After the long discussions (here, here and here) of residual hatred towards the South, and the contention by many that there is no withdrawal option in the Constitution, I was reminded by Rutabaga's post today of the Bush Administration's contention that there is no Congressional power to *withdraw* an authorization of force, only to grant one.

It's a rather bizarre stance, that seemingly reasonable people would regularly enter into agreements with no thought that maybe a reasonable path of retreat might be necessary in the future. We've legalized divorce and pre-nup agreements, abortion up to 3 months, lifetime justices can be impeached, contracts can be abrogated due to "Force Majeure", project planning includes backout procedures and failure mode, war planners aside from Hitler at Stalingrad and Cortez burning his ships typically have retreat contingencies. But the folks signing the Constitution, just out of an ugly marriage and uglier divorce, with the War of Spanish Succession in recent memory, sign on in perpetuum to a new deal, don't look back, no way out. And the Consitution with its specific pointed granting of war authorization to the Legislative somehow is an up elevator only, a one-way ticket to Palookaville, to the Hotel California, where you can check out any time you want but you can never leave.

Even if the authorization for force is written in weasel words, without using that button-button-who's-got-the-button silly word "War", which usually kicks in special privileges and requirements. But no, we've gone a long time, since World War II, without specifically declaring War. Alberto Gonazales stood up in front of Congress to emphasize this point, that War had not been declared against Al Qaeda or Iraq, just an unnecessary authorization of Violence that paralleled the President's divine right to send in troops or missiles on a whim unless he/she has the perverse need to call it a "War", in which case Congress needs  to be involved, but not too much. Otherwise, just cut the check, thanks, we'll pick it up on the way to the office.

I don't know, I guess we're stuck in Young Empire stage, with people tossing out important, Consitutionally bounded arguments like, "You didn't say 'Mother may I'", "I hit the Trifecta, yum!", "It doesn't specifically say the Vice-President can't have his own government and territories", along with, "We intend to institute an extra-legal procedure for holding prisoners forever that fits within the law". Look, I can fly!!! Wheeeee!!!! We don't torture, period, therefore if you tell me we torture, you're wrong. Support the troops... Support the Commander-in-Chief... Support the bailout... Rubber and glue, rubber and glue... Stick needles in my eyes, hope to die... words will never hurt me... sleeeep, princess, sleeeeepppp.....

Once upon a time, in a kingdom far away, there was a gleaming city on the hill.

Addendum: I should add that this all started out as several diaries on war, torture and the Constitution, here, here, here and here. Been quite a busy 2 weeks for someone who said he was cutting back on posting. :-(

[Originally responded to in-line, but the software doesn't allow more than 2 URL links.]

First, I nowhere said "categorically". But there are a number of people who can't get over their notions of the South as "freaks", and I even went so far as to accept the label, though using Flannery O'Connor's phrasing, which notes that Southerners know they're freaks but also have a keen appreciation for the freak in others. The thing I love best about the South is its freakdom. And I still contend that the inability to understand the Southerners' attitudes in a slightly more wizened light makes it hard for the Democratic Party to make too much of a recovery there, whether you think that's worth anything or not.

Second, okay, Atlanta burning was a bad example, the destruction on the way to the sea is the issue there. Oleeb defends it as Sherman just doing what he had to, someone here notes it was 20% of Georgian farmland. I simple bring up the analogies - if the Israelis burn a swath through the Gaza strip or Lebanon to break the backs of resistance, the civilians' will to fight, will we accept this? Or is this a bad example - perhaps rebellions in Sri Lanka or Chiapas or the Kirin part of Burma or Chechnya or Iraq or Pakistan? Simply put, if you approve Sherman's measures there, why do you not approve similar measures elsewhere? What is our limit on Acceptable War vs. Total War, especially as regards civilians and property (and you can't disregard starvation as the result of destruction).

