Then you must read this wonderfully written piece in the Atlantic. The author's argument is powerful, but the section with the excerpts from the declarations of seccession by various southern states settles the facts of the case. Here's what Mississippi had to say:
…Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin…
If you think that's bad, read Texas's:
…in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states…
But it hasn't ended yet! There's an ongoing effort to couple the Tea Baggin' movement with Confederate goals, with just a little revisionism.
"The War Between the States was fought for the same reasons that the tea party movement today is voicing their opinion. And that is that you have large government that's not listening to the people, there's going to be heavy taxation," Fayard said Monday from his home in Duck Hill, Miss. "And the primary cause of the war was not slavery, although slavery was interwoven into the cause, but it was not the cause for the War Between the States."
The primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. And unsurprisingly, racism is also a significant element in the Tea Party movement. We're still fighting that damned war.
- Log in to post comments
Agreed. Racism.
It's from TNC, and it's about race relations? Of course it's wonderfully written!
I see scary parallels between the Confederate stance on slavery that led to the Civil War, and the hidden agenda of the AGW deniers that basically says: the United States has the mandate to burn as much coal and oil as it takes to maintain our standard of living, because it's our god-given right.
I'm pretty sure the war in Iraq was totally about WMD, too. That's what everyone said it was about, anyway.
We really can not let these conservative yokels rewrite America's vital history. It's just astounding the blatant lies they tell to make their bigotry and ignorance appear all right, well and wonderful.
PZ we should be using this as counter ammunition. It was the humanist movement that broke away from the biblical endorsement of slavery, not Christianity. Humanist values were later brought into Christianity, but prior to this creation said "blacks were made by God different, therefore there role is different.
God allows slaves, and using their creationist belief that the colour black represented demonic tarnishing, or heathen practises, Christianity justified, and continued to justify slavery until social values significantly changed, and churches and Christians could no longer make money selling humans.
are you saying that people who are habitually dishonest are being dishonest? SHOCK!
TNC has been on fire with regard to this recent neo-Confederate nonsense from Southern Governors.
For the past 30 years or so, whenever I heard someone say, "State's rights!", my mind pretty much instantly translated that to "Because we're bigots, that's why!".
I thought that was pretty much common knowledge.
MikeM
Denial of the primacy of slavery as a reason for secession has been fashionable since well before the Civil War. It only grew stronger in the decades afterward, when Mildred L. Rutherford, the Great Liar for the Not-So-Stainless Banner, screeched “Unjust to the South!” anytime someone told the truth about the Confederacy.
In 1911, the United Confederate Veterans resolved that “every textbook on history and literature in Southern schools should be tested ” against Mildred L. Rutherford’s A Measuring Rod for Text-Books. This small primer called for rejection of any text that, among other things, “says the South fought to hold her slaves” or “speaks of the slaveholder of the South as cruel or unjust to his slaves.” Librarians were enjoined to inscribe on the title page of any book not measuring up to A Measuring Rod the words “Unjust to the South.”
More on this charming personage can be found here and here. More on the ridiculousness of the “loyal slaves” movement is here.
Ironically enough, Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest of Fort Pillow infamy, a fellow who became one of the rare men in the antebellum South to break loose from his low spot on the class-distinction chain through the agency of buying and selling human beings, famously offended polite Southern society by refusing to join the fashionable "states' rights" chorus, instead telling one belle at one ball that if the war he was in wasn't being fought to preserve slavery, then he didn't know what it was about.
I was eating lunch when I read that... I have since lost my appetite.
When people start talking about "states rights" I always ask "what is it exactly that states want to have the right to do?"
"TNC has been on fire"
The Nature Conservancy?
PZ, how could you leave out this prize quote from Alexander Stephens, VP of the Confederacy:
Right... keep telling us all that the Civil War was not about slavery. Fucking ignorant racist assholes. I swear the next person that tries to tell me that in person is going to get that quote, in large bold letters, on a sticker, pasted right on his back.
And I ask "Didn't we try that before?"
Nice parallel here to those opposing gay-rights. Strangely enough, in 1861, the lack of slavery had not brought desolation on the northern states. Far from it in fact.
Dan Carlin, in his "Hard Core History" podcast, cites a theory held by some historians; They suggest that earlier empires, such as the Romans, never developed advanced technology precisely because they had slaves to do all of the hard work. Why would you need to invent a pump, when you can just send a slave to get the water?
Mentally preparing yourself to justify killing them?
Abdul Alhazred #18
Wait... what? What a ridiculously over the top jump to make there...
Really?
The comparison to Nazi war criminals is fashionable, too.
Categories of individual it's OK to kill.
It didn't really hit me until the Texas curriculum standards shenanigans that the Religious Right is at war with history as much as it at war with science.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
-George Orwell, 1984
#20
Henry Gee, is that you?
I read a book recently (and I sure wish I could find it now, or at least its title) that quoted extensively from letters by ordinary soldiers in the Army of Northern Virginia, showing that they completely understood what they were fighting for. The book also pointed out that slave-owners, and their close relatives, were significantly over-represented in the army compared to the general population, even at the rank of private.
But if you want to quibble, the war wasn't about slavery. The war was about secession. Secession was about slavery, though.
Well, from down here where they're still fighting the war of northern aggression, the racism is still pretty evident. The women are patronizing and treat minorities as they would children. The men are generally aggressive in their perspectives and demeanor.
The denial of racism as the major factor of the Civil War occurs, IMHO, because to acknowledge it was is to acknowledge that they are racist or of racist roots. No matter the horrible things that get said about minorities the people will very earnestly articulate to you that they aren't racist - they're just observing and it's not "all of them"... They honestly believe that and are quick to tell you how blacks were better off under slavery...
The wacko, religious right has convinced itself and its members that theirs is a righteous road led by Jeebus himself. There is no mirror big enough to make them see themselves for what they are. They aren't racist; they're just.... of a different, superior race.... They must be. They're led by Zombie Jeebus...
From the Huffington post article:
I guess you and I aren't real Americans PZ. That's not surprising though. These people would hate us for not following there idiotic god.
Slavery. meh
They got a free boat ride to the New World, free clothing, free housing, guaranteed lifelong employment and a free funeral.
How bad could that have been?
[/heavy-handed sarcasm]
(just is case)
So sad to see all those little children being inculcated with the lies.
I'm not surprised that they have got themsleves mixed up about the South and the civil war. Judging by several of the placards, the adults seem to think that Obama caused the present economic conditions. What? WTF?? Are they so brain damaged that not only can they not reason, but they can't remember what happened as little as two years ago?
I noticed one delightful lady with a placard saying, "For the first time, I'm not proud of my country".
Right, so she was proud of slavery and the annihilation of the indigenous population of the continent. Proud when the Kennedys and Martin Luther King Jnr. were assassinated. Proud when Cambodia was carpet bombed. Proud when the USA watered down and then refused to ratify the Kyoto Treaty. Proud of the adventures in Iraq.
But now that Obama is trying to get the country out of the mess it was left in by eight years of Dubya and his free-market cronies; trying to provide healthcare for millions of people who don't have any ... now she's not proud? What can you do with that kind of stupid?
Great... so when it actually comes up or is said, feel free to jump in and attack the position. But please do try to refrain from simply inventing the claims before you attack them, as you've done here.
I wonder if this Tea Party "movement" is
just another "color revolution" in the making...
We'll see.
There's already serious talk of international tribunals for "climate deniers", but I suppose they are not calling for the death penalty as at Nuremburg. Though that is the precedent.
The best history by far of the antebellum South is the two volume
'The Road to Disunion' by Wm Freehling. Slavery was the beginning and end of every political calculation for sixty years. His other main point is that the 'South' was anything BUT homogeneous!!
Sigh. I went to high school in the early 70s. My high school team name was the Rebels, and the mascot was General Reb, a guy dressed up in a costume that looked like Yosemite Sam wearing a Confederate uniform. We flew a Confederate flag (although lower than the US flag in front of the school) and the band played Dixie a lot at games. Even my American history teacher, a genuine and unapologetic liberal, often reverted to "us" and "them" terminology when talking about the Civil War.
The school district was starting to desegregate when I graduated (there were a whopping 8-10 blacks among the 2400 or so students at my high school) and since has become reasonably well integrated. My high school finally dropped the Rebel stuff. While I didn't have any illusions that the US would be a paradise of perfect racial relationships by now, I really thought we would be beyond all of this glorifying of treason-in-defense-of-slavery nonsense. It's incredibly disheartening to see it still going on, even as we elected our first African-American president (something I didn't really think I would see in my lifetime).
God damnit, I was actually taught in AP History in high school that the Civil War wasn't because of slavery, and I thought that until recently, especially now that I see what the states said in their statements.
I admit that I was wrong about the Civil War, it was my fault that I took high school education at face value rather than actually looking into the matter deeper for myself. I feel like a fool.
Those damn revisionists ruining my high school education!
Ahhh... don't make the mistake of failing to realize just how inter-related those two things are, MS.
We have a black man as president... you think the barely thinly veiled racist conservative population of this country is going to stand silently for that? Hell no. They'll hold up signs with racial epithets on them and tell you to your face their not racists.
MetzOMagic,
That's what I thought immediately when I read the first piece from Mississippi. It is uncanny how close the line of reasoning actually is.
The people who say the Civil War was about punitive tariffs are partially right. But they neglect to mention that the tariffs were intended to favor free labor.
their --> they're...
dammit
Oh, certainly... many of the issues surrounding the Civil War were economic in nature... just looking at the declarations of seccession you can see the claims of the economic impact that abolishing slavery would have to slave-holding states... but at the end of the day, it's still about slavery.
Hmmm... let's see... we have a large segment of the population railing about the economic impact of a morally prudent action... where oh where have I seen this argument before, recently?
Sorry pal.
You're stretching to justify killing people who don't want to be ruled by you.
The unforgivable crime of Lincoln that forced the poor southern states to succeed before Lincoln was sworn is and led to the ACW was Lincoln refusal to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850
Basically it was a law forcing Northerners to hunt down and return slaves to their owners so making everyone in America actively part of the slave system.
That is what a Neo-Confederate means about his rights; his right to force you to do something you think is morally repugnant.
#39
I am missing something. Where is there an advocation of murder here?
This is verging on Holocaust-denial, saying that slavery wasn't the cause of the civil war.
At this point in US political history, it is abundantly clear that the Teatard 'movement' is nothing but a collection of illiterate (Teabonics on Flickr proves it), undereducated old white people.
Obviously, history and evidence is totally off their radar. If it were anywhere near their radar, at least some of it would most likely osmose (I made the verb up right here on the spot) into their vacuum-like brains.
This sort of subverts that old Simpson's joke:
"What was the cause of the Civil War?"
"Actually, there were many causes. Aside from the obvious schism between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, economic factors, both domestic and international. . ."
"Apu, just say slavery."
"Slavery it is, sir!"
Abdul, there's as much basis for that assertion as if I said you are attempting to justify building an army of mutant squirrels to take over Manhattan.
