Recent "controversies" re the Confederate Flag have spawned the usual rhetoric re "lost causes", "state's rights" and "northern terrorism" in the defeat of the South. Oh and did we mention that slavery wasn't the "real" cause? As can be seen, the Mississippi Declaration of Secession says:
"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."
--Mississippi Declaration: A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
Gosh durn it. But that was Mississippi. Surely now slavery would not be the cause in more civilized Virginia. Here is the more measured Virginia Declaration. It would not mention slaveholding or slavery would it?
“The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention, on the 25th day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eight-eight, having declared that the powers granted them under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States." -- From the Virginia Ordinance of Secession:
Well now what can you expect from effete Virginians? We have South Carolina- but there again, the good folk are complaining about fugitive slaves not being returned and their property rights in slaves not being respected. Well what can you expect, when they gets no respect?
"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws [return of escaped slaves] to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation...
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery.." --From: South Carolina Declaration of Secession
But hey, what what about the robust state of Texas? Surely the free, independent minded folk there would not use slavery as a justification for secession? Let's see:
“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 into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. 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…
“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… ”
--FROM: Texas Declaration of Secession
Slavery was good for black people though
As for General Robert E. Lee of the very same Virginia above, he thought slavery was bad, but a NECESSARY evil, good for black people. Let’s quote him, and yes in some ways, he is not all that different from Lincoln in his attitudes re those darker brethren. Lincoln himself held racist attitudes,and wanted to initially solve the problem by shipping all blacks away. As is well known, his Emancipation Proclamation did not free single slave. So let's not beat up on General Lee as if he were some sort of anomaly. No, he was a man of his time and place. And let's not deny the courage of individual Confederate soldiers or units in fighting ferociously to preserve their "peculiar institution." But here's what Lee says in a letter dated December 27, 1856: in response to a speech given by then President Pierce:
“The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence.”Some critics say that in like manner, this reasoning would hold that the Holocaust was good for Jews because it would prepare them for better things, like getting them out of those awful European ghettoes and so on. But as for Providence, Lee skips the other side of the coin. Divine providence did not APPROVE of slavery. It used man's folly for its own ends but this is NOT approval. Likewise divine providence used the vast domain of the Roman Empire to spread the message of Christianity, but this did not mean any APPROVAL of the predatory Roman beast - far from it. In fact, Rome was the most vicious persecutor of Christians, crucifying not only Jesus but several of his disciples and killing thousands of others. One uncomfortable thought- perhaps it WAS divine providence that used the events, that finally lowered the boom on the southern slave regime an released millions from permanent bondage. In fact Abolitionists were saying such things a long time- that judgment FROM a divine hand, would come on the South for its refusal to give up slavery. Naturally, you don't hear much about this flip side from the heritage folk.
The "massive Holocaust" killed a mere 1000 Confederates..
General Sherman a "terrorist?"
OK you get the picture. It really WAS all about slavery as the central issue.. but rather than pile on more examples, let's take a look at that "terrorism" charge. According to proponents, Exhibit A was Sherman's destructive "March To The Sea" which we are told slaughtered tens of thousands and devastated tens of thousands of square miles. It was a brutal foreshadowing of "liberal" power these days, showing that Abe Lincoln was a ruthless totalitarian dictator. Here's one account. In short, Sherman's march was a veritable "Holocaust" for the south brought on by arrogant Yankee bankers and industrialists.
Er, no doubt bankers and industrialists are part of the mix but the numbers just don't square with the myth. For one thing the "brutal Holocaust" kiled comparatively few, far less than the bloody battles pursued by Robert E. Lee elsewhere. And of course there are other exaggerations.
As regards alleged "terrorism", the South was already on the ropes by the time Sherman made his long march. It was simply a matter of time before it lost. And the South was soundly defeated using the same methods every other European nation used at the time. Sherman’s March was nothing special. European colonialists frequently used harsh “three all” methods- “burn all, kill all, destroy all” to crush the resistance of native peoples, including Native Americans. So did Napoleon in various of his conquests in Europe , as did Britain in its ruthless “scorched earth” campaigns in Ireland, and many others. In WW2 Allied bombers carpet bombed massive destruction and were cheered on by white American southerners, and indeed most Americans. But respected military historian Victor Davis Hanson, a staunch pro-Westerner besides, has an interesting take on the Holocaust myth. He exposes the exaggerations but also shows that what rankled many southerners is how ordinary northern soldiers, not "rich Yankee bankers" or manufacturers etc were fighting very willingly to stop slavery. And those same ordinary men did not hesitate to lecture white southerners on WHY they were marching. Here is what Hanson has to say about Sherman:
“Yet there was a method to Sherman’s mad five-week march. He burned plantations, freed slaves, destroyed factories, and tore up railroads—but more or less left alone the farms and small towns of ordinary Southerners. His purposes were threefold: to punish the plantation class, the small minority of Confederates who owned slaves, as the culprits for the war; to destroy the Southern economy and remind the general population, as Sherman put it, “that war and individual ruin were now to be synonymous”; and to humiliate the Confederate military, especially what he called the cavalier classes that boasted of their martial audacity but would not dare confront such a huge army of battle-hardened troopers from Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and other Midwestern states.
In this context, the message was not lost: Unionists were not just New England Yankee manufacturers, but farmers who did their own hard work in harsh, cold lands more challenging than temperate Georgia; material advantages and repeating rifles were not antithetical to martial audacity, as a Michigan farmer with a Sharps rifle was more than a match for a plumed Southern cavalryman who boasted of killing Yankees.
Sherman was hated not so much because he killed Southerners: in comparison to Grant’s bloodbath in northern Virginia, probably less than 1,000 Confederates were killed during the March to the Sea. Rather, he humiliated the South by having supposedly less-audacious Northerners taunting the South to attack them on their own turf, and exposing the plantation class as hollow, showing them more willing to flee their rich and hitherto untouched plantations than to die while protecting them.”
General Sherman's weakness?
Spot on. The "flag faithful" like to put forward the notion of sinister "Yankee "bankers and industrialists as the "real" powers bent on destroying the South, but it was not weakling "bankers" marching, but ordinary white northern farmers, tradesmen etc and who as Hanson notes where whipping the Confederates on their own turf and who were "more than a match for a plumed Southern cavalryman who boasted of killing Yankees." Such things tend to get lost in the shallow "flag" debates. And it is amazing how these debates keep going when there are more important issues at hand.
I am no fan of said flag, and it is a graft added later on to some state flags. It is also unknown why the flag of a secessionist movement or separatist regime should be on government property. No government agency gave equal time to various black liberation movements who in the 1960s sought a separate state for blacks on US territory. To the contrary, the FBI, in collaboration with state and local regimes, rushed out its COINTELPRO program to crush even minor manifestations of such movements.
And the whole flag "controversy" is of very RECENT origin, not sacred icons that go back a century as assorted "heritage" proponents would have us believe. Says one writer:
“..the Confederate battle flag was largely a relic until it was revived in response to the Civil Rights Movement — first with Strom Thurmond’s “States Rights Party” in 1948, then with Georgia adopting a version in protest of Brown v. Board of Education in 1956, and South Carolina six years later — though, tellingly, the flag went up a year before the act authorizing it. For almost a hundred years, the South got on just fine celebrating its heritage without benefit of the flag. Indeed, the flag was raised over South Carolina as a result of the Civil War centennial celebration. This revival of interest in the flag was clearly all about renewed defiance of the federal government, which was finally being prodded into making good on the Civil War Amendments, and ensuring the full citizenship of African-Americans. Hence, today, the “heritage” the flag actually stands for is that of the 1960s, not the 1860s.”
Hmm, seems the "heritage" part of the story is a rather newfangled invention does it not? Still there are much more pressing issues to deal with. Marches and rallies to take down old flags are so much easier than the hard work that needs to be done on those issues, but that's another story. At least, let's clear away the "heritage" propaganda on this one.
Joint products of "racial evolution"...
LINKS TO OTHER POSTS:
Hands off the Confederate flag
Despite much more wealth than blacks, whites collect about the same rate of welfare and are treated more generously
African "boat people" ushering in European demographic decline
The forgotten Holocaust- King Leopold's "Congo Free State" - 10 million victims
Are violent minorities taking over California and the West?
Presidential hopeful Ben Carson meets and Greeks
Contra "ISIS" partisans, there have been some beneficial effects of Christianity
The social construction of race, compared to biology- Graves
Why HBD or hereditarianism lacks credibility
Leading Scientists criticize hereditarian claims
Thai me down - Thais fall behind genetically related southern Chinese, Tibetans below genetically related East Asians like Koreans and other Chinese
Time for liberals to respect "the south" ... in a way of speaking.. the south of Egypt that is..
