3 ms·

The weirdest thing was the drive by defense of the Confederate flag. That tipping of the hand was downright parkinsonian.

sneak 9y ago
I’m glad it wasn’t just me that had a “hold the phone” moment there.
m_mueller 9y ago
Was it a defense? I thought he meant that it's a sign of 'thar' that people have become so emotionally (1) attached and (2) opposed to it, when it should just be something to be seen in history books at most.
- DubiousPusher 9y ago
  I guess I'd agree if the conflict over the flag was between "black militants" and "white supremacists" but it's not. The conflict is between citizens who feel the public usage of the flag by their state and local governments should cease because it is not appropriate and those who believe it should not cease. In this context, claiming the flag as bit of historical inertia seems like a status quo defense. At the very least, there is a moral equivalence implied that is bonkers. Edit: I'm open to the idea that I'm over reading this particular position. As a point of style, doing a drive-by on a highly controversial subject in a persuasive essay is poor form.
dmichulke 9y ago
There are historical views stating that the American Civil War was in fact a secessionist war against an increasingly powerful federal government and that slavery was just used as one cause, obviously the most "despicable" from today's view, in an effort to legitimize an otherwise illegitimate war against secessionist states. You can see this partly in quotes from Lincoln, in constitutional law of the states (some explicitly reserved the right to leave the union) and the fact that equality before the law was not achieved until hundred years later (assuming the view point that it was achieved at all). This view results in two things: 1. The confederate flag is not a racist symbol per se (it is used as one though as is the Swastika) 2. The war was just another war about power and money, such as pretty much every other war. Just ask yourself what was the last humanitarian war you witnessed? Sources: - Google for "Abraham Lincoln Racist". It is a very much divided topic. - 2nd paragraph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_... - There was a fantastic seminar on this topic (with downloadable Audio files) by Walter Block (a Libertarian) but I cant seem to find it.
- lucozade 9y ago
  I'm not sure I follow. It may well be that the north had ulterior motives beyond humanitarianism but that doesn't take away from the fact that the explicit reason that a number of states gave for seceding was to preserve slavery. I'm not sure I get your point about the flag either. Of course, it's not racist per se, it's abstract. But it's almost exclusively flown as a symbol of pride in the confederate institutions that it represents. Those institutions were explicitly racist. As you say, it has direct parallels with the swastika. > what was the last humanitarian war you witnessed? And finally, this really doesn't take into account the period. It was not at all unusual, in the mid 19C, for countries to use military action for social aims. Now, I happen to think that an awful lot of it was on behalf of evangelism of "superior" values rather than humanitarianism. This was rife in British establishment thinking at the time and was prevalent in the northern states too. In other words, I think it's justified to believe that these actions were driven by feelings of moral superiority rather than human equality. But to suggest that they can all be understood as power plays simply doesn't fit the facts.
- DubiousPusher 9y ago
  Absolutely. The cause of the war was succession. There was no legally defined process for succession and the withdrawal of United States soldiers from the territory of succeeded parties. If there had been, would the North have fought a noble war sacrificing life and treasure to free black people? Absolutely not. For god sake, they barely passed the 13th amendment. Abraham Lincoln himself said that if he could restore the Union without freeing a single black he would. What is fiction however is that any other issue besides slavery led the South to succeed. Here are the "Declaration of Causes of Succession" made by four of the states. http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/secession.html http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/secession.html These documents were intended as equivalents to the Declaration of Independence made by the U.S. in which Thomas Jefferson outlined a list of grievances the colonists had with the king. The grievances you'll find in these documents almost exclusively revolve around slavery. The one from Texas contains this little gem. "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable." Yes, the war was about white people and their problems with each other but that does not mean the Confederacy was not a horrifyingly evil society. They desired to raise a nation founded on the principal of racist slavery. And people rightly object to being subjected to the symbols of that nation.

sneak 9y ago

I’m glad it wasn’t just me that had a “hold the phone” moment there.

m_mueller 9y ago

Was it a defense? I thought he meant that it's a sign of 'thar' that people have become so emotionally (1) attached and (2) opposed to it, when it should just be something to be seen in history books at most.

DubiousPusher 9y ago
I guess I'd agree if the conflict over the flag was between "black militants" and "white supremacists" but it's not. The conflict is between citizens who feel the public usage of the flag by their state and local governments should cease because it is not appropriate and those who believe it should not cease. In this context, claiming the flag as bit of historical inertia seems like a status quo defense. At the very least, there is a moral equivalence implied that is bonkers. Edit: I'm open to the idea that I'm over reading this particular position. As a point of style, doing a drive-by on a highly controversial subject in a persuasive essay is poor form.

dmichulke 9y ago

There are historical views stating that the American Civil War was in fact a secessionist war against an increasingly powerful federal government and that slavery was just used as one cause, obviously the most "despicable" from today's view, in an effort to legitimize an otherwise illegitimate war against secessionist states. You can see this partly in quotes from Lincoln, in constitutional law of the states (some explicitly reserved the right to leave the union) and the fact that equality before the law was not achieved until hundred years later (assuming the view point that it was achieved at all). This view results in two things: 1. The confederate flag is not a racist symbol per se (it is used as one though as is the Swastika) 2. The war was just another war about power and money, such as pretty much every other war. Just ask yourself what was the last humanitarian war you witnessed? Sources: - Google for "Abraham Lincoln Racist". It is a very much divided topic. - 2nd paragraph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_... - There was a fantastic seminar on this topic (with downloadable Audio files) by Walter Block (a Libertarian) but I cant seem to find it.

lucozade 9y ago
I'm not sure I follow. It may well be that the north had ulterior motives beyond humanitarianism but that doesn't take away from the fact that the explicit reason that a number of states gave for seceding was to preserve slavery. I'm not sure I get your point about the flag either. Of course, it's not racist per se, it's abstract. But it's almost exclusively flown as a symbol of pride in the confederate institutions that it represents. Those institutions were explicitly racist. As you say, it has direct parallels with the swastika. > what was the last humanitarian war you witnessed? And finally, this really doesn't take into account the period. It was not at all unusual, in the mid 19C, for countries to use military action for social aims. Now, I happen to think that an awful lot of it was on behalf of evangelism of "superior" values rather than humanitarianism. This was rife in British establishment thinking at the time and was prevalent in the northern states too. In other words, I think it's justified to believe that these actions were driven by feelings of moral superiority rather than human equality. But to suggest that they can all be understood as power plays simply doesn't fit the facts.
DubiousPusher 9y ago
Absolutely. The cause of the war was succession. There was no legally defined process for succession and the withdrawal of United States soldiers from the territory of succeeded parties. If there had been, would the North have fought a noble war sacrificing life and treasure to free black people? Absolutely not. For god sake, they barely passed the 13th amendment. Abraham Lincoln himself said that if he could restore the Union without freeing a single black he would. What is fiction however is that any other issue besides slavery led the South to succeed. Here are the "Declaration of Causes of Succession" made by four of the states. http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/secession.html http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/secession.html These documents were intended as equivalents to the Declaration of Independence made by the U.S. in which Thomas Jefferson outlined a list of grievances the colonists had with the king. The grievances you'll find in these documents almost exclusively revolve around slavery. The one from Texas contains this little gem. "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable." Yes, the war was about white people and their problems with each other but that does not mean the Confederacy was not a horrifyingly evil society. They desired to raise a nation founded on the principal of racist slavery. And people rightly object to being subjected to the symbols of that nation.