This is the mental image I now have of you.
And another thing:
What's that? There are black Southerners?! That is totally new information!
Supposedly, admitting that AGW exist is threatening to murder people. I guess.
GHP, SoSZ: Don't you threaten to murder me, sir! I won't stand for it!
I saw some 50s-aged guy walking around a Costco or something recently. His shirt had a Confederate flag and around it read: "If you think this flag signifies racism, you need to reread history" or something to that effect.
My personal irony meter pegged.
What the fuck are you on about?
The Tea Party (Bowel) Movement is, above all else, racist and secessionist.
Why else do you think its "shining lights" are current/former governors openly associated with racism and secessionism?
Just the other day one of them proclaimed Celebrate Confederate History Month, fergawdsake!
But you knew that.
There is so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to begin. Oh, right.
The Confederate States Of America remains the deadliest foreign enemy in US history.
More than twice as many US soldiers died fighting the CSA than died fighting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan COMBINED.
Celebrating Confederate History is celebrating the core values of secessionism, slavery, violent insurrection and the necessity of fighting a war that caused the fratricidal deaths of over a million people to protect those values.
These people are by far a worse threat to our national security than any foreign entity.
Racism is very much still alive. I live in Florida, but I’ve also lived other places and have heard the most appalling casual racism seeping out in discussions on just about anything. Only recently I’ve heard both of these:
“Tiger woods had it all, fame and fortune. He got himself a nice white woman....”
“I spent all day fixin’ that thing and didn’t even get paid for it. I’m not black enough for work like that.”
We’ll be fighting that damn war for a while yet.
That's still just the Southern side you're looking at though. I'm not a historian, but I think the North's opposition was much more about wanting a single country than it was about wanting slaves to be free. At least, it was a much easier argument to say that two nations would be weaker than one, than to get into the tricky moral issue of slavery.
What it really comes down to is that slavery was the issue that finally triggered a war over whether we should be one nation or two.
[citation needed]
For the folks who crow (Jim Crow? Sorry..) about the US Civil War being about State's Rights, I always like to remind them that the two primary rights the southern states were fighting for were:
- The 'right' to hold slaves
- The 'right' to dissolve the Union
I then ask which one of those rights are they support. Generally works.
Hmmm... I think I need to create a counter-shirt, with the same confederate flag, that states:
"If you think this flag doesn't signify racism, then you are a disingenuous sack of shit racist who wants to both proudly proclaim his racism yet mask it to avoid being seen as an ignorant racist. In other words, you're an asshole."
Might be too long to fit on a shirt though... maybe a bumper sticker... you know, that could work! I could put one of those on one of my redneck Virginian in-laws trucks and they'd never think anything of it... cause it's got a confederate flag on it.
@kiyaroru (#26)
Don't you think that you should have properly cited Pat Buchanan rather than trying to pass that off as your own. :-P
Well, in fairness, the title of PZ's post isn't about the Civil War... it's about the Confederacy and what it was really about...
Abdul said that not me.
#58
I think AE was aware of that, and was simply extending your point at #47 to further absurdity, for the yuks...
GHP, SoSZ: What C_E said...furthering the absurdity and all that. Tone comes through poorly in text, I'm afraid.
Science Pundit #56
Thanks for that link.
If the by-line wasn't *Ptoue* Buchanan, I would have guessed that that satirist had spent a lot more time and effort making stuff up than I did.
Well, I'm slow. So, :P, to you.
"If you don't think this flag [the confederate flag] signifies racism, you probably think it's okay to lynch a black man for looking at a white woman. You can't let them dirty up the purity of the white woman. What does she have to say about it? Fuck that! I don't need her damned consent. IT'S OUR RIGHTS! Just like beating that fag [sic] up is our right. WE CAN'T LET THOSE DIRTY POOR MUSLIM ATHEIST BLACK LESBIAN SOCIALIST TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS!" - this is not too far from the rhetoric of the teabaggers I've heard.
Teach the controversy!
Our yankee family just finished spring break in Arkansas where dixie flags, signs and bumper stickers were common. There was even a Dixie Heritage store in Branson, MO (couldn't resist checking that town out -- ho-lee shit). We never did figure out just what the flyers of these flags were expressing, but I have to admit I was afraid to ask. I think it's meant as a middle finger extended toward cultural changes of the last 100 years or so, only one of which is civil rights.
Now see, I just don't get you people.
It isn't racist to want dark-skinned people to do all the work, for subsistence wages if not for free, and white people to get all the benefits. Why, that's just smart, that's all it is.
No, racism would be when you believe in, support and act to sustain such inequality while at the same time you ridicule and suppress the culture of the dark-skinned people, persecute them for going about their daily lives, keep them from casting a vote in elections, and make sure they live in separate communities where you never have to see them -- stuff like that.
So until someone can point to at least ONE actual instance from that latter list, I will continue to maintain that this whole thing is NOT about racism. It's a matter of principle.
Woah! That's very scary that those types of revisionists have entered high schools like that. The American historians at my unviersity have made it very clear that the civil war was all about slavery.
Seriously PZ, you are using an article from Huffpo and an opinion piece on the Groundreport website as 'evidence' that racism is a 'significant element' in the Tea Party movement?
Being that you are a scientist, it seems to me if you're gonna damn a rather large percentage of the nation's population to leftist hell you should do so on what can be proved, not what you suspect. Don't look now, but your opinion- and dogma-based political commentary is sounding more and more like biblical preaching every day.
Mr. Walker's article @ Groundreport.com is nothing more than hearsay and anecdote -- with a link to one national survey conducted by the Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race and Sexuality.
Click here, to read the press release about the survey.
I tried to find links to the actual study, but was unsuccessful. Given that survey results are highly dependent on the wording of the survey questions, wouldn't it be helpful to see them as an aid in evaluating this survey's validity? When Christopher Parker, the UW assistant professor of political science who directed the survey, uses words like 'suggest' and 'may' to describe his conclusions, shouldn't we also approach the survey results with a wee bit of skepticism?
Mr. Parker even manages to find a way to imply(without actually saying so) that racist Tea Partiers don't want blacks to have health care. In the press release he said, "While it's clear that the tea party in one sense is about limited government, it's also clear from the data that people who want limited government don't want certain services for certain kinds of people. Those services include health care." How does he reach this conclusion? What other government services did he ask about? What kinds of people is he referring to? Is it too much to ask of someone leveling a charge of racism to be clear and unequivocal?
Besides, isn't it rather obvious that a group dedicated to limiting the size of government would be opposed to the government adding a new entitlement? Ya think?
Further, according to a survey conducted by Indiana University’s Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research, it's not just Tea Partiers who opposed health care reform. The data show 70% of Americans 18 to 34 years of age are in favor of repealing the new law; this is not your average Tea Party activist is it? Could it be because these young people are smart enough to know they are the ones who will bear the brunt of our newest entitlement's grossly underestimated cost?
How does this IU study jibe with the UW study?
The continuing poorly-supported accusations of racism against anyone who simply disagrees with President Obama, and/or Democrats in general, are the political and social equivalent of the boy who cried wolf. Those with true racist intent will find it easier and easier to hide amid the acusatory chaff.
I suppose you can't repeat the obvious too many times, but really, how many historians have to make this observation...oh, wait, probably a bazillion more.
The tiny rural town next to mine has an annual "celebration of the Union" party on Juneteenth, and I make sure we attend - because I think one of the reasons that Confederate slavery apologists have managed to be so successful is because they have a subculture that preserves their history, whereas most of the North has gotten on with things. Getting on with things is often good, but in this case, I think there's something to be said for reminding people that there was a right and wrong side to the story (without, of course, in any way erasing the history of early northern slave holding or the racism still endemic in parts of the American Northeast.)
Sharon
Acusatory chaff?
Of course the teabaggers are racists, maybe not all but most of them.
BTW, msl, the Grand Wizard of your klan wants you to show up with clean sheets for the next meeting or your ass is grass.
raven @ 70, you make an acusation based on a poor assumption. I am not a member of the Tea Party movement.
Neither, however, do I buy into politically-motivated accusations.
You said maybe not all 'teabaggers' are racist, but most of them are. On what do you base this?
It's amusing that some commenters here are willing to stereotype a group of people so they can condemn them for stereotyping.
As an aside, I've pointed out before that if you are not a teabagger, you must be a teabaggee.
Seriously... you think that's the only reason PZ would assert this? I see you are still a complete moron.
Reality. I see you asked for evidence. I presented evidence, which you ignored. Try having a third grader read it to you, if you are semiliterate. "- Ahead of Obama's swearing-in ceremony, Paladino sent around a video entitled "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal." The video shows an African tribesman dancing, and is apparently popular among white supremacists.
Palidino is a teabagger leader, their candidate for governor of NY.
Now about those sheets. If you go to a laundromat and ask nicely, maybe someone will show you how to use the washing machines.
mwsletten,
Try reading the survey you linked to:
The results of the survey indicate that most Americans who want it repealed don't think Congress went far enough toward providing adequate health care for Americans. I.e., they want greater government involvement in health care reform.
That is not the T(axed) E(nough) A(lready) Party opinion, and it cannot be used as evidence to support the Tea Party opposition to government involvement in health care reform.
It is also not related to the topic of this post. Which, for the reading impaired, is the continuing denial among some Americans that one of the major reasons for the ACW was slavery.
As for the level of racism among teabaggers? Plenty of reports (and posters at rallies) suggest that both active and casual racism is a significant part of the teaparty movement.
You know, I'm getting sick of this. No matter what the conflict, I'm beginning to see a pattern. The real war, ongoing for many thousands of years, is between ignorant self-interested bastards and the enlightened liberal intelligent ones amongst us. You name the conflict, the civil war, the British Empire versus Gandhi, Ian Paisley versus downtrodden catholics, the Boers versus the Africans, etc, etc. It seems to be the same conflict every time. Anyone else agree? At times, I'm tempted to believe the human race split into two several thousand years ago. Strength versus intelligence.
Wow, mswletten, that was great! May I try my hand at that?
I think I got all the parts of your argument there.
Wow, I like arguing that way! It's so effortless! Now I understand why people do that all the time.
Don't most laundromat have written instruction on the machines?
Sure. But you have to remember who we are dealing with here.
@Abdul, are you reading another thread and posting your responses on this one?
The wound of the civil war scabbed over, but the infection was never cleaned out. The election of an African American to the presidency has picked the old scab off and we're all acting surprised that the infection of racism smells so bad.
But the world has changed and the infection is no longer acceptable. It's not hidden under the scab anymore so we can't pretend it's not there. This isn't a bad thing, but it's going to take time, reason, patience and betadine. Lots of betadine.
Oh, gee, I dunno... what raven gave you not enough?
- Congressional Black Caucus leader, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, was spat upon by protesters.
- House Majority Whip James Clybourn told reporters: "I heard people saying things today that I have not heard since March 15, 1960, when I was marching to try to get off the back of the bus."
