your point of view, P, and I encourage you to continue articulating it.
This is to Brandon and Robert,
As bean stated I am specifically referring to states rights in the context of neo-confederate ideology. The site I linked to is from an academic who specializes in the study of Neo-Confederate ideology. On his blog, he has links to neo-confederate sites, both those sympathetic to the cause and those whose primary purpose is to restore confederate ideology.
I would also add to Robert’s point about MA and gay rights by saying that while I agree with local municipalities being able to set some of their own rules. I think it is fair to say the governments can exerise disciminatory behavior on any level local, state, or federal. This whole neo-conservative view that the federal government is evil and state and local governments should have more control is revistsing some of the issues that we settled in the Civil War (well I thought we settled them.). People who support this view don’t realize that exploitation can come at any level, and personally I don’t like having different laws with regard to gay marriage or abortion in each state. My sense is that this divides us into feifdoms. I don’t mind zoning laws that are locally set, and I tend to think some issues probably work best on the local level, but I feel like core Civil rights issues should be set at the federal level-whether we are talking about freedom of the press, anti-discrimination laws etc. That said, different states are going to have differing climates, and they may change at different rates depending on the issue, but I do tend to believe in the Supremacy of federal laws and the US Constitution. I’m not saying this is a perfect document, but I just cannot accept the confederate ideology on states rights. There is a reason we chose the US Constitution and not the Articles of Confederation.
Robert, are you suggesting that comment-writers on “Alas” wouldn’t vehemently disagree with a white poster with Pheeno’s opinions on the confederacy, eagerness to debate, and (perhaps most importantly) frequency of posting? If so, I have to wonder if you’ve ever read “Alas” before.
In fact, to put Pheeno on a pedestal and not disagree with her at all about the confederate flag — or to disagree with her, but only in feather-gentle terms, rather than the sort of “aggressive but civil” tones that are the norm I try to encourage at this site — because she’s an Indian, would be (imo) racist.
Also, there have been several people here who have disagreed with Pheeno in a reasonably civil way — in fact, I think it’s a majority. I suspect you don’t acknowledge that because it would interfere with your simplistic partisan narrative.
I’m having a bit of trouble understanding Pheeno’s precise position since the South wasn’t particularly kind to any people of color, and since, as she correctly points out, Africans weren’t the only people who were enslaved.
What I find really depressing about this discussion is the way that the North gets a free pass on racism. It’s been my observation that while blacks are discriminated against in the South, at least there is a place (however limiting it might be) for Southern blacks, but in the North there is even less tolerance and even less of a “place” for blacks. This mirrors what I wrote upthread about the evolution of slavery — as it became economically unviable in northern industrial states, northern African slaves, and northern free people of color, were moved south.
This whole neo-conservative view that the federal government is evil and state and local governments should have more control is revistsing some of the issues that we settled in the Civil War (well I thought we settled them.)
Well, first off, it has nothing to do with “neo-conservatism”. The original neo-conservatism was a recent movement of former Marxists who came to recognize the false-to-fact nature of some of Marxism’s foundational tenets, and in essence recalculated their entire political matrix, winding up somewhere close to traditional conservatism. Neo-con has come to be shorthand for “conservatives I don’t like”, probably as fallout from the bitterness and rancor that was created in some progressive Marxist circles when these folks left.
Secondly, there is literally nobody out there who thinks that the federal government is evil but that state and local governments are just ducky. All governments are evil, because the essential nature of government is the use of force to coerce certain behaviors, an inherently evil act. The classical liberal philosophy of government believes that this evil force can be turned to good purpose (much like Adam Smith thought that the evil impulses of business people can be used to create public welfare) through structural means and through an understanding of human psychology.
The reason for desiring to push power down the hierarchy – to starve the Federal beast and valorize the local one – is not that the local government will be any less evil. It won’t be. But local governments are much more susceptible to grass-roots political action by the people who are affected by their decisions – one of the structural constraints on government that keep it from becoming too evil to be used. In addition, local and state governments are much more subject to voting with feet – they can’t get too oppressive or people will leave and take their tax money with them. (Cf. the flight of business from California.)
