Confederate Apologists Have No Business in Government!

Great Debates
1

In today’sWashington Post, John Ashcroft, nominee for Attorney General, is quoted as saying to a pro-Confederacy magazine, “you’ve got a heritage…of defending Southern patriots like Lee, Jackson, and Davis.” What is it with conservatives defending the Confederacy and, by extension, slavery? As anyone who reads this board knows, I am extremely conservative, but I draw the line at defending the forced servitude of millions of men, women, and children. True conservatism should stand for economic freedom from the intrusion of government, not defending a monstrous system best left buried in our history. Conservatives should be for limited government, sweeping away unnecessary regulations, and the ultimate support of personal liberty, a la Friedrich Hayek and Robert Heinlein.

What I want to know is
a)Why the GOP seems nostalgic for the good old days of whippin’ slaves

b)How can Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jeff Davis be considered patriots? They declared war on the US, for heaven’s sake!

c)What the philosophy of free minds and free markets has to do with a pack of small-time race-baiters like Ashcroft, DeLay, and Helms?

2

I’m a fiscal conservative and I don’t do that. You are by your own admission “extremely conservative” and you don’t do that. I don’t think you can take the position of a few Southern conservatives and impute it to all conservatives or to the GOP.

They don’t. See above. Maybe you should ask why some Southerners seem nostalgic for the antebellum period. The best answer to this I’ve ever found is the book Confederates In The Attic.

Their “patriotism” was not to the U.S., obviously, but to their native states and, by extension, to the Confederacy. They were all of them (well, at least two out of three – I can’t say for Davis) acutely aware of their duty to the U.S.; they just felt it was trumped by their duty to Virginia.

A “free market” philosophy is entirely consistent with less centralized government and more power to the states – i.e., states’ rights. Ask a nostalgic Southerner what the Confederacy was fighting for and that’s the answer you’ll probably get – states’ rights. Which has nothing to do with “race-baiting,” of course.

3

If the sole legacy of the Confederacy were the oppression and suppression of the black population, your post would be 100% on target.

Unfortunately, to quote Richard Leakey in a statement about human evolution (see David B’s article) that my wife and I quote to each other once a month on average, “It’s more complicated than that.”

One of the principal reasons for the secession movement of 1860-61 and the formation of the Confederacy in the first place was the defense of states’ rights. And while we children of the 1950s and 1960s (to say nothing of those who came after) see that idea tainted by segregationism and the continued oppression of blacks, there is a good side to it.

I like the idea that New York’s laws are made by a legislature from that state, not imposed by people from Nevada, Missouri, Mississippi, and Ohio. I like the idea that Nebraska can experiment with having a one-house non-partisan legislature. I like the idea that Vermont can approve of same-sex unions, and my beloved Senior Senator can do nothing about it but have apoplexy. And I think that the men in Helena have a lot better handle on what laws Montana needs than the U.S. Congress, seven-eighths of whom have never been there and half of whom would prefer keeping it that way.

There’s a culture, a regional pride, wrapped up in the Confederacy mystique. And that’s not all bad. (Cf Lynyrd Skynyrd) And the men the Confederacy fans choose to respect were honorable men, who were not interested in slavery but in their own states. Lee freed his slaves before any Union general who had owned them did (and there were several who did). Jackson was a staunch Christian of high moral rectitude, at least as hard on himself as he was on others. Beauregard was a man in whom chivalry had nearly its last gasp. They do not honor the petty politicians, the anti-black bigots, the hatemongers, but the men whom history cast on the losing side because they felt their honor called them to support it.

That’s far from a total defense of them. And my personal distaste for Ashcroft is little mitigated by knowing this. But it’s a point worth considering. The original of Jubilation T. Cornpone is one parody of a Southern politician. But there were some men worthy of your respect running around south of the Potomac too.

4

From today’s Washington Times:

It has been common in southern society to be able to separate what some consider to be valorous components of the Confederate South from the less appealing aspects. Why is it so difficult for some to understand that a person (yes, even a politician) can say something respectful and nice about a very emotional and complex piece of US history without people assuming they are pro-slavery or anti-black?

This is no big deal…except for those who would try to play the race card to score political points. It is extrememly disingenuous. Even the Missouri chapter of the NAACP, as well as other local black politicians and others, know and have stated on the record that in their belief there in not a single racist bone in Ashcroft’s body. His record does not bear it out.

But mention the Confederacy and watch all the race-baiters come out of the woodwork.

5

The Confederacy was founded and supported by traitors. By extension, those who now support them are also traitors. If they are so damned fond of the “good ol’ days” they should secede. And,this time,we should let them.

“State’s rights” is a bullshit red herring. Using the same logic, we should have never entered WWII because we claim to respect the autonomy of other nations’ governments.

6

I liked the Simpsons take on this when Apu of Quikie-mart fame is taking his citizenship exam:

Try reading Shelby Foote’s book on the Civil War. Then come back and tell me with a straight face that Davis, Lee, and Jackson weren’t good people making the best out of a bad situation and Lincoln wasn’t, in fact, a ruthless despot.

7

I’m a Southerner born and bred; my folks owned slaves on a small farm in Bethlehem, Tennessee and fought for the Confederacy. There has, indeed, always been a nostalgia for the moonlight-and magnolias popular idea of Confederate chevaliers against the Yankee poltroons. Being romantic doesn’t make it right.

Despite historical revisionism, the central issue of the war wasn’t states’ rights; that had been settled by the nullification controversy in the 1830s. The Confederate states seceded from the Union because they believed that Lincoln’s election was the first step in a Northern attempt to outlaw slavery and/or prevent its extension to Western states. Lincoln initially fought the war to preserve the Union, but inevitably the question came down to the existence of slavery. To argue that slavery was not a central issue of the Civil War is to ignore the internal struggles that led to the compromises of 1820 and 1850; Bleeding Kansas, and Harper’s Ferry.

States’ rights was a dead letter until the 1950s when segregationists like George Wallace and Theodore Bilbo used it as an excuse to ignore Brown vs. Topeka.

My own opinion was that Marse Robert was a good man and a great general who served an evil cause out of misguided loyalty. I think it is possible to admire the skills and character of some Confederate figures; I do not think that the Confederacy itself was anything other than an a treasonous attempt to preserve an odious system, and no governement official ought to speak favorably of a way of life that meant death and misery for millions.

8

Quite a few people on this thread know more about the Civil War (pardon me, do you mind if I shoot you?) than I do. Wasn’t Lee at West Point when the call came? IIRC, he almost spent the war wearing blue, which would have shortened the war considerably, as he was a fine general.

But what gets me is the displaying of the Confederate flag. That flag LOST! If I marched under it I might keep one in a little shrine at home, but to publicly display a defeated banner? I’ve got too much pride for that!

For a little humor…

9

**

Let’s not forget Jefferson or Washington while we’re at it.

**

Well surprise surprise conservatives are not for these things.

**

Because these days an awful lot of Republicans are from the south. And being from the south I bet an awful lot of them had relatives who were involved in the war. It wasn’t so long ago that the south was controlled by the Democrats. I’d wager that most southern monuments you see in the south were erected while the Democrates were in power.

**

Life in the states was a wee bit different back then. A lot people thought of themselves as New Yorkers, Virginians, or New Englanders before they thought of themselves as Americans.

Since when did conservatives give a rats ass about free minds or free markets?

Marc

10

Which is how I might have put it if, while growing up in Virginia, I had not come to the conclusion that all Confederate apologists should be hung for the traitorous dogs they are.

11

In the same sense that George Washington and friends were traitors to england. Nonsense.

12

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by goboy *
**What I want to know is
a)Why the GOP seems nostalgic for the good old days of whippin’ slaves

b)How can Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jeff Davis be considered patriots? They declared war on the US, for heaven’s sake!

[QUOTE]
**

I also find it repulsive that a public figure would consider Lee et al patriots. I am more concerned, however with Ashcroft’s vigorously enforcing laws to which he is heavily opposed on religious grounds (i.e. statutes to protect those exercising the right to abortion).
Actually, the Democratic party has historically harbored far more Southern sympathizers. I am not a Republican, but the last time I checked there was nothing in the party platform saying that slavery was a good thing.**

None of these men are favorites of mine by a long shot. But what specifics can you cite that they are “race-baiters”?

If Ashcroft is to be questioned at all for his views on the Civil War, I would try to discover to what extent he is capable of free thought and study, rather than buying in to the demonology and mythology promulgated by Confederate apologists.

"Old times there are not forgotten
Whuppin’ slaves and sellin’ cotton
And waiting for the Robert E. Lee
(it was never there on time)

  • “Dixie”, by Tom Lehrer
13

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by goboy *
**

It is hardly revisionism to say that the Civil war was fought over states rights. If you read what the leaders of the confederacy said wrote about what they were doing at the time, slavery isn’t even mentioned. The slavery angle was more of a side issue, and was used as propaganda to stir up support for the north. I’m glad as a result of the war slavery was done away with, but from the considerable amount I have studied on the subject, I think the issues were more along the lines of unfair representation, states rights, and tariffs.

14

If I recall correctly, he was out of west point and already pretty high up the food chain in the U.S. military when the war started.

15

Oh pooh. Go here:
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html
for the “cornerstone speech” given by the vice president of the CSA.

In it he says:
**But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other – though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution – African slavery as it exists amongst us – the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. **

He continues:
**Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery – subordination to the superior race – is his natural and normal condition. **

Also in his inauguration speech Jefferson Davis said they were seceding to protect their investment in their property, which was definitely code for slaves. You can shout states-rights all you want, just like Strom Thurmond did when he ran against Truman, but you aren’t fooling anybody.

16

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by bdgr *
**

So, are you referring here to Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens’ 1861 speech at the Georgia Secession convention in which he said, “Our new government’s . . . cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition . . . This, our new government, is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical and moral truth”? (Throughout the rest of the speech, he praised the Union government for its accommodation of the slave trade!)

Or maybe you’re referring to Article IV, Section II of the Confederate Constitution, which states that “The citizens of each State . . . and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired”?

Or Article IV, Section III, which states, “The Confederate States may acquire new territory . . .
In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate
States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”

No, wait, I know–you’re thinking of the Texas Declaration of the Causes for Secession, which said, “Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people . . . She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time . . . In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law . . . 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. That 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.”

Actually, it has to be the Mississippi secession declaration, which stated, "In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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 . . . [The Union]has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion . . . Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England."

Please let’s not be disngenuous. Slavery was the “state’s right” which the Confederates most desired to uphold.

17

Oh pooh. Go here:
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html
for the “cornerstone speech” given by the vice president of the CSA.

In it he says:
**But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other – though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution – African slavery as it exists amongst us – the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. **

He continues:
**Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery – subordination to the superior race – is his natural and normal condition. **

Also in his inauguration speech Jefferson Davis said they were seceding to protect their investment in their property, which was definitely code for slaves. You can shout states-rights all you want, just like Strom Thurmond did when he ran against Truman, but you aren’t fooling anybody.
JDM

18

At the time Lincoln was elected and all the furore started, Lee was in command in the Southwest, I believe of Union troops in Texas.

Lincoln either offered him, or intimated that he would offer if Lee would be willing to accept, command of the Union Army. Lee declined with thanks, indicating that his first allegiance was to Virginia.

One wishes Harry Turtledove would write that novel – Lee in charge of the Union Army would have made some amazing changes in what happened in 1861 et seq. – not to mention reshaping Reconstruction out of any semblance of what we know today – with the consequences that would raise over the next hundred years.

19

Just one quick point…no sane person doubts that the slavery question was a significant point, even a key point, in the issues at stake in 1860. The point Jodi and I tried to make is that it was not the only issue, that the Republican desire for centralized government imposing its view of goodness on the states was rebelled against by the Southern states for reasons other than protecting slavery. (There’s irony there in the complete flip of the two parties on this question over a century.)

Anybody who wants to say that slavery was the primary issue for the war is not wrong. But it was not the only issue, and it carried with it a lot of other baggage, some of which good people of all political persuasions might find sympathy with despite their loathing for slavery or for any discrimination on the basis of race.

20

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by goboy *
**

Nobody is saying it wasn’t a central issue; they’re saying it wasn’t the central issue.

I’m a northerner, but it just amazes me how otherwise intelligent people will be able to discuss the underlying socio-economic reasons for the American Revolution and discuss how Hitler’s rise was a product of the financial ruin of 30’s Germany, but ask them about the Civil War and they are wilfully ignorant of any thought that goes deeper than “Southerners are racists who wanted slavery.”

For the North it was about stopping slavery in the south. For the South it was about stopping the North from telling them what to do. Anybody who can’t understand how people can disagree over what they’re arguing over has obviously never been married.

Read what the Confederate leaders-- and for that matter the union leaders–said and wrote about the war, about what their motivations were and their thoughts were of blacks and slavery. You will see the Confederates saying it wasn’t about slavery. And you will see Lincoln, for the first year of the war, saying it wasn’t about slavery.

Oh, but why bother screwing up our opinions with facts. It’s so much more fun to flatter our forbears and insult others’ with manufactured stereotypes.