- Words of speaker and Tea Party leader Tom Tancredo at the Nashville Tea Party event: "People who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama." Tancredo blamed Obama's election on the fact that "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country." He got some of the loudest cheers of the weekend.
- The Tea-party organizer from Texas that denied claims of racism while holding a sign with the mis-spelled "n: word on it...
These are not just crazy tea-bagger crashers... they are not "plants" by democrats. They are the speakers and organizers of the movement.
But I know, I know... they are not True TeaBaggers TM. Well, then they shouldn't be speaking at or organizing Tea Party events, or be endorsed and applauded by Tea Party supporters. They are not being denounced or properly eviscerated for the behavior.
No... the movement continues to be defended despite example after example that demonstrates the hatred, ignorance and racism that fuels at the very least a large portion of the movement... by assholes like you.
Although not strictly related to this post, a resonable extrapolation can be made: http://www.team-shea.com/richard/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ignorance-p…
Anyone who thinks that the TP people aren't motivated by racism hasn't spent much time near them. They seriously believe that there will be an armed revolt by (educated) people of color against (uneducated) white people any minute now.
I took one of my kids to a health care forum last summer and left because I found the level of physical threat more than I could stomach with a kid in tow. Standing there with my pathetic little "health care for all" sign led to comments about how they should do to me what they'd like to do to Van Jones (never quite specified, but it involved exile, I believe, and possibly a sharp stick). Then there was the complaining about how I wanted to take away their right not to have health care if they got sick. (No, if you want to die from treatable medical conditions, don't let me stand in your way - just make sure you stay out of health care facilities supported by public money. And if you don't believe in evolution, don't you dare use antibiotics designed for resistant bacteria).
I've started pointing out that anyone who uses public water, drives on non-toll roads, sends their kids to public school, or has a library card is a SOCIALIST. Unfortunately the people who yammer loudest about SOCIALISM don't seem willing to give up their library cards/free education/public roads...
Not only do they not know what socialism is, half the time they can't even spell it.
Been talking about part of this for the last several days over on the endless thread. Glad it is getting some wider play.
"Lost Cause" research is fascinating and repulsive (nice capsule writeup at #10 phoenixwoman). Years ago I saved a quick and handy guide to recognizing Lost Cause crap. Unfortunately, I do not remember exactly where I got it so cannot give credit that is due.
1. The war was fought for Constitutional (state's) rights.
2. Confederates were NOT rebels - they were fighting for the "American Ideal".
3. All whites gleefully participated & rallied to the cause.
4. Slavery was not the cause.
5. Slaves were loyal UNTIL Yankees lured them away.
6. The South succumbed only because of larger numbers of troops and industrial capacity of the North.
7. Just because the South lost does not mean they weren't right ... someday people will realize it.
Any of these gems raises racism as a possible cause in my mind. More than two pretty much guarantees it.
One other guide to Lost Cause crap, a history of the South at war that does not discuss the "Southern" units that fought for the Union, or the areas that were in open revolt against the Confederacy such as most of East Tenn and parts of Alabama.
What happened to our confused climate-change denialist death panel paranoid? Did he run out of internet time at the library?
eyespy #51
No.
According to The Price in Blood! Casualties in the Civil War, US deaths in the Civil War were
According to World War 2 Death Count American deaths in World War II were 500,000.
f you include Confederate deaths (74,000 combat deaths, 124,000 other deaths, 198,000 total), then the total dead in the Civil War exceeded World War II. But if you're only considering US deaths, then more soldiers died in World War II.
You mean Abdul? My observation is that he only comes in the morning hours.
@ MS
By any chance, did you go to Bowsher in Toledo, Ohio? I did, and your description sounds like my high school, which was not in the south but in the south end of Toledo.
The issue of slavery may have been the proximate cause of the South's secession, but let's not kid ourselves about what the North was fighting for. It is a widely believed myth that the North was fighting for the cause of ending slavery. It wasn't; it was about saving the Union:
Let's not forget that the Emancipation Proclamation, that oft-cited act of "freeing the slaves" was in effect both a threat and a promise: a threat that if the Southern states continued in rebellion, to take away their slaves by freeing them, but also a promise that if they agreed to end the rebellion, slavery would be allowed to continue. And it did nothing to end slavery in the Union slave states of Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and Delaware, or other regions under Union control at the time of the proclamation's effect.
Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States (my high school US history textbook), writes,
The South might have been fighting to protect their slave-holding ways, but the North wasn't exactly fighting to end the institution of slavery.
This drives me nuts. I remember seeing my great-grandfather's grave in a little west Alabama cemetery, right next to someone born in 1865 names "Ulysses Grant Fife." The cemetery also contained about 300 graves of African Americans from around the time of the Civil War, marked only by rocks, no names. Given the company they kept, my ancestors were extremely unlikely to have owned any slaves or to have been particularly enthused about fighting for slave-owners. My cousins, however, are CSA flag-waving tea-party types who foment about how "they" are coming to take over any moment now.
By Randroid definitions maybe, but I doubt many self-declared socialists would consider simply supporting/having those things to be sufficient to qualify as a socialist.
Heck, in the UK, all the right-wing parties support those as well. (At least all the ones I know of, and for a given value of "support").
Does anyone not know that the North was fighting first and foremost to save the Union? I mean, I felt all proud of myself when I read that in fourth grade and could use it as trivia, but I was under the impression it was common knowledge. I mean, that's not exactly an obscure Lincoln quote you fished up. Nor is it obscure that the Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" the Confederate's slaves.
Bad day for politics
AZ Legislatures have pushed a bill thru the house and senate that will allow people to carry concealed weapons without permits. The Gov. just needs to sign it. Also, The state senator for Tucson has propsed the idea of armed volunteers monitoring the border. I can't see this going wrong at all...
What is going on here? I have been aware of the Moron Teabaggers, but then I read what's going on in MS and VA and wonder if I am way off. What is the pulse of the Nation?
Jeffrey D #85
The numerical and industrial superiority of the North was a major reason for the Union's victory in the Civil War. The North suffered more casualties than the South did and yet ended the war with more men in uniform than the South ever had in total. The South had one large foundry, the Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond, Virginia. The north had four larger foundries in Pittsburgh alone. As Voltaire pointed out: "God is on the side of the biggest battalions."
I guess the problem is that some people can't understand that even if the North did not enter into the Civil War in order to end slavery, that is unrelated to whether or not the southern states were fighting to preserve slavery. That complicated logic thing...
The 'concealed carry' law that's going to pass here in AZ isn't, amazingly, the worst of what this years Lege has to "offer". ONe local legislator is proposing a bill that will strip $200K from an existing Law Enforcement multiagency ant-gang and drug interdiction force and use it to fund a 'volunteer border force'.
Yes. he's proposing stripping real money from real police and using it to find the likes of these folks, and these folks.
This is what we have to look forward to by enabling these thugs.
With luck we'll block this idiocy, and with even more luck we might change directions come November.
But I'm a pessimist. There are large swatchs of the Arizona population who revel in their ignorance, bigotry and hatred.
PZ said in his closing line:
If you replace "the Civil War" with "the south's secession", I'd agree with you and with everything you said. But technically the secession didn't have to result in a war. The decision as to whether to allow the secession to happen quietly or to fight against it with war was up to the North. The Confederacy would have been happy to have the north just let them go and say "okay, then, bye bye and good riddance to you. We'll keep the industrial and economic base of the country and you can have all that agricultural plantation land. See how well THAT works out for you without our help. bye bye now."
The South left because of slavery.
The Civil War was caused by the North not wanting to let the South leave. There may have been individual Northerners who hated slavery and fought for that reason, but as a whole, the war was "sold" to the Union on the idea that it was merely about not letting the country split up. Lincoln himself, despite having very strong anti-slavery views evidenced in private letters, played the shrewd political line of pretending otherwise in public speeches, knowing that abolitionists weren't that popular.
I sometimes still think it would have been better to let the south go. Slavery would not have lasted much longer anyway - the economic forces were starting to make it less tenable. And today I would be living in a country with far fewer red states to placate in every election and in every bill before congress - resulting in smarter legislation on average.
Celtic_Evolution said:
These accusations have yet to be corroborated. Given the proliferation of media recording devices among the general public, not to mention the level of attention by news outlets of the protests, I find it more than a bit suspicious that not a single recording of the alleged 'racial slur' event reported by Congressman Clybourn has been made public.
Reports of the spitting incident with Congressman Cleaver were overblown. This video on Youtube is the only recording of an event such as that reported by Congressman Cleaver. According to Andrew Alexander of the Washington Post, "the video suggests [Cleaver] was unintentionally sprayed by the screaming protester. The distinction is significant because it fundamentally changes widespread media characterizations of what occurred. The Post and other news organizations left the impression of a despicable, premeditated assault. (Cleaver's office did not return repeated calls seeking comment for this column.)"
After closely watching the video several times, I can find no reason to disagree with Mr. Alexander's take. There was a Capital Hill police officer easily close enough to both the congressman and the screaming protester to have heard someone intentionally spitting (it's a distinctive sound) yet she fails to react in a way one would expect of a police officer following such an incident. Further, there were several black congressmen who passed by the screamer before Mr. Cleaver. If this idiot was there to spit on black people, why didn't he spit on them too?
While I certainly don't agree with the point Tancredo is making, what does this have to do with racism? Are you saying that all white people would pass a civics test? Doesn't that make you a bit racist?
The individual you are referring to has been denounced by the Tea Party movement's national leadership. As far as I know, no Tea Party activist claims this idiot as their spokesman. Who would? This bozo is protesting government entitlement programs while collecting Social Security checks.
Again, this sounds more like wishful thinking than fact. Where is the data to support your claim of 'a large portion.' Isn't 'a large portion' a bit hard to quantify? Is that half? Less? More? How much?
If I said a large portion of the Democratic party is racist would I be wrong? Wouldn't it depend on how one defines racism? If a black person automatically assumes most white person hate black people, does that make the black person a racist?
All of the race baiting comes across as intellectual laziness to me. It's easier to dismiss the statements of 'racists' than to actually think about and respond intelligently to the arguments of your fellow citizens who might actually have a valid point.
Likewise, I'm sure.
mwsletten:
Says the guy whose previous post mentioned 'leftist hell'...
@Steven Mading (#98)
Yes, and technically Hitler didn't start WWII. The decision whether to allow Germany to invade Poland or to fight against it was up to the allies. (Also, please remind me again who fired the first shots.) In other words, I call bullshit!
People keep saying that the North wasn't fighting to end slavery but just protect the Union but that makes me wonder. If that's the case, why didn't the North just let the slavery thing slide and skip the fighting part. Perhaps if they had conceded that point the fighting could have been delayed or avoided. I'm oversimplifying, but my point is that while abolition may not have been the North's primary motivation, it had to be a motivation.
@Bob L.(#40)
In addition to all that you have said, the Fugitive Slave Act also demonstrates that any assertion that the Civil War was about "states rights" is utter nonsense. From a states rights perspective it is hard to argue that northern states didn't have just as much right to grant personhood as southern states had to deny it. A Federal law forcing the issue couldn't but be anathema to anyone who really cares about states rights per se. The willingness of southern politicians to insist on such a law forcefully demonstrates that state's rights was a means to an end- that end being the continuation of slavery, as opposed to an end in itself.
As to the current day context: it amazes me how some of the same people who claim to love the US and go on about how "patriotic" they are, then turn around and wax nostalgic for a cause whose success would have meant the breakup of the US. At best, the success of the Confederacy would have meant the Balkanization of the US and it could easily have meant its destruction. In the end, there is no way around the fact that the Confederates were the ones *shooting* at the guys waving the Stars and Stripes. Being sorry that the Confederates failed is, at its heart, inconsistent with loving the USA.
@50: What the fuck are you on about?
Having seen the posts of the mad Arab here before I'm guessing he's on a big batch of poorly made trailer park meth full of impurities.
I think that's what the leaders of the Confederacy were worried about.
Section 9.4: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Constitution of the Confederate States of America
...although, I suppose that people could just stop using slaves... you know, voluntarily.
#95 'Tis Himself, did not mean to imply that the Union did not use its material superiority to advantage. At Cold Harbor, Va in 1864 the Army of the Potomac suffered more casualties than men in the Army of Northern Virginia. The "Lost Cause" crap part discusses this point as somehow unfair on the part of the Union. It is usually allied with the nonsense about the Union Army only being composed of recent immigrants tricked into fighting as opposed to the brave southern boys who fought hard with little. Any one with any real intelligence would have expected the Union to triumph in the war. The south somehow thought that gallantry alone would win the war, the Celtic Romance myth.
There were several points at which the south could have won its independence, another few victories in 1862 might have encouraged Britain and France to recognize the south, the 1864 election might have also led to a negotiated peace. Yes, the big battalions usually win, the south was outmatched. Good reason not to started the war, eh?
#98 Steven Mading - "Slavery would not have lasted much longer anyway - the economic forces were starting to make it less tenable." I do not think that is true, slavery was a very tenable system, especially had the Confederacy been recognized. This was a major point of contention in my oral defense of my Master's and I was able to successfully argue that I did not see slavery really disappearing for another century. Slaves were being used in nascent industry in the south, perfect workers. Anyway, this point is still being hotly debated among historians and is not that clear cut.
mws: What you seem to enjoy ignoring is that, while not everyone at the Tea Parties is carrying a sign with a racist logo, those guys who are are never turned away; they're never told to put that shit away; they're never even simply confronted for being racist assholes. By embracing the racist fuckheads, the Tea Partiers make quite plain that, whether or not they are racists, they are comfortable cozying up to racists if that's what it takes to get an extra digit on the news report of the rally.
Furthermore, I give you this to ponder:
It is known, from several Pew polls, that prior to the election, fully 5% of Americans said they would NEVER vote for a black candidate. It would strain credulity to suggest that these 5-in-100 citizens are somehow NOT part of the 46% that give Obama unfavorable marks overall.
Thus, we have a minimum of 1-in-9 chance that the person you meet at the Tea Party is, in fact, a racist fuckhead.
Of course, this assumes that none of those 46% are actually unhappy with Obama from a leftist angle. It also assumes that EVERYONE who is unhappy with Obama is a Tea Partier. A better estimate of Tea Party numbers comes from the GOP primaries--where they usually manage to turn out 10-20% of the vote on behaolf of their preferred candidate (often enough to win, particularly in a crowded primary slate).
At 20% of the GOP, Tea Partiers would make up 10% of the nation as a whole (as the last several elections have shown, the country's actually pretty damned close to a 50/50 split, with "who has the more active base" a bigger question than "who has the most support").
If 5% of Americans are inclined to hate Obama for his skin color, the odds are pretty good that at least half of those folks are inclined to support the Tea Party. This would raise the odds of a given randomly selected Tea Partier being a racist douche who needs a kick in the teabag to be 1-in-4.
Abdul Alhazred #18
Whoa. Go away for a few hours and look what happens. Of course, you took what I said completely the wrong way. All I meant was that people who have become accustomed to a certain lifestyle *at the expense of others who are less fortunate than they are* (slaves in the case of the southern states, developing countries in the case of AGW) will do everything in their power to maintain the status quo, and are prepared to go to war for it.
Clearer for you now?
It's not just rhetoric to compare your political opponents to the Confederates. You are psychologically preparing yourself for civil war.
That may not be your deliberate intention, but you are nevertheless inuring yourself to the eventuality of killing your fellow citizens.
Well, if the only further comments are going to be from the Abdul Alhazred dimension, time to go to bed.
You are familiar with the checkered history of such tests, are you not? It doesn't matter what we think about whether whites would be more likely to pass such tests; it matters what Tom Tancredo and his supporters think.
Now remember, this is a movement that prides itself on being less educated, frequently referring to its opponents as "elitist". And yet they think they lost the election because of a lack of literacy tests?
I think it's pretty clear whom they expect would be restricted by those tests. They're essentially viewing the outcome of the election as a popularity contest (i.e., that Obama won because of an overarching desire to have a black president), and this is their proposed solution to "fix" that.
As far as I can tell the teabaggers are simply acting like most other politicians - say one thing (which is not necessarily true) and do whatever you damn well please. "It's not corruption, it is accepted practice." As long as the general public buys such bullshit rather than demanding that politicians be drawn and quartered, we remain screwed.
Abdul Alhazred @ #109
I'm not contemplating killing anyone. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool pacifist who's well aware of the fact that the coal and oil industries, who have vested interests in maintaining the status quo of pouring billions of tons of pollutants into our atmosphere every year so they can keep rolling in the megabucks, are covertly (and in many cases even openly) funding the AGW deniers. And I would like to see more transparency/public awareness about this.
I'm on the side of science, and reality. Get it now?
Sorry to go OT from the teabagger issue folks, but sheesh. Get with the programme Abdul. If you need people to spell it out like this, maybe you shouldn't be hanging out here. In a little bit over your head with nuances of the issues we discuss, perhaps?
Sure, why not. Just as you're clearly trying to discredit PZ's opposition to the Catholic Church because you want to rape children.
Go away, child rapist.
Well, you've repeated it so it must be true. Now this may not be your deliberate intention, but by accusing people of preparing for civil war, you are emboldening the space ninjas who plan to invade. If you don't believe me, I'll repeat myself.
Steven Mading @98
"The Civil War was caused by the North not wanting to let the South leave."
So the Union fired on The Star of the West and Fort Sumter. Learn something new every day. /sarcasm
It is perhaps not happenstance that secession came once the influence of the 3/5th clause was neutralized by the North's population advantage.
Yeah I know about pacifists.
You'll never bear arms yourself, just vote for the guy who gives the orders.
Science doesn't prove that you people can be trusted with power.
I'm a wee bit confused. History is not my strength, I had thought that the south was throwing a snit over the election of Lincoln and that lead to the Civil War. It was my understanding that Lincoln used the issue of slavery as a political tool. Although he had moral objections to slavery, prior to the splitting of the nation did he have plans to end it?
I have some reading to do. Anyway, the Tea Baggers are bonkers.
Poor Wandering One @ 116
"So the Union fired on The Star of the West and Fort Sumter. Learn something new every day. /sarcasm"
The Confederacy may have fired the first shots, but the Union was clearly intent on war if the Confederates didn't capitulate. Otherwise, they could have simply abandoned Fort Sumter (which was in South Carolina, after all) rather than attempting to hold and resupply it. And Lincoln could have recognized the CSA rather than refusing to treat with them.
I like the way John Harshman put it above, at #23. "The war was about secession. Secession was about slavery, though."
Ah, did some reading. Arresting the spread of slavery was an objective of the Republican Party. When Lincoln was elected, a major snit was thrown. Yes, the Civil War was about slavery.
Wait, what? Pacifists are the violent ones?
Dude, take your meds and go back to bed. You still don't make any sense and you annoy the shit outta me.
Folks, it's pretty clear Abdul is either a troll or a poe. Either way, continuing to feed him gets you nowhere....
Abdul Alhazred @118:
From Wikipedia:
Sorry, but you're wrong. I and every other pacifist I know vote against the warhawk politicians. Unfortunately, pretty much all the American politicians seem to be warhawks these days.
By the way, have you stopped raping children yet? Let us know when you're ready to join us in Reality Land.
mwsletten #99
Pointing out the racism of a group is intellectually lazy? Would you care to explain that?
What are the legitimate arguments of tea baggers?
* Obama's a socialist who'll kill your grandmother.
* Health care is unconstitutional.
* We should have smaller government but don't do away with Social Security, Medicare, or any other program that benefits us personally.
* The rich pay too much tax.
* Don't regulate corporations but don't send any more jobs overseas.
Did I miss any?
The Mad Arab takes projection to levels never attained here before. Done feeding the troll, late here.
What I have not been able to get is that why are the rednecks wearing and flying the Confederate flag also, typically, the same ones who when the whole build-up to the Iraq war started, were the biggest proponents of "If you ain't with us, yous against us."
Ugh. Grammar fail.
Why are the ones flying/wearing the Confederate flag also the ones who always use "If you're not with us, you're against us," as legitimate foriegn policy debate?
you either have the reading comprehension of a moldy piece of toast, or you're being a disingenuous ass.
Credit where credit is due, please, Abdul.
I am the one who came up with the idea of incarcerating AGW denialists, to dig ditches in my grammar reeducation camps.
You just got bumped up the list.
Fffff. I need no such preparation or justification.
please, Please PLease PLEase PLEAse PLEASe PLEASE
PULLEEze sSHUT THE FUCK UP AND SECEDE already.
I will shoot you down like dogs, burn your cities and steal all your shit just like last time.
Time to water the manure with the blood of teabaggering old wrinkled pink fat-ass dipshits in too-fat-to-walk-scooter-machines-that-I-paid-for, welfare bum, medicare-sucking unemployed bloodsuckers.
bring it on
I"M READY!!!!!
@ Other Ian #120
I largely agree with you re: succession.
However I think it is important to make it clear that the Confederacy started the war. The Union may have failed to take steps that might have stopped or delayed the war but the south fired the first shots. Up until that point it was just people in expensive suits yelling at each other and as we know "It is better to jaw jaw than war war."
I haven't read through all the comments yet, but a quick search indicated that nobody has yet mentioned this more pertinent section from the 1861 "Cornerstone Speech" by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy (comment #14 above includes a quote from the same speech):
I've got to agree with the few here who say the south's primary motivation was the continuation of slavery and the north's (perhaps not nearly as unanimously) was preventing secession.
"the union must and shall be preserved"
is a lot easier to find than
"free the slaves" or
"are we not people?"
From wikipedia: Buchanan refused their demand and mounted a relief expedition in January 1861, but shore batteries fired on and repulsed the unarmed merchant ship, Star of the West.
So firing on military expedition is starting a war, but sending it is not? This illustrates the apparent thinking of so many people who like to see the world in black and white. Slavery is evil so all southerners are likewise evil.
And how many people who claim the union is perpetual pay as much heed to "till death do us part"?
Ok, finally associated my WP ID with your blog.
That said, I've known that for the most part all the Tea Baggers had a racist undercurrent to them.
The one in RI is interesting though. I went to their first one to get video and I didn't see much in the way of racism except the anti-immigrant sign I spotted.
scooterKPFT.
Shut the fuck up. The victims who actually suffered in the South were not the rich plantation owners, but the lower-class white and black people who were exploited for their labor and then sent to die on the battlefield for rich people's benefit.
The same would be the result today. Your wish for unnecessary death and suffering is not cool.
I'm rather fond of James Nicoll's approach to the "Lost Cause" rubbish.
In response to the attempted rebranding of the US Civil War as the neutral-sounding "War Between the States" or the complete bullshit "War of Northern Aggression", he generally refers to it as "The Slaver's Revolt".
Quite catchy, IMO, and it summarises the history fairly well.
"...The election of an African American to the presidency...."
This helps to perpetuate the putrefaction that is racism. ½ African-American nearly always and unjustly equates to "fully black American." [Recall the 'romance' of quadroons and octoroons.] The man is also ½ Malay. He is, in crude and irrelevant terms, a half-breed. It is every bit as 'politically correct' (and equally irrelevant and repugnant) to describe him as "Our first Maylay-American President."
Rather than playing the race card in this game, very much of the time, such as the fawning over Obama's semi-African heritage, the race card plays the players and hoodwinks nearly everyone.
Contrariwise, being of African-American heritage confers or can be manipulated into political (racist) capital. Being of Maylay-American heritage offers no political (racist) capital at all. I prefer the latter.
***I'm relieved that my spell-check recognizes neither 'quadroon' nor 'ocatoroon.'
SGBM, Scooter is an unapologetic redneck and I think that what he's saying is "bring it on, if you dare".
I'm from the South, I live in the South, and I'll take my chances working the fifth column for the Union and navigating horror and chaos because I'm out of patience with these idiots, and plunder beats working any day.
As far as the 'poor whites' suffering from slavery because they couldn't compete against slave labor, well duhhh.
However , they outnumbered the wealthy 500 to 1, but they were bamboozled by the boogey-man of slave revolt and the propagnada mills that told them the black man was gonna get their women-folk, so these dumb-asses went and fought a war for plantation owners, when they should have avoided the whol;e butcherShop decades before by stringing up every plantation owner in the South and diviied up the spoils amongst themselves andworked out a truce with the slave population
BUT NOOOOOOOO
They got's they honah suh, and whatever.
Fuck them they died of stupidity and cowardice, good riddance,
When you marry your first cousins for generations, the first thing to go is your spine, and if you doubt there is, and was, an in-breeding problem in the deep south, look at a photo of Jeff Sessions.
The poor white cabin-trash of the 1800s were the equivalent of modern day teabaggers bamboozled by Fox News, and every once in awhile, when people talk too much shit, and things get dangerous, and shit talking about guns, and rebellion, ya just gotta clean house, burn the cities, and take all their shit.
Besides, everything I say is cool, Mr. strange make believe delusions before you.
I went too far on the last post, I'm not willing to fire any first shots, but if the South decides to rise again, they'll be outnumbered from within the urban areas, and I'm willing to march into the the deep South from Texas as long as i can get there before all the greedy Yankees, and steal their shit first.
What what? Whereabouts did you go to high school, skeptical scientist, and was this a public school?
"...but if the South decides to rise again..."
I've heard this many times. What's this "again" noise? Never did get an adequate answer.
Scooter, this Yankee will stay where the trout fishin' is good, and let you have your own licks.
Not what I was talking about.
What they got was a false promise of human dignity that had been denied to them as laborers. It was a devil's bargain that required they deny another's human dignity in return, but it's no surprise when the victim becomes the bully.
That they were ignorant racists is not in dispute, but neither is it the whole story. And if you are a redneck and/or a progressive, then this classist talk of "trailer trash" is unbecoming of you, divisive and destructive to working people's interests.
@jahigginbotham (#135)
Sending an unarmed merchant ship to a fort flying your flag does not a very convincing act of war make. My read on Lincoln's moves prior to the fall of Sumter is that he was: A) Trying to avoid doing anything which might be interpreted as official recognition, on the part of the Federal Government, that the Confederate States had attempted to secede and B) Trying to avoid any action that would start a shooting war. If Lincoln was trying to be provocative, he would have had a man of war do the resupply or at least have provided armed escort to the merchant ship.
I do say that, given the centrality of slavery in the formation of the CSA, the cause for which the Confederates was fighting was evil. I do not, however, feel the need to personalize the issue and declare all southerners evil. It is possible to take moral positions on such issues without being Manichean about it.
I will agree that preserving the United States was a motivation more widely shared than the goal of abolishing slavery in the north and those who did favor abolition tended to downplay that especially at the outset and concentrate on the more broadly shared goals for the sake of unity.
As the war dragged on, and especially after the Emancipation Proclamation, expression of abolitionist motives became more common and accepted. If you are tempted to disagree, just think of the words of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, Gettysburg Address, and (especially) of Lincoln's Second Inaugural.
So let's see, to sum up: Abdul thinks
1) Pacifists secretly long for war and vote for the militarists. This is why so many of my pacifist friends idolize Dick Cheney. It all makes sense now.
2) Those who compare the hunger for fuel, Hummers and oil displayed by AGW deniers are secretly planning to start a civil war against them.
I would say Abdul's history and political science teachers at Miskatonic U. have failed him.
Jadehawk re: mws
You nailed it... but I was actually not under the impression that it was an either / or thing...
biology does not work that way. while his half-siblings are half Indonesian, neither his father nor his mother had Indonesian ancestry, you idiot.
combinatorialimplosion 146,
I agree with most of what you said. But there have been numerous shooting / other acts of warfare between countries which don't result in war {cf the Koreas). So if the south had not attacked Sumter, what would have happened?
The difference, as I learned from my history prof, is that sometimes "cause of the civil war" means "underlying economic reason" and sometimes it means "the trigger" and other times it means "legal justification". All give different answers. South Carolina exercising its constitutional right to secede started the war. For that reason, states rights were the reason the war started. Does a state have a right to secede? Sure, if it wants the remaining states to invade. Did the confederacy secede because if wanted to protect the slavery institution? Duh!
History in US schools is freakishly revisionist (and well, I guess the mainstream media helps that along). For example, why did I know what watergate is but not COINTELPRO? What is 'important' in history and news is determined by the people at the top, and even with honesty about the civil war there are serious flaws and omissions that amount to lying to kids every single day. I am not at all shocked at the recent development.
Peter H @ 144
And your wisdom is the solution to the problem.
If only we could tie the fly that could lure a bumper fish sticker from the leisure class of the activist foundation.
@150
My guess is that war would have started somewhere else. Lincoln would certainly have tried to talk the south back into the US, but I don't think it would have worked. Take the current Tea Party sentiment and multiply it by a factor of ten and that was the prevalent attitude. The problem is that the situation is an unstable equilibrium. The south has already voted to secede, they wanted out and were willing to fight to get out and the north wanted to keep the country as one and were willing to fight to preserve it. I think by that once the south voted to secede the die was, in essence, cast.
Is there a scholarly consensus on who was right before the fighting started, the North or the South?
I was trying to figure out what I would have done had I lived then, and decided that I would probably have reluctantly left the country.
To me, slavery is wrong, butt-ugly evil wrong, and the South was sick wrong to go to war to defend it. But the South had every right to secede from the Union, and then, as as a separate nation, every right to tell the North to bugger off.
As I see it, the North had no right to prevent secession from the Union by force, nor to invade the South to preserve the Union. However, once the South was a separate nation, the North could happily invade it to free the slaves (or in more modern terms, to free the people from the oppressive dictators).
So, invade a country, conquer it, free the oppressed and annex the land--that's consistent with later actions of the USA.
@ 155
That's because you're a moron.
If there were a country, let's call it [Italy/USA]and inside that country there was a suburb in Pleasantville, or Vaticanburg, where humans could go wild and rape everybody to death and laugh about it, the nation will step in to stop the raping of children, which you seem to endorse, because no grown woman would have you
scooty, you are a sweetypie to be concerned for me. But, in fact, there is a grown woman in the bed that I am now going to. Toodles.
@156 Sure, cherry-pick one part of his post and ignore the rest. Did you not read the part where he said that the North had the right to invade the south in order to free the slaves, but not in order to keep them from seceding in the first place? He doesn't support their right to hold slaves, but he does support their right to self-determination, as should you.
at least they can spell my name down here in TX
#158
This is a basic nation state misunderstanding.
If you're part of New Jersey, and you want to secede so you can feed children only Vegan organics and exclude meat eating devils, that's not allowed.
If you decided to secede for no good reason at all, you just said you secede but nothing changes and you still fulfill your duties to the Union, that is not secession.
There is either a USA or not, and states either secede or not, words have meanings. The USA has every right to invade a rebellious shithole, because they signed the Constitution , then changed their minds, and they got their asses shot off, and their cities burned, and we took all their shit.
Fuck them just on the legal level as traitorous scum, like the Torey coward bastards we disposed of when we were fighting for our Constitution.
Um, lots of people don't know that. This may come as a surprise, but there are also tons of Americans who think we fought Germany in WW II to stop the Holocaust. People are dumb.
Wow, sletten, way to not know anything about history. Literacy tests of the kind Tancredo is advocating were used under Jim Crow to disenfranchise Southern Blacks. The historical context here is really fucking important, you racist shit.
Scooter,
Menyambal is right. You have a modern view of the nature of the Union. From a historical perspective, the South had every legal right to secede. Until the intense nationalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, people usually referred to the Union in plural terms i.e. the United States are going to war, not the United State is going to war. Unlike most other countries, the USA is made up of states, rather than being divided into states. That's an important distinction. Your example is of a suburb is irrelevant. States in the USA do not exist because the federal government says they exist, rather the federal government exists because the states banded together to form it. Cities/towns/villages/etc. OTOH exist solely at the discretion of the states. They are legal creations of the states, and as such do not have any intrinsic Constitutional rights.
Let me just say, I'm from the South, and I think slavery was really really bad. The dissolution of slavery, though, created severe economic turmoil* that was only fixed by instituting sharecropping which enabled the plantation class to exploit not only African-Americans, but poor whites too. For various reasons, including a lack of industrialization, the South remained extremely poor well into the 20th century. The 1950s were a time of tremendous growth for the middle class in the North, not so much in the South. What finally killed the plantation way of life was not the Civil War, but the invention of the mechanical cotton picker. That one simple thing changed the landscape of the South by eliminating the need for lots of labor for cotton picking. When industrial pesticides eliminated the need for humans to chop cotton, the wealthy had no reason to keep a large workforce around. Most people I know don't get it, but the cotton picker killed the small town in the South, and I'm not sad to see it go, since it also killed the abomination that was sharecropping.
*emancipation of the slaves disappeared much of the wealth of the plantation class, which was, of course, tied up in slaves. OTOH, I have no problem with that. It's really difficult to feel sorry for the wealthy who gained that wealth literally on the backs of slaves.
Got up and was looking forward to reading this thread this morning. Figured there would be some good and though provoking posts. Ah well.
Not sure who said it, and do not really care at this point, but the point is often made that the southern states had the right to succeed. Not sure that is true, never have really bought that argument. I do know that seizing Federal property and attempting to seize a Federal installation, Fort Sumter, should be considered acts of war when carried out by armed insurgents. The south appeared to want a war, thinking that they could "whip the Yankees with cornstalks". They sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind. Far too much blood and treasure was wasted because one group wanted to keep another group in bondage forever.
#161
And the defeat of the Axis powers and their slave system created severe economic turmoil for Fascists.
I'm crying a river now
sniff
sniff
There is a contemporary term for the trash that fought for the Confederacy.
Good Germans.
And we butchered the majority of their male population, and took all their shit.
Just like we (hopefully) always will.
With the help of Satan, the North won, but have faith, I will crush them according to My plan.
A poignant reminder of how, outside major cities, the rest of the country appears to be stuck in the 1950s.
Losing the Civil War is the best thing that ever happened to the South. If the CSA was still in existence, it would likely constitute the poorest nation in North America. I would also likely be living in Mexico right now instead of Texas.
The reason I say this, is that by the time of the Civil War, the South had ruined its soil by farming cotton and corn for a century and had no industrial base (nor was likely to develop one until slavery was outlawed). With the addition of the bread-basket states (Iowa soil is da bomb) to the Union, the CSA would have been outcompeted on every front.
@Menyambal (#155)
I interpret Article I Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution to say otherwise.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
Georgia
It's simple enough. Slavery was not abolished because black people protested, nor because white people saw the error of their ways. There was absolutely no political motivation behind the abolition of slavery.
The invention of the steam engine, and later the electric motor and generator, made slavery economically unviable. A steam engine ate only coal, never answered back, did not need to sleep; and, if it ever became recalcitrant, could be persuaded back to work with naught but a quick squirt of oil and a tweak of a wrench.
Machine-made goods were cheaper and better than their nearest slave-made counterparts.
#161: "From a historical perspective, the South had every legal right to secede."
Well . . . I think it would be more accurate (historically speaking) to say that whether states could secede or not was an open question in 1861--later settled, not by consitutional arguments, but by the Union Army.
People who disagree with what I've just said will point to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as barring (by clear implication) secession. However, the implication isn't clear at all. The Supremacy Clause, like the rest of the Constitutional, fails to mention secession; also, it says nothing about what proponents of secession offered as a legal method of succeeding: namely, holiding a state constitutional convention. This is exactly the method that each state used which joined the Confederacy.
But by the same token, it's entirely unclear to me where "every legal right to secede" is to be found. The Constitution was really no help to either side of the argument.
As to the larger issue here, so that I won't be misunderstood: it's the overwhelming consensus among current historians that but for slavery, the South wouldn't have seceded. Slavery was the very big dog, and "states' rights" the very small tail. Nothing in my reading about the Civil War or its causes leads me to differ from that consensus.
"Constitution," not "Constitutional"; "seceding," not "succeeding."
Jesus Christ, I don't know whether it's dsylexia or early-onset Alzheimer's, but I need a check up.
#176:
Science Pundit:
As to Article I, a proponent of secession would simply have argued that once his state had dissolved its ties to the Union, Article I no longer bound it. So it doesn't settle the issue any more than the Supremacy Clause does (see my posting at #170 above).
scooterKPFT: you're making an argument that's one-part moral argument, one part expression of nationalist ideology.
To deal with the nationalist argument first: it wasn't clear at all in 1860 or 1861 that the United States of America were (and the plural verb was usually used then) a nation. Again, that's one of the issues that was settled, not by legal/constitutional arguments, but by force. The southern secessionists would simply not have accepted your nationalist premises, and they wouldn't have been alone.
As for the moral argument, everybody here is agreed slavery is evil. So we'll naturally root for the Union in its conflict with the Confederacy. Your analogy (a suburb (inside a nation state) where the inhabitants are doing univerally reviled deeds) grosses us all out exactly because we all agree.
But the analogy doesn't completely jibe with the situation in 1860: a federation of states, with a large region in which slavery was both legal and regarded as a positive good by the elite in charge of the region (as well as most of the non-elite whites living there); a federation in which slavery was not very strenuously opposed by most of the inhabitants of the rest of the federation. Keep in mind that, initially at least, the Union wasn't fighting to eliminate slavery, but to preserve that federation.
Pygmy said:
It's only 'really fucking important' if you are looking for racism to begin with. But thank you (and the other posters with their KKK references) for proving my point in your very own crude and profane way. It's no longer enough to actively hate or oppress someone to be a racist, now all one must do is simply suggest that its wrong -- for a whole host of reasons -- to assume racism is the driving force behind a large, modern political movement.
Read the quote from my previous post you included in yours: I said I don't agree with what Tancredo suggests. Not only is it not feasible, it's illegal. Was what he said colosally stupid from a historical perspective? Yes. Was it racially motivated? No, I don't think so. Tancredo used an argument (albiet ham-handedly) I've seen used here often. How many times have I read a poster comment, in one form or another, how 'ignorant, white-trash hillbillies' would all be liberals if only they were more educated? (See Tommymato @ 75 for an example.)
Is there a problem with understanding civics in the United States? Yes. Is it limited to blacks and immigrants? No. I'd say its directly related to a failed government-run primary education system, but that's a different subject...
Don't feel bad, though, Pygmy. You're not the only rabid racism witch hunter to go over the edge. NYT columnist Frank Rich sees racism at the heart of white liberals who are disapointed with President Obama.
Last week, after I wrote about the role race plays in some of the apocalyptic right-wing hysteria about the health care bill, a friend who is a prominent liberal Obama supporter sent me an e-mail flipping my point. He theorized that race also plays a role in “the often angry and intemperate talk” he has been hearing from “left-liberal friends for the past many months about what a failure and a disappointment” the president has been. In his view, “Obama never said anything, while running, to give anyone the idea” that he was other than a “deliberate, compromise-seeking bipartisan moderate.” My friend wondered if white liberals who voted for Obama expected a “sweeping Republicans-be-damned kind of agenda” in part — and he emphasized “in part!” — because “they expect a black guy to be intemperate, impetuous, impatient” rather than “measured, deliberate, patient.”
Are there racists involved with the Tea Party? Yes, of course. Should they be called out? Again, of course. But tarring the Tea Party movement -- or the 'majority' or 'a large portion of' or whatever handy non-specific, unquantifiable fraction you like -- as racist is simply wrong. It is nothing more than a bad political tactic designed to marginalize the political opposition rather than answer to their concerns. It's the same tactic used by conservative commentators who suggested Americans protesting the US invasion of Iraq during the Bush administration were terrorist sympathizers.
Witch hunts are fruitless endeavors. Frank Rich's column demonstrates where they always wind up: wrapped in a miasma of noisome accusation and blame.
AJS@169: IANA Historian but...wait. What? Name an example of slavery being abolished and the slaves' tasks transferred to a machine. In the US and in Brazil and the West Indies when slavery was abolished the slaves' labour was replaced by ... the same people's labour but as free workers.
What was mechanised by the steam engine was cloth production in Great Britain. This was responsible for a massive increase in American slavery due to increased demand for cotton.
#173 mwsletten wrote:
"Pygmy said:
'Literacy tests of the kind Tancredo is advocating were used under Jim Crow to disenfranchise Southern Blacks. The historical context here is really fucking important, you racist shit.'
It's only 'really fucking important' if you are looking for racism to begin with. But thank you (and the other posters with their KKK references) for proving my point in your very own crude and profane way."
I've seen Tom Tancredo enough times on TV to know he's pretty damned dumb, and pig-ignorant to boot, so I suppose it's possible that he's unaware of the historical context for literacy tests. Is it likely, though? Wikipedia tells me he graduated from an accredited university with a degree in political science. I think he had four terms in Congress. If he isn't aware of the historical context, isn't that about as bad as knowing it and still making this godawful proposal?
mwsletten -
Nice long winded, useless post. Ignoring the facts doesn't make them go away. Using an example of a right-winger's "theory" of racism on the left, aside from being completely invented and unsupported, is not equal to the actual displays of racism by teabaggers and right-wingers you've been provided.
And using the argument "you'll always find racism if you're looking for it" for something that has such a clearly racist implication is just flat out despicable, you clod.
I'd also add that I'm aware of only one other motive (aside from racism) for setting literacy tests for voting: an anti-democratic contempt for the uneducated (who are generally poor). (I learned of this motive from long contact with Randians and free-market libertarians in college.)
This elitist contempt simply doesn't address the best argument for universal suffrage: whether I'm educated or not, it is simply unjust for me to have no say in decisions affecting my life as significantly (sometimes drastically) as political decisions do. Maybe that argument never came up in the meetings of the College Republicans and YAF that Tancredo attended.
AJS
No. Like I said in my post, the mechanical cotton picker is what really ended the need for a large workforce in the South. Without the 13th amendment, that workforce would have consisted primarily of African-American slaves. With the abolition of slavery, the institution of sharecropping was created in the South and was, in many respects, very similar to slavery. The economic reasons for slavery were the same reasons sharecropping was instituted. Until the mechanization of cotton farming, it was a very labor intensive crop. That change didn't come about until the 1950s and 60s. Talk to someone from the South who grew up during this time period. They can tell you just how much things changed.
So slaves can't operate machines? That's good to know. I won't have to worry that any machine made goods I buy were made by slaves.
Aaron Baker,
I see your point, and I agree.
Thanks for the info, folks.
I do not see the Constitution prohibiting secession, or even addressing it at all (which is kind of odd). And once a state secedes, the Constitution doesn't apply.
And, as I have said before, the rednecks who fear the United Nations have the clear historical precedent of the gradual federalization of the United States.
Rednecks like scootypuff have other problems.
all one must do is simply suggest that its wrong -- for a whole host of reasons -- to assume racism is the driving force behind a large, modern political movement. - mwsletten
It would indeed be wrong to assume this - but the evidence that it is at least a driving force of the Teabaggers is overwhelming.
Aaron Baker said:
Yup. I've never defended Tancredo -- he's clearly an idiot. I just don't think he's a racist idiot. Nor have I indicated in any way I believe suffrage should be dependent on anything save citizenship. Universal suffrage for citizens is the law of the land -- as it should be.
Which is why I raised that possibility in my last post. Posters here on this blog often express contempt for the liberal elitist political target of choice: ignorant, redneck, white-trash hillbillies. Putting down the ignorant, however, doesn't make posters who do so racist, it just makes them as petty, pompous and self-righteous as Tancredo. Those who do so, then accuse Tancredo of racism for doing the same thing, are petty, pompous, self-righteous hypocrites.
celtic said:
Frank Rich is a right winger? How far left must he be to qualify as a Liberal in your world?
Gee, I hope you didn't spit on anyone when you said despicable...
What purpose does an accusation of racism, or ignorance, or lack of patriotism, or selfishness, or socialism, or (add your deplorable character/political pejorative of choice here) applied to an entire group of people serve? Such assumptions about political adversaries have become the default in American politics.
Hate seems to be the only tool incumbents use anymore to whip the rank and file party supporters into a political frenzy, and news organizations -- ever the whores for a juicy controversy -- are more than willing to spread it around for everyone's viewing and listening pleasure. The level of contempt expressed for political leadership by supposedly unbiased news organizations on both sides of the political aisle leaves little room for civility, polite debate and old-fashioned good manners.
Many posters here can't wait to jump on that bandwagon. Are they serious, or are they just playing to an audience? I don't know. I've been accused of racism, affiliation with the KKK, called a 'teabagger' (that's a bad thing here I guess), etc, etc, by people who know absolutely nothing about me other than I suggested it might not make logical sense to apply the label 'racist' to a large segment of our population based on the comments and behavior -- over-hyped by our 'unbiased' media looking for something with which to fill 24 hours -- of a relatively few fanatical idiots. Simply making such a suggestion seems thin evidence for a charge of racism to me.
Does not the liberal left have its fanatics? Would it be fair to say liberals are terrorists because of the actions of a few radical environmentalists?
Not to me, and not to anyone with half a brain. That's not to say, of course, it hasn't been said by more than a few right-wing idiots willing to demonstrate their ignorance.
Anyone who wonders why our bi-partisan government can't work together to make bi-partisan decisions need look no farther than the comments posted here.
Sure and the embracing of those "relatively few" racists and the lack of denouncement of them doesn't mean a thing.
no sir
sletten,
False equivalence. The radical left is vanishingly small and mainstream Democrats are not endorsing them and virtually begging for their attention. OTOH, the radical right-wing nutjobs are the major force in the Republican Party and mainstream Republicans not only refuse to denounce the wing-nuttery, they actively encourage it through inflammatory rhetoric.
The current Republican Party is beholden to two overlapping interest groups, right-wing Christian conservatives and racists. If you don't get that, you're woefully under-informed. What color skin do you think Reagan's "wel-fare queen" had? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't pale. Research dog-whistle terms the right-wing/Republicans use to clothe their racist ideas in words that your regular American doesn't see as racist.
Rev. BigDumbChimp said:
Who is supposed to do the denouncing? Who would be required to make statements denouncing the radical fat heads to satisfy those of you who think tea partiers are racist? Tom Tancredo has already said his remarks were not intended to be racist. Tancredo claims he got his stupid idea from the suggestion of an immigrant cab driver. The cab driver was studying for his naturalization test at the time he and Tancredo conversed during a cab ride while Tancredo was traveling during his (thankfully short) presidential campaign.
Obviously Tancredo's denouncement of himself isn't enough.
A quick google search for 'national tea party' returns numerous hits. Which one represents true 'tea party patriots?' Are the organizers of the recent tea party convention in Nashville the same ones who organized the protests of Harry Reid in Nevada? I don't know.
There is a group calling itself the National Tea Party Confederation that claims, via an April 8 press release, to have consolidated local tea party groups from around the country, but I can't speak to the legitimacy of its claim.
My impression of tea partiers is a loose conglomeration of people who share a common (and legitimate in my opinion) concern for the growth in the size of our national government and the national debt along with a deep distrust of organized, professional politics and politicians.
This does not sound like a group for whom one person -- especially any professional politician -- can speak with any credibility.
So, who would you trust to make these denouncements?
Pygmy said:
Oh, so its just a matter of percentages? What percentage of membership in a group must be considered 'radical' before outsiders may attribute radical ideals to the entire group? Follow on: how do we know tea partiers have reached that percentage?
*Sigh* I thought we were talking about tea partiers.
Obviously I can't keep up with you Pygmy...
The Tea Party is fake. It was started by a GOP PR firm. It's supported by free coverage by Fox News. It doesn't even matter what the Tea Party does. All the funds raised go back to the GOP. They can whip up the kooks as well as the somewhat sane with rhetoric and lies to satisfy they're ends. All they want is to get the GOP back in power, by any means necessary. So they have a few racists, they always have. The GOP likes it that way. Fox likes it that way. They like they're base angry, even if they're unclear why. Any denunciations that have happened have been half-assed. It's intentional. Why quell the anger they created?
Wow. Screwed up THEIR twice. Lame.
sletten,
The Teabaggers are a sub-set of the Republican Party. You're being disingenuous.
The entirety of the TeaParty movement is radical. Their ideology comes from wingnutistan. You don't seem to get that, probably because you have a limited view of the political spectrum. Seriously, read a few books about the right-wing and their radical goals.
Conservatives in general are more racist than liberals. In fairness to the average conservative, teabaggers are probably more racist still.
Peter H | April 13, 2010 10:21 PM:
There you have it folks. Barack Obama is the child of an unholy mating between his Kenyan father and his Malay* step-father. His mother, I guess, only held the camera, and thus contributed no genes.
*I know all sane information says Lolo Soetoro was Indonesian. But obviously his birth certificate is fake too.
mwsletten -
Ahhh... I see... the problem is, as you describe above, that you have half a brain... along with everyone else who would take the position you have.
Thanks for clearing that up. Explains much.
Night all...
Pygmy said:
I already said this once, but it bears repeating: It is terribly amusing the level of mental energy you put into stereotyping an entire group of people so you can berate them for stereotyping.
I really hate it when someone is better at irony than me...
You lost me again; I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or disingenuous.
Scientific data from the GSS on conservatives' racism available in the thread linked at #189. Keep using your mental energy to ignore it, msletten.
You have nothing to fear, I assure you.
BTW, I just visited the National Tea Party Federation website.
The organizations three stated objectives are:
•Fiscal Responsibility
•Constitutionally Limited Government
•Free Markets
Radical, man, really radical...
Perhaps you meant radically different -- from the goals of the Liberal Left?
Keep ignoring it, mwsletten.
Wow... I can't believe they didn't just put "hatred", "fearmongering", and "racism" up on their website as objectives.
How will anyone know that's what they actually represent if they don't market it that way???
SGBM said:
I haven't ignored your point, but I believe you are ignoring mine. There are fuckhead racists in EVERY group of people -- even among liberals. The data you presented suggests roughly 20%* of people who call themselves 'liberal' agree strongly that 'blacks shouldn't push themselves where they're not wanted.' In comparison, only 10% more (roughly 30%*) of those who identify as conservative strongly agree with that statement.
I didn't do the same math for the other responses/charts, but my guess is they'll follow roughly the same pattern.
What these data do not correct for (as far as I can see) is race.
Given that the majority of blacks would identify themselves as liberals, I wonder how a comparison between liberal and conservative data would look if those questions were asked of only whites who view themselves as liberals?
Even without correcting for race, however, it's clear that an element of racism is evident among those who identify as liberal. That, however, does not mean I believe ALL liberals are racist.
Stereotyping is simply wrong. You cannot condemn an entire group for the actions or beliefs of a few. It's wrong when it results in racist attitudes, and it's wrong when it leads to politically-motivated attacks to marginalize political opponents.
* Since there is no data to tell us what percentage of the whole identify themselves as 'extremely liberal/conservative,' 'liberal/conservative' and 'slightly liberal/conservative' respectively, I averaged the three columns. I don't know if that's correct from a statistical analysis, but it made sense to me. I'm sure someone will point out my errors...
Teabaggers are frankly and openly racist:
The funny part:
strange gods @#199: When I clicked on your Huffington Post link, my anti-virus software told me the page contained a virus. :-/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004140045
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004150016
Yes, but this is a lie. No matter how much they may try to co-opt libertarian rhetoric, the "tea party" movement are not libertarian. They care about individual freedom and the erosion of civil liberties only when it actually affects them. They're outraged that the federal government might take their guns away or make them buy health insurance against their will, but they're perfectly OK with the federal government indefinitely detaining foreign "terror suspects" without trial; after all, that only affects foreigners, not True AmericansTM. And they whine about their "religious freedom" being taken away by "activist judges" and the eeeebil ACLU, when what they really mean is that they don't get to use the coercive power of government to impose their particular sectarian beliefs (usually evangelical Protestant Christianity) on everyone else. That is not libertarianism, and the tea partiers are not libertarians. Rather, they're authoritarians who are concerned only to protect the privileges of their in-group, and don't give a damn about the government oppressing people who aren't part of that in-group.
Not to mention all this "Obama is a socialist" claptrap. I'm certainly not friendly to socialism, but Obama is not a socialist. Like Bill Clinton before him, he's very much a moderate. I do have plenty of objections to the Obama administration - not least, the fact that they're still fighting the insane War on Drugs, still eroding civil liberties, and still detaining "terror suspects" without trial - but none of these things makes him a socialist. And the healthcare bill was not a "government takeover of healthcare"; if anything, the insurance mandate could more sensibly be attacked (by both socialists and libertarians) as a measure to line the pockets of existing big insurance companies.
#184 mwsletten
Umm, whomever is standing on the dais and holding the microphone at the TP rally?
And a little fun with Jon Stewart.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-14-2010/a-farewell-to-arms
Shit. That is potentially a false positive, but it very well could be a cross-site scripting vulnerability in the ad-serving network they've joined. You can blame capitalism. :)
I usually don't even see these sort of things, since I block many such ad scripts from ever reaching my computer to be scanned by my own anti-virus. This potentially makes me a Typhoid Mary. I'm sorry if I've linked to anything unsafe.
The reason I suspect it may be a false positive is that Google's own malware scan is unaware of any problem at that page. If it saw a problem there, it would report "This site may harm your computer." But of course Google's virus scanner is not perfect either.
Anyway, here is a link to the New York Times piece at the root of the story.
Walton, I posted the info from the NTPF website to rebut claims that tea partiers were some sort of uber-radical wing of the GOP with an uber-radical political agenda.
All of what you say about them in your post@202 may well be true, but none of it sounds particularly 'radical' to me...
I usually don't talk politics with my friends as I prefer their maintain their friendship, but I have friend who got on the topic of TB'ers and was on a roll because he was in the company of another conservative and was not to be stopped. He was a CEO in one of the largest communications companies in the US and is now retired in financial comfort. He claimed that the TB'ers had a point. First he shook his head about the $11 trillion cost (not sure if he meant the cost of the healthcare bill or the total debt...) but then made a comment that floored me.
"All the jobs going overseas because the company executives are un-American."
I couldn't bite back the comment that "Capitalism is all about making your business successful, but you attack them for doing their job? How does finding ways to keep a business going in a highly competitive, global economy make you un-American?"
This was a man who probably fired and cut back without a guilty conscience over his career - all in the name of the bottom line - but is passing moral judgments on those who are making the same cold decisions - to lay off Americans and move businesses overseas.
The dissonance makes my head spin. These people are so confused. Everything gets layered with a mushy emotionalism so they can no longer think through a problem logically.
Or I can just blame the HuffPo - being the notorious woolly-minded wooists that they are - for joining said ad-serving network in the first place. :)
But yes, the NYT version works fine.
Actually most of the graphs in that thread were generated with race as a control. We were generally talking about white people, so most of the graphs take only white people's views. The particular graph you refer to is one of those that isolates white people's responses.
In short, you are seeing only white liberals', white conservatives', and white moderates' racist views there.
Note also the other side of the question. 27%, 38%, and 46% of slightly liberal, liberal, and extremely liberal white people chose the strongly anti-racist response, while only 19%, 17%, and 19% of slightly conservative, conservative, and extremely conservative white people chose the strongly anti-racist response.
So conservatives tend to be more racist than liberals to a significant degree, and liberals tend to be more anti-racist than conservatives to an even greater degree.
Roughly. And they are presented there to support this claim of mine: "Obviously, I'm not saying that all right-wingers are racist, and I'm not saying that all left-wingers are not. Actually, I believe that most Republicans and most Democrats are racist against black people, though I do believe that racist left-wingers are more willing to put their racist feelings aside and work together. What I am claiming is that more right-wingers than left-wingers are racist, and if you select a racist person at random, that person is more likely to be right-wing than left."
That should satisfy your concerns about stereotyping and generalization.
We can make a similarly careful statement about the teabaggers. On the measure that "25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites, compared with 11 percent of the general public", we can make this observation:
The average Tea Party protester is more than twice as likely to be racist than the average American.
I wouldn't disagree with your analysis of the teabaggers, but it follows that most libertarians are not libertarians.
Hmmm. I suppose I shouldn't, really, try and restrict the use of political epithets to people I think actually deserve those epithets, otherwise we get into "no true Scotsman" territory - and since I'm not libertarian in all respects myself, though I'm closer to libertarianism than to any other ideology, I certainly don't have any kind of right to define the term.
But I think there are limits. It's like the term "Christian". On the one hand, considering that there are some 38,000 Christian sects in the world, with wildly divergent beliefs, many of which don't consider the others to be "real Christians", it's hard to come to any objective definition of "Christian", and therefore hard to say who is and isn't "Christian" other than by reference whether they describe themselves as such. But at the same time, would it be reasonable to say that John Shelby Spong, for instance, isn't a real Christian? I think it would. He doesn't hold any of the distinctive supernatural beliefs that make Christianity a religious faith.
So too with political ideologies. "Socialist" is another very varied epithet, which can encompass Marxists, anarcho-socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats, and a massive range of other groups. But it's fair to say that more than a few of the mainstream "socialist" parties of Western countries (the British Labour party, the Socialist Party of Germany, and so on) are no longer really "socialist" in a meaningful sense of the term, no matter how their members identify themselves. And, likewise, "libertarian" can apply to a range of people, groups and ideas, from Randian Objectivists, to individualist anarchists like Wendy McElroy, to moderates with some leftish tendencies like Ed Brayton. But when an authoritarian conservative like, say, Glenn Beck starts calling himself a "libertarian" just because he thinks taxes should be lower, and abusing the rhetoric of "small government" to feed conspiracy theories about how Teh Ebil Marxo-Fascist ACORN Conspiracy is taking over the world, that is, IMO, an abuse of the term.
Spong believes in a God which he describes as the Ground of Being. He insists that this is different from how God has usually been understood, but since no such "ground of being" exists in the natural world, it's a supernatural claim, and one not radically divergent from other "ultimately transcendent and ultimately imminent" descriptions of God that Christian mystics throughout the centuries have used.
All that remains is for Spong to identify Jesus as the Christ. And he does; the index of A New Christianity for a New World says "Jesus: see Christ Jesus." Following the dozens of links there, we find such nonsense as this:
"What human life needs is not a divine rescue. What we need is rather a life so open, so free, so whole, and so loving that when we experience that life, we are called into the reality of love. We are opened to the source of love and enter the empowering presence of love. Such a life then becomes our doorway into the infinite and inexhaustible power of love. I call that love God. I see it in Jesus of Nazareth, and I find myself called into a new being, a boundary-free humanity, and made whole in its presence. So God was in Christ, I say. Jesus thus reveals the source of love, and then he calls us to enter it."
Supernatural presence, perhaps Platonic form, of "source of love" as transcendent God. Identification of Jesus as Christ. Bonus points for identification of God in Christ. Spong is Christian.
But I agree that many self-identified libertarians are abusing the term.
SGBM said:
Okay, you're repeating the same thing I've been saying all along; there are shitbag racists in all groups. I don't see how this supports claims by other posters that the Tea Party movement is racially-motivated at its heart.
Are you suggesting Liberals are better because they are LESS racist than Conservatives? That's like the fucking Pope reassuring Catholics by saying the percentage of pedophiles among the priesthood in the church is less than that of the general population.
I'm don't buy the assumption that feeling the government favors one race over another makes one racist -- wouldn't this make the many blacks (and white liberals) who believe the government favors whites over blacks racist too?
Further, how this question was worded in the survey can have a huge impact on the results. Given the level of attention racism is getting as regards the tea party its amazing anyone who identifies himself as a tea party supporter would respond to any survey question in a way that might imply they were racist. The fact that the NYT article made no attempt to apply the term racism when reporting the survey results makes me wonder just exactly how the question was asked.
On the other hand, it's not hard to imagine at least 25% of any group is stupid and lazy enough not to pay attention to what they are doing.
Even taking for granted your supposition the statement IS evidence of racism, I'm hard pressed to get very exited about the numbers. First, this statistic says nothing about how the supposed racists would change policies to make things more 'fair.' You acknowledge there are racist attitudes even among Liberals, but suspect that Liberals are more likely to set aside their feelings and act fairly. If you're willing to give a racist leftist a pass based on their actions rather than their beliefs, then you should be willing to do the same for racist tea partiers.
Second, you said tea partiers are more than twice as likely to be racist as the average American. Another way to state this same statistic is to say slightly more than one in ten Americans is racist compared to less than three in ten tea partiers; slightly more than a small minority is still a small minority.
Either way you look at it, 25% is nowhere near a 'majority,' and even a majority doesn't mean 'all' as Pygmy would have us believe. (And she wasn't talking about just tea partiers, she was referring to ALL conservatives. Speaking of which, Pygmy, if tea partiers ARE, as you suggest, the ultra-right of Conservatives, how does this 25% figure fit? Only 25% of the truly radical Conservatives are racist? Hmmmmmmm.)
Which brings us back to my earlier question: If you are arguing an entire group of people can be condemned on the beliefs of a percentage of its members, what is the cutoff? 24 percent?
Ultimately, even if your supposition is correct -- that 25% of tea partiers harbor racist attitudes -- that means the other 75% don't, leaving little fear any racist policies would ensue should they somehow wrest power from the two established political parties and enact their 'radical' agenda.
That racism is one of the more vile problems facing our society can't be denied. But just as attitudes about God and religion are changing for the better, I choose to be optimistic about attitudes regarding racism. They are changing for the better; President Obama's election is proof.
Is there room for improvement? Yes, but progess will not result from labeling entire groups of people racist.
Again, assuming your measure is accurate, how does unfairly labeling 75 out of 100 tea partiers (or MOST conservatives) racist help progress? Racism can't be applied to groups with any accuracy. Even in individuals there isn't a yes-he-is/no-he-isn't racism point. Racism is just as much a continuum among groups as it is among individuals.
By all means, let's rid ourselves of racist policies; call out racist acts; villify the individuals who commit them; highlight the vileness of their being -- this is right and proper. Racism is a scourge; a moral disease which can be innoculated against through education, but rarely cured, and certainly not by labeling an entire group racist. Doing so makes it too easy to impugn the motives of the accuser as politically-motivated, especially when applied to a political group -- duh!
The goal should be to ensure that no one is treated unfaily based on racist beliefs, and that racism plays no role in policy making in government. Making racist charges stick to enough individual members of a group will be much more effective in this than labeling the entire group.
Unless, of course, you include among your goals discrediting political rivals...
I wasn't trying to get into an argument about Spong or Christian theology; it was just an example. I offered other examples too.
The point I was trying to make is this: the Cato Institute, for example, are genuinely consistent libertarians. They support a free market economy, and they also consistently support civil liberties. They were very critical of the Bush administration for its systematic destruction of civil liberties in the name of the "war on terror", and they have been similarly critical of the Obama administration for the same reasons. This isn't to say that I agree with Cato in all cases; I sometimes do and sometimes don't, and I think their economic positions are too extreme. (And I'm not blind to the fact that they are funded by some fairly unpleasant corporations.) But they have consistent principles which they apply, in a relatively intellectually honest way, to all circumstances.
The tea party movement, and Glenn Beck, don't have that. Rather, they use pseudo-libertarian rhetoric when it suits them, when they're railing against taxes or welfare or the healthcare mandate, or anything else which they see as threatening the liberties of True AmericansTM. But when it comes to the many serious abuses of civil liberties which have been committed by conservatives - like the Bush administration's manifestly unconstitutional detention and torture of terror suspects, say, or the fact that the corrupt and incompetent Texas judicial system keeps executing people on rather flimsy evidence, or the crazy and barbaric US policies on drug use and illegal immigration - they shrug their shoulders and ignore it, or justify these policies as being necessary to "protect America" from crime and terrorism. For them, small government only becomes important when the liberty of members of the in-group is at stake. When the only liberty at stake is that of people outside the in-groups - whether it be Muslims, or Mexicans, or people wrongly accused of a crime because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time - these fake libertarians don't give a damn. This is why they're not entitled to use the term "libertarian". Irrespective of whether libertarian principles are right, it ought to be manifest to anyone that the tea party movement does not believe consistently or coherently in libertarian principles.
Spong just isn't a great example of your point.
As to alleged real libertarians, I know some here, and they don't have the same aversion to teabaggers, or sense or whatever that you do. Some of this is still a McCain-didn't-win protest. Remember when you pushed McCain, and imagine if you didn't learn, and were still mad about it, (and if you can, try to imagine that you were also dumb enough to believe that ACORN was performing vote fraud).
Everybody is all stressed out in the US right now. Teabaggers are also stressed about losing the round. A few of them were upset about Bush. Some of them voted against B Clinton for racist reasons, let alone Obama. And there's all kinds of stupid meme shit too, self-conscious and not. You are so lucky you don't have to look at tea party yard signs.
The boss is usually the majority source of commands in one's life, a point I thought I'd seen you make but which I could not google.! Libertarianism did not develop Cato's hard right bent for many decades. What they say might be consistently something, but I would not call it liberty-seeking.