None of these issues were settled by, or are even particularly germane to, the Civil War – other than reinforcing the principle that at the national/federal level, the “vote with your feet” constraint somewhat ceases to operate, because the national/federal state is powerful enough to stop you from doing it. The federalism question in the Civil War, which was settled, concerned whether the constituent states of the Union had a right to exit.
People who support this view don’t realize that exploitation can come at any level
Right. We disagree with you because we don’t have your vast wisdom. (Eyeroll.) Believe me, people who adhere to the classical liberal idea of governance are exceptionally attuned to the idea that exploitation can come in at any level.
and personally I don’t like having different laws with regard to gay marriage or abortion in each state. My sense is that this divides us into feifdoms.
I suggest respectfully that you would like it considerably less if you didn’t have your fiefdom, because the laws that a unified national regime would impose would be considerably less liberal than what you experience right now. A federalist structure of strong states provides the diversity and freedom to experiment that are a requirement for discovering which policies and laws work best in our society. That structure also serves as a check on the actions of the states within it; no governmental entity has the luxury of assuming that it is in possession of subjects, rather than citizens.
Robert, are you suggesting that comment-writers on “Alas” wouldn’t vehemently disagree with a white poster with Pheeno’s opinions on the confederacy, eagerness to debate, and (perhaps most importantly) frequency of posting?
No. I’m suggesting that commenters on Alas are, broadly, a group of people who would affirm the principle that the voices of people of color are uniquely legitimate when they are talking about racial issues, but that principle seems only to be adhered to when the POC in question are echoing white liberals.
Perhaps I’m mistaken.
I am a feminist, and as such, I reject any conflation of feminism with leftist or liberal beliefs.
Ooookay.
It’s been my observation that while blacks are discriminated against in the South, at least there is a place (however limiting it might be) for Southern blacks, but in the North there is even less tolerance and even less of a “place” for blacks
In addition to questions of “place”, there’s a question of the personal relationships people have. Speaking very broadly, in the South people who are racist tend to come right out and be racist (“nigger, get out of my bar.”) People in the North who are racist pretend not to be (“everyone is welcome here. oh, but we’re closing in ten minutes. you should go somewhere else.”)
It’s arguable that the pretense is better, because it can become reality (as in the South Park episode about the South Park flag, where the children of racist-but-pretending white residents genuinely are color-blind and completely miss the point of the adult debate over the racist town flag) but it’s got to be demoralizing to never really know if the people you’re around hate you on the basis of your skin color.
You’re vastly oversimplifying, at best. “Uniquely legitimate” doesn’t mean “POC are always right on everything, and we must never disagree, and context is irrelevant.” Such a view would be impossible to hold, for the obvious reason that all POC do not agree on everything.
I’m curious: Do you agree with me that to have refused to debate Pheeno’s views only because she’s a POC, or to have argued with her wearing kid gloves for exactly the same reason, would have been racist?
You may not be aware of this, but Bean’s perspective is reasonably common among radical feminists. Catherine MacKinnon, for example, has stated a view pretty similar to Bean’s (I don’t have a link, so I hope you’ll take my word for that), and if you read her work you’d see that huge portions of her writings are devoted to critiquing liberals. The blogger Heart has also said much the same thing.
FCH wrote:
Almost every single poster in this discussion has agreed that the North was and is racist, and shouldn’t be given a free pass. So I don’t know what you’re responding to, but it’s definitely not the things people are saying in this discussion.
In an earlier comment, you wrote:
First of all, don’t imply that people who disagree with you must not have studied the topic. Not only is it rude, it’s inaccurate; there are college professors who have spent years studying this who disagree with you.
Secondly, in light of your apparent opinion that the south didn’t go to war to preserve slavery, could you please respond to comment #75?
“I’m having a bit of trouble understanding Pheeno’s precise position since the South wasn’t particularly kind to any people of color, and since, as she correctly points out, Africans weren’t the only people who were enslaved.”
My position can be boiled down to this (in the most simplistic of forms, it no way encompasses everything so bear with me)
The confederate flag doesnt symbolize MORE racism than the US flag. They can (and are) both be viewed as symbols of white peoples utter contempt for anyone non white. The north does NOT get a pass from me because they inadvertantly freed slaves. The souths constitution promoted slavery. The norths promoted genocide. That doesnt get undone by opposing slavery long enough to ship them “all back to africa”. My own personal view of the confederate flag is that its a nice big fuck you to the misplaced smug arrogance of people who think the north held anything other than equally contemptible beliefs towards minorities and acted out of any respect for minorities. I dont expect anyone else to share this viewpoint, and certainly would not demand it or tell them they cannot be offended. By *either* flag.
“No. I’m suggesting that commenters on Alas are, broadly, a group of people who would affirm the principle that the voices of people of color are uniquely legitimate when they are talking about racial issues, but that principle seems only to be adhered to when the POC in question are echoing white liberals.
Perhaps I’m mistaken.”
Sorta feels like that to me, with regards to certain individuals.
Do you agree with me that to have refused to debate Pheeno’s views only because she’s a POC, or to have argued with her wearing kid gloves for exactly the same reason, would have been racist?
The former, yes. The latter, no. There are reasons you might use kid gloves in a discussion with a person who has characteristic [x], other than racism. (Not that I’m advocating anyone use kid gloves here.)
You may not be aware of this, but Bean’s perspective is reasonably common among radical feminists.
Write me when the radical feminists start voting for ANYBODY who can’t fairly be encapsulated as “liberal/leftist”. A distinction without a difference, in other words.
“Not only is it rude, it’s inaccurate; there are college professors who have spent years studying this who disagree with you. ”
And there are college professors and historians who have spent years studying it and do agree.
Sorta feels like that to me
That I’m mistaken? Or that the special POC credibility disappears if the viewpoint isn’t white-liberal?
“Or that the special POC credibility disappears if the viewpoint isn’t white-liberal? ”
That.
[Pheeno vs. Bean flamewar deleted by Amp.
Pheeno, I asked you to cool it with Bean. Since you’re not willing to do that, here’s the new rule for this thread:
From now on, Pheeno is not allowed to respond to Bean. Any new Pheeno responses to Bean will be deleted.
And to keep things even, from now on, Bean is not allowed to respond to Pheeno. Any new Bean responses to Pheeno will be deleted.
Discussion of this moderation decision is off-topic for this thread. If you want to discuss my moderation, take it to an “open thread,” or discuss it with me directly in email.
–Amp]
“Nodding along. Yes! That’s exactly it. You’ve nailed my (and so many others) feelings and beliefs perfectly. Really, it was the use of the oh-so-not-condescing-in-any-way-whatsoever use of the term “dear” that made me open up and listen to what you were saying.”Note to self
Say everything sweetly and with a smile or your “message” may not get through. Its my job. I forgot.
Gee, that sounds an awful lot like MRA’s who bitch about women being “too angry”.
“That along with your utter lack of ability and/or willingness to listen to what other people were saying. ”
Oh yes, because I disagree I must not be able to listen. (also sounds like a familiar MRA tactic)
next.
Pheeno wrote:
I pretty much agree with you, Pheeno. I really haven’t thought much about the American flag as a racist flag before — I’ve thought of it more as an imperialist flag — but you’re right, it makes just as much sense to view it as racist. (And there’s obviously a huge amount of overlap between imperialism and racism, anyway.)
From a political plausibility perspective, however, I don’t see any chance of convincing anyone in the political mainstream that we should change the national flag to a new design. (Can you imagine what would happen to a politician who advocated such a thing?)
I do think, however, that it’s possible to reduce the display of the confederate flag. That’s unfair, but I’m not sure that just because it’s not politically possible to address problem “A” means that we should therefore ignore problem “B,” which can be addressed.
I’ve never suggested ignoring problem B, I’d just like to see more of problem A tied in when discussing problem B. Politcally, neither should have enforced bans or redesign. As much as its offensive, I hesitate to start demanding alterations or political action against something because it’s offensive. Basically the I may hate what you say, but defend your right to say it thing.
Politicians and the government arent people I’d be comfortable handing that power to. Their track record sucks.
A politician who advocated such a thing would get shot. Accidentally of course.
Pheeno, quoting me, wrote:
I agree. To imply that holding either view must be a result of not having studied the civil war at all is therefore incorrect. Right?
“I agree. To imply that holding either view must be a result of not having studied the civil war at all is therefore incorrect. Right? ”
Yes, unless you’re dealing with someone who obviously hadn’t learned even the most basic about it. Example: the guy quoted in the original post who thinks it happened 2000 years ago. *L*
Write me when the radical feminists start voting for ANYBODY who can’t fairly be encapsulated as “liberal/leftist”. A distinction without a difference, in other words.
I see your point, but I think it only works if you assume two things: 1), That voting is the only kind of political activism that counts, and 2) that it’s never legit to vote for a “lesser evil” candidate who doesn’t represent your views.
Many radical feminists are extremely politically active in ways other than voting. And it’s my impression that voting or not is an extremely unimportant issue among radical feminists; some wince and vote for the lesser evil, some boycott voting because they consider all the options too awful, and as I understand it either view is considered perfectly legitimate within radical feminism.
Of course, I’m not a radical feminist and can’t speak for radical feminism. That’s just my observation as an outsider.
Edited to add: On some levels, I agree with you (although I think it’s a significant problem with your critique of radical feminists that you don’t consider the possibility that many may not be voters at all). It’s a warped result of the two-party system, in my opinion. In all systems, people find themselves voting for the lesser evil sometimes, in that no party is likely to agree in every single issue with every voter. But this is particularly extreme in the US. If you vote in the US, you’re forced to prioritize issues in some pretty stark and un-nuanced ways.
In effect, nearly all feminists who vote are voting left or voting Democrat. And that does reflect the fact that most feminists, even if they can’t stand liberals, still prefer horrible liberal policies to even worse Conservative policies.
I don’t think anyone advocates that the government ban the private display of any flag. I certainly think that people should have the right to fly any flag they want: The US flag, the confederate flag, the Nazi flag, whatever.
On the other hand, it’s not censorship if the US government were to change the design of its official flag. Doing so will in no way prevent people from privately flying the old design, if they want to.
As far as “demanding alternations,” I think people have a free speech right to make any demands they want. I have a right to “demand” that Melissa take down her Confederate flag. And Melissa, in turn, has the right to ignore me.
(I suspect we pretty much agree on this stuff.)
I have to agree with Amp #177, in all of these nearly 200 posts, I don’t think I have seen anybody suggest that northern racism is not a problem, and in the original post, I very specifically stated that I would not allow crude southerner jokes or NASCAR jokes.
My only regret with this thread is that it has gotten bogged down in a discussion about the Civil War and states rights, rather then the rhetoric tactics racists use to suppress discussions of race. While racism and slavery are certainly in the backdrop of where this discussion has gone, we have unfortunately ended up focusing more on the history of this issue rather than the present, and how the commenters quoted above use the same basic rhetorical tactics to talk about a race related issue as the students who decided that they were going to hold blackface parties.
I’m not saying the history isn’t interesting or important; however, I am saying that this seems to be the typical pattern in much of the discourse on race we just don’t deal with the current realities. Unfortunately, only one poster on this thread is Black (correct me if I’m missing somebody), and something is lost when we don’t have the views of the people who are the primary group targeted by groups like the KKK, who run around waving Confederate flags. It’s really sad that many of us can sit around waxing poetic about history, without really focusing on the fear that this symbol evokes in a large segment of the population.
“I don’t think I have seen anybody suggest that northern racism is not a problem”
Well for me, Im not saying anyone is suggesting northern racism isnt/wasnt a problem.
What Im trying to say is that ” the war was over slavery, the north wanted to abolish it” isnt entirely accurate. On one hand you have a side that wanted to continue the practice of slavery, on the other you had a side that didnt want black people to reside in this country at all. Wanting to get rid of slavery so you can ship everyone out isnt really about finding slavery repugnant.
Pheeno,
Thanks for the explanation. I think we’re in general alignment on most points.
Amp,
I base what I write on contemporary discussions of the causes of the Civil War. I’d suggest you read more by Calhoun and less by those college professors. It’s politically expedient to blame slavery for the Civil War. That Johnson didn’t carry through on Lincoln’s dreams tells me that slavery wasn’t about blacks qua blacks, but was about the political power that was located within the plantation system. More to the point, slavery persisted in the north long after the first rumblings of secession in South Carolina in the 1830’s.
That States Rights were central to the issue is made clear by none other than Stephen A Douglas —
Lincoln campaigned, essentially, on a platform that invited war against the South and Douglas had him pegged.
Amp,
In response to your request that I respond to #75, I think several of us have already. If the North was outlawing horses, horses would have significant focus as the cause of the war, but the violation of the South’s rights as sovereign states would still have been the cause.
Lincoln brought the first credible threat that what had been prevented by Congress’ respect for States Rights on the subject of slavery was no longer going to be respected.
Thanks, Rachel, for bringing this post back on track. I’ve been following the thread and just haven’t chimed in yet. All of the talk on the Civil War and federalism has been interesting, and it’s made me think about my own opinions and why I hold them.
But at the same time, I don’t think that most people who are flying the Confederate flag today are really using it as a symbol to promote states’ rights and advocate less interference from the federal government. After all, many of the same people who argue “states’ rights” are the same people who argue for federal rules concerning regulation of marriage to prevent SSM.
The Confederate flag, while grounded in a particular time in history, has present day meaning which is likely to evoke feelings of exclusion and fear to certain individuals. If I see 3 houses–one with an American flag, one with a Nazi/swastika flag, and one with a Confederate flag, I will definitely feel unwelcome at 2 of those. The American flag bears distinction because it is used in a multitude of ways, from peace-loving anti-war protesters to the KKK. But the Confederate flag doesn’t seem to have as many facets to its modern message. When I see someone who has the Confederate flag on their car, to me, that’s a “F**k you” to people of color and of non-Protestant religions, and, to a lesser extent, non-Southerners. If someone wants to use that symbol, that’s fine. But they shouldn’t be surprised if I look disgusted or even scared when I see it. Freedom of speech works both ways.
When all you have is a hammer, the whole world is a nail.
Sure: if you want to limit the discussion to the viewpoint held by those who already believe that the confederate flag is inherently racist then sure, your conclusion fits.
Amp:
Huh. Am I missing something? Because so far as I can see, this thread started on Rachel’s premise that (simply put) black views of the confederate flag should be respected because they’re black.
this often seems to turn into a circular argument of the worst kind:
1) the flag is racist.
2) because the flag is racist, those who don’t think the flag is racist are racist.
3) because only racists think the flag isn’t racist, the flag represents racist views and therefore is racist.
FCH:
“In response to your request that I respond to #75, I think several of us have already. If the North was outlawing horses, horses would have significant focus as the cause of the war, but the violation of the South’s rights as sovereign states would still have been the cause.”
I see the states’ rights issue, but I think the point is that the states’ rights (or white people’s rights) to allow slavery was the particular right in question that was the driving force behind the decision to go to war. A lot of things could have been banned or regulated by the federal government–horses, liquor, corn, (whatever, pick an arbitrary regulation), but those things might not have been important enough to go to war over. People might have grumbled over the intervention, but I doubt they’d be as eager to pick up a musket and risk their lives, homes, and property over it.
Lincoln brought the first credible threat that what had been prevented by Congress’ respect for States Rights on the subject of slavery was no longer going to be respected.
I’m sorry, but that sounds completely absurd. The Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott that even Congress couldn’t outlaw slavery, never mind the President. Lincoln won the presidency with just 39% of the popular vote. As far as I can tell, he didn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of ending slavery unless the South chose to start a war.
DJ:
Again, the war was not about slavery. Secession was more or less about slavery, but the war was about preventing secession, not about ending slavery.
sailorman,
You totally missed the thesis of my post. In fact, you just came way out of left field. My thesis was this sentence:
Racists, you gotta love ‘em. It doesn’t matter what the subject most of their arguments are the same–ignore the topic at hand, chastise the person willing to acknowledge racism, deny/minimize the existence of racism in the past or present, say your opponents are the real bigots, look for a lone person of color to support you, and blame the Jews.
You are really insulting my intelligence here.
To all:
I feel like every time I post on this site a large contingent of commenters distort or misrepresent my views. They often try to summarize my views as: “Black people good; White people bad” or some variation of that.
I wasn’t angry in the post, in fact, I thought it was funny. I guess at least one person agreed because that person linked this post to a joke blog, but when the subject is race, people are often unable to see through their internalized biases.
I need to take a deep breath because this is really annoying me. I wasn’t angry when I posted, but I am now.
“Again, the war was not about slavery. Secession was more or less about slavery, but the war was about preventing secession, not about ending slavery.”
Brandon, isn’t that just semantics? Secession and the war were inextricably linked, no?
Brandon, isn’t that just semantics? Secession and the war were inextricably linked, no?
Yes. But the link isn’t causally transitive.
I need to take a deep breath because this is really annoying me. I wasn’t angry when I posted, but I am now.
I blame the Jews for this. Amp, shame on you!
Rachel:
The reason I asked you to clarify your comment about LRC is that it could be read as implying that Lew Rockwell et al are all a bunch of racists in the vein of the KKK and their ilk. That’s a pretty serious charge, so I’d appreciate it if you’d either make it explicitly or tell us that that’s not what you really meant.
Only in the sense that, e.g., questions about the relative merits of capitalism and communism were settled in the Vietnam War. One side beating the other into submission isn’t really settling anything.
I do realize that exploitation can come at any level, which is precisely why I prefer to have power devolved to the states. Bad laws at the federal level are much worse than bad laws at the state or local level, because it’s much easier to escape bad state laws than bad federal laws.
Would you like those states which now allow gay marriage or civil unions to repeal those laws and wait for the federal government to do something about it? When individual states started legalizing abortion before Roe v. Wade, would you have preferred that they had instead just asked their Congressmen to bring it up at the next session?
Depending on what you mean by “the confederate ideology” on states’ rights, I suspect that it’s much closer to what’s actually outlined in the Constitution than yours. And the Constitution, as actually written, is much closer to the Articles of Confederation than the Constitution as generally interpreted today.
DJ:
No. Once the South seceded, the North had a choice. They could let them go peacefully, or they could fight to bring them back. War was not an inevitable consequence of the South’s choice to secede. It was a choice the North made, not for the purpose of ending slavery, but expressly for the purpose of “saving the union.”
Brandon,
“Inevitable” was not the proper choice of words on my behalf. I didn’t mean to imply that the North didn’t have a choice in what to do. But all of these arguments seem to separate “states’ rights” or “saving the union” into an abstract. The issue of states’ rights or secession would likely not have come up *but for* the issue of slavery, which was integral to the South’s economy and way of life. If the federal government tried to regulate something less crucial to their economics, I doubt secession would have been the result.