Third, the North helped create slavery in the US - as I noted, Massachusetts was the first state to legalize/encode slavery. I'm not aware that most Northerners understand how much slavery they were involved in, and just because it didn't take off there like it did in the South for economic/agricultural reasons doesn't give much room for moral superiority (kind of like Mark Twain taking back his stolen watermelon when a pang hit him - so he could get a ripe one instead).  More on Northern slavery here.  It's a bit telling that the Wikipedia entry on Slavery in the Colonies doesn't even mention Northern states. Yes, some people realize, but a vast portion don't.

Fourth, even on my thread the idea that States cannot secede runs rampant, and it's still a hard-coded belief for many. Oleeb (I believe) quotes Grant talking about how if the Union wasn't permanent in 1783, it was made permanent by land-grabs in Florida and Mexico, by the war in Texas, by money spent for Louisiana, and somehow by the trust of later States that earlier States would stay in. Sounds like a great Ponzi/pyramid scheme (fitting for Grant's feeble & corrupt presidency), which of course ignores the wishes of the Founding Fathers for a great deal of States Rights, and the concept that all of those concerns were gradually washed away by time and mutually shared energies without anyone saying boo about a new compact to replace the old one - till death do we part - is quite curious. I note the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, that government's power comes from the consent of the governed (here especially the States), and that it notes when that no longer is satisfactory, it is the right and duty of the governed to change it. I don't see a time-clock there, a 40-year-rule or warranty after which all rights to return damaged merchandise are voided. I may think that GOP wingnuts are silly about asking to secede over a budget deficit or a perceived socialist leader, but if a State can muster the votes to secede, sure, see ya, bye-bye. The Declaration of Independence addresses this, that "Prudence" will make it likely that people won't lightly break up a long-lasting arrangement for a temporal issue, but even so, so long, it's been real. The Founding Fathers couldn't be clearer, whatever the revisionist thinking. And it's well established that Lincoln's big concern was preserving the Union at all costs, not obliterating slavery.

Fifth, if you do approve of Lincoln's the-Republic-must-stand, please specify why you don't approve of Milosevic's the-Republic-must-stand, created under similar agreement of Balkan States. Try it both ways, if you think the issue of slavery made it imperative for the South but not for Milosevic, or if you think it was only the principle of a Contract once signed shall not be voided. What was the big principle for which Slovenia seceded? "We'd rather ski as part of the European Union". Okay, more complicated than that - changes in Yugoslavian politics meant that Serbia (the North?) would take a more dominant position, unacceptable to many of the other States. It wasn't that Milosevic had committed any atrocities at that point - it was that through Constitutional wrangling and political hardball, he'd given Serbia upper hand. So for those Unionists-at-all-costs, there was no big ground for the other Republics to secede, just because they didn't like the results of one or two elections. And for those "bring in the military" types, Milosevic's military actions to stop the secessions must be justified. Now we can wrangle over the details - would he have been justified in torching 20% of Bosnia's land but not killing civilians as Sherman did, or would collateral civilian be acceptable as in the hundreds of thousands (millions?) dying from our Agent Orange and carpet bombing in Vietnam? Or shall we say, "Don't confuse me with facts, I want to talk about abstract principles"?

Sixth - Algeria was an integral part of France for over 100 years, with Europeans there given full French citizenship. Not by Algeria's choice, but then which parts of France actually chose to be in France? Alsace-Lorraine has played hot potato several times between France and Germany, the southwest regions of Bordeaux and Gascony were for a significant time British. Considering the Colonists understanding of the horrors of European Wars and shifting tides of European nations/territories, it would be astounding if they were to write a Constitution that would assume a permanent, inviolate Republic. These people had grievances on their minds, and they weren't jumping from one frying pan into another, especially if an issue such as slavery was so heated they couldn't even get it settled without a 3/5th rule and a 20-year delay on implementation. "Yeah, we're fighting like cats and dogs now, but we'll assume in 40 years we'll have utopia with no need to worry about these spats." Sure, not likely.

Seventh, back to the Founding Fathers, many in the South in principle abhorred slavery, but frequently for practical reasons could not disown it, as suggested here. The South was built from land, the North was built from commerce and industry, and that split got worse after 1793. Nevertheless, the record shows that many Southerners prior to 1776 attempted to stop or limit the practice of slavery, including the observation of the practice in the Caribbean, that "slavery begets slavery", but England prevented a reduction. The issue of slavery persisted, and as the South's livelihood and land became more and more bound to it, the issue could no longer be separated from the threat to its existence. In a way, it's similar to the Opium addiction the English left the Chinese with in the 1800's.

Eighth, I also pointed out Hofstader's article on white indentured servitude/slavery in the New World, an occurrence that would likely make many whites accept slavery because they'd been through it themselves, and the end of which prompted a need for a replacement system, which was ripe for adopting the English slavery in vogue elsewhere. While the American numbers for slavery by the mid-1800's were horrid, US slavery was still only 1/10th of the slavery in the Americas, a startling detail that I don't think most are aware of, just as the slavery (not just extermination) of indigenous peoples of America is often forgotten.  Slavery didn't end in Brazil until 1888, though importation from Africa had started to decline 10 years earlier.

Ninth, the 3/5th rule is often used to illustrate the South's inhumanity vis-a-vis slavery, though it's a bit similar to Clinton's "definition of is is" - it was response to someone else's construction. In this case, the North came up with the weird equation to keep the South from having more votes due to slave population. This skirted the real issue of why a slave could count as a vote when not allowed to vote, though as far as I know the same peculiar attitude existed for women and children - they were simply part of the man's household. The case for women wouldn't be settled until 1920, and 18-20 year-olds finally got the vote in 1971. AFAIK, the rights of Indians weren't much discussed.

Tenth, as for events after the Civil War, that requires a whole different analysis, because you can't dismiss the effects of that war in modifying and hardening positions, in destroying the economy, perverting their feelings, etc. It's much easier to discuss who these people were and their concepts and morals and consciences before the conflagration.

Finally, this subject is not to "excuse" slavery, but to contextualize it, something severely lacking.

"To contextualize is not to excuse," says Rutgers University historian Jan Lewis. "It's to show the complexity." Understanding the early leaders' severe lapse in judgment over slavery, say Lewis and other historians, makes their ability to found a new and democratic nation all the more incredible.

The Founding Fathers hoped slavery would slip away eventually, much as the politicians and engineers hoped the levees around New Orleans would hold a few decades more. Foolish optimism, and neither saw their Category 5 hurricane, in the South's case the cotton gin that sealed their success and their devil's bargain. Nevertheless, the North in victory, much like the Bush Administration post-9/11 and post-Katrina, has rewritten its part in the catastrophe to blame everything on others, to disavow any role, that all its political intentions were pure. The facts remain - Massachusetts was the first to legalize slavery, and a number Northern states quickly followed. (Pennsylvania had the good taste to ban it, and then unfortunately legalized it 12 years later). Recently reformed sinners often carry less weight in argument than those who held to principle from the beginning, but in the 1700's, few around the world were without sin. Judging from our land theft, wars and ethnic cleansings of the first half of the 19th Century, it's easy to see we weren't so spotless then either. As Prince would say, just a Sign o' the Times.

Hopefully all this verbiage will help people understand the South - and the North - a bit better.

Addendum: Oleeb and others contend that there was no right of secession, but three states - New York, Rhode Island and Virginia - explicitly included secession rights in their acceptance of the Constitution, and as that link notes, secession had been discussed by many states over various issues long before the Civil War. Secession was an assumed right by states, but those 3 wanted to make it crystal clear. Unfortunately, despite all the obvious signals and written statements at the time, 2 centuries later it's still being debated.

Sample Signing Statement of Ratification (note the reference "derived from the people" as denoted in the Declaration of Independence, and like the "all powers not explicitