Oh goodness so much to say about this. See Why Do African-Americans Forgive So Easily? (UPDATED)
Regular readers of this blog know when I talk about the Civil War I have the following positions.
(1) I think Secession is illegal.
(2) Yes the Civil War was at it's essence about Slavery and not tariffs and federal funding of lighthouses.
(3)I often try to combat this "Lost Cause" romantic revisionist history that so many folks have.
Still this piece seems to go a tad too far. The columnist here seems not to think this argument through.
He says
"The true, spin-free, answer, obviously, is that the Republican Party would rather not risk offending mythopoetic white Southerners by calling the Confederacy what it actually was -- a vast gulag of slavery, murder and rape. As an electoral strategy, it's a fine one -- an immoral one, but a practical one, something that has worked for the Republicans for more than 40 years (though the gains it has made in the South have been tempered by losses in the Northeast and elsewhere). But what I don't understand is why African-Americans, in the south as well as the north, don't simply rise up as a collective and say: No more. That's it. Stop the veneration of evil men."
Now if anyone thinks GOP electoral gains in the South have been because of Confederate History month they are just deluded and ignorant.
However why does he not take the argument further. Why does he not call out the Democrats across the nation for their Jefferson / Jackson dinners. Both Jefferson and Jackson were slave holders. For all the talk of Jefferson wanting to get rid slavery early on he changed his tune later in life. In fact when we look at Jackson and what he did to the Indians well that starts to look like war crime. A good many people this nation celebrates pre Civil war would be "evil men" in Goldberg eyes.
The fact is the Civil War occurred and while it eliminated a evil a lot of evil came from it. A lot of suffering , destruction, and death. Most of which accrued "DOWN HERE". Further people of good will (average Americans) fought for the South (who are my ancestors) and though the cause might have been wrong they were not evil. If they are evil well we better start removing a heck of a lot of people of the money and start tearing down monuments.
I believe African Americans are a tad more sophisticated on this emotional subject than Mr Goldberg give them credit for. He also fails to note that the white South is not in some constant non thinking veneration mode of the South. For instance look at LSU and OLE Miss where our second religion is played out. That is college football. Though people of good will can disagree the LSU Tiger Confederate flags are much rarer( The LSU Tigers is named after a Civil War Regiment) and at Ole Miss they have got rid of Col Reb.
What we white southerners are trying to do is trying to find the balance here about honoring what was right and not honoring what was wrong.
The danger in Mr Goldbergs thought process is that to make the Confederacy just a a legion of "evil men" and make it politically incorrect to honor in any way has the result of leaving this history to the extremists. EXAMPLE -the League of the South.
That is not a good thing.
Every few years I go to the Vicksburg military park in Mississippi. Needless to say that was a horrible battle. The whole town was under siege.
Many years later a scene played out that we saw around the country. Many Union soldiers came South to Vicksburg to recall those days. The reunion was also held with confederate soldiers that had fought. It was truly a celebration and honoring or each other. These are people just a few decades before that were trying to kill each other.
It does seem those Union troops thought there was something to honor and to recall. I am not sure why we should have a different attitude now.
Even President Obama gets it. That is one reason why again the White House sent a wreath to the Confederate Monument at Arlington Cemetery.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Atlantic Columnist Very Concerned About Republicans, Black voters and The Confederacy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
James,
I agree with you mostly. As an avid Civil War buff I also frequently go to Vicksburg whenever I find someone who has never been that I can take. However, I at least partially disagree with some of your statements.
(1) I think Secession is illegal.
I have never thought this out before, but would initially think that if secession were illegal, it was no more so than the colonies unilaterally declaring independence. While there may be a technical difference between secession and revolution, it would seem to be splitting hairs from a practical standpoint.
(2) Yes the Civil War was at it's essence about Slavery and not tariffs and federal funding of lighthouses.
I generally agree that was the South's reason for the war, which was regrettable. I recently read Sen. Jim Webb's book Born Fighting. He stated the war was inevitable as the North and South had opposing forms of economy (industrial vs. agricultural) and had differing interpretations of the Constitution. The war could have just as easily broken out 30 years earlier when South Carolina passed the Nullification Act and was threatened with federal troops and a blockading flotilla. It may have been the immediate reason for the war, but the war/secession was coming between the North and South whether slavery was the chief issue or not.
Also, the speeches and letters of the leaders of the time (Lincoln, Grant, McClellan) seem to indicate that the war was looked at by the large majority of Northerners as a war to preserve the Union. I think Congress's passing of the Corwin Amendment in 1861 (which forbade the Constitution to be amended to outlaw slavery) also backs this up.
I think the South largely thought slavery was going to be banished and preemptively pulled out. It would have been banned eventually, but it would have anyway had the South gained its independence. I bet if the South had won or if the South had never seceded, slavery would have been outlawed in either instance by 1890 or so. What most don't realize is that slavery was LEGAL in states as far north as New Jersey even after the war was ended, as well as in most border states and Washington DC. It was also legal in New Orleans and Tennessee even after those areas were conquered by the North.
It seems slavery was much more the cause in deep south states, than border south states, and preservation of the union was the cause in much of the north, with the exception of a small number of vocal abolitionists(primarily in New England).
(3)I often try to combat this "Lost Cause" romantic revisionist history that so many folks have.
No doubt it was romanticized, but it was probably one of the last European style wars where soldiers marched up to each other, looked each other in the eyes, then fired. It kind of had on old European gentlemanly feel about it (in as much as any war can come off feeling gentlemanly). That could lead to at least some of the romanticization.
I think the article you referenced definitely goes off the deep end when it compares Nazis and Confederates. People always make these comparisons and they are simply not warranted. Maybe if Germany was attacked by the US and the US were also killing Jews (though fewer than Germany) Germany and the CSA would be in a similar situation, but the author's argument is simply a Reductio ad Hitlerum argument. Silly.
Thank Andy for your thought out resposne
I have always thought there was a difference between Secession and the Natural Law right of rebellion that has to meet certain requirements. Of course there can still be a debate if the Original rebellion was legit I suppose
I just have always found the legal principle of secession to be missing in the Governing documents. Plus it seem to get real problematic one you get past the Original 13. For example how can Louisiana secede when WE the People bought the land
As to Slavery I don't think nationwide Civil war would have broke out over South Carolina and the nullification acts. I think the issue was not so much North Versus South but the reality that the WEST was coming into play. Thus the need to take slaves there.
I get your point on the "Lost Cause" romantic stuff and that is one reason why I am so interested in it. I guess what i am referencing is some people that say the South was fighting a major battle against Tyranny and stuff.
Yep but this article really goes to the extreme. It is like he thinks there are no democrats down here that are interesting in this stuff too
Post a Comment