Irony 2: touted High IQ "G-men" cannot reproduce themselves
Unz and Sowell: Unz debunking Lynn's IQ and Wealth of Nations. Sowell debunking the Bell Curve
Irony 1: touted High IQ types are more homosexual, more atheist, and more liberal (HAL)
Elite white universities discriminate against Asians using reverse "affirmative action"
Deteriorating state of white America
Racial Cartels (The Affirmative Action Propaganda machine- part 2
Hereditarian's/HBD's "Great Black Hope"
Exploding nonsense: the 10,000 Year Explosion
We need "rational racism"? Proponent Dinesh D;Souza becomes his own test case
The Affirmative Action Propaganda Machine- part 1
Two rules for being "really" black- no white wimmen, no Republican
The Axial age reconsidered - or latitude not attitide
Cannibal seasonings: dark meat on white
"Affirmative Action" in the form of court remedies has been around a long time- since the 1930s- benefiting white union workers against discrimination by employers
Mugged by reality 1: White quotas, special preferences and government jobs
Lightweight enforcement of EEO laws contradicts claims of "flood" of minorities "taking jobs"
Railroaded 3: white violence and intimidation imposed quotas
Railroaded 2: how white quotas and special preferences blockade black progress...
Railroaded 1: How white affirmative action and white special preferences destroyed black railroad employment...
Affirmative action: primary beneficiaries are white women...
7 reasons certain libertarians and right-wingers are wrong about the Civil Right Act
Social philosophy of Thomas Sowell
Bogus "biodiversity" theories of Kanazawa, Ruston, Lynn debunked
In the Blood- debunking "HBD" and Neo-Nazi appropriation of ancient Egypt
early Europeans and middle Easterners looked like Africans. Peoples returning or "backflowing" to Africa would already be looking like Africans
Ancient Egypt: one of the world's most advanced civilizations- created by tropical peoples
Playing the "Greek defence" -debunking claims of Greeks as paragons of virtue or exemplars of goodness
Quotations from mainstream academic research on the Nile Valley peoples
Assorted data debunking
Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples ... - Jelte Wicherts 2010
Why national IQs do not support evolutionary theories of intelligence - WIcherts, Borsboom and Dolan 2010
Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 91-96
Are intelligence tests measurement invariant over time? by JM Wicherts - ?2004
--Dolan, Wicherts et al 2004. Investigating the nature of the Flynn effect. Intelligence 32 (2004) 509-537
-------------------------------------------LYNN AND VANHAVEN'S IQ AND THE WEALTH OF NATIONS DEBUNKED
Race and other misadventures: essays in honor of Ashley Montagu... By Larry T. Reynolds, Leonard Lieberman
Race and intelligence: separating science from myth. By
M. Fish. Routledge 2002. See Templeton's detailed article referenced above also
inside the book
HBD "SELECTION" AND EVOLUTION CLAIMS DEBUNKED-Sarich and Miele's "Race: the reality of Human Differences"
Oubre, A (2011) Race Genes and Ability: Rethinking Ethnic Differences, vol 1 and 2. BTI Press
For summary see: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-02-18/
--S OY Keita, R A Kittles, et al. "Conceptualizing human variation," Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004)
--S.O.Y. Keita and Rick Kittles. (1997) *The Persistence ofRacial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence. AJPA, 99:3
HBD RACE EVOLUTION CLAIMS DEBUNKED BY GENETICISTS
Alan Templeton. "The Genetic and Evolutionary significnce oF Human Races." pp 31-56. IN: J. FiSh (2002) Race and Intelligence: Separating scinnce from myth.
HBD RACE AND INTELLIGENCE CLAIMS DEBUNKED
J. FiSh (2002) Race and Intelligence: Separating science from myth.
MORE HBD DEBUNKING
Oubre, A (2011) Race Genes and Ability: Rethinking Ethnic Differences, vol 1 and 2. BTI Press
Krimsky, S, Sloan.K (2011) Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture
Wicherts and Johnson, 2009. Group differences in the heritability of items and test scores
--Joseph Graves, 2006. What We Know and What We Don’t Know: Human Genetic Variation and the Social Construction of Race
J. Kahn (2013) How a Drug Becomes "Ethnic" - Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law and Ethics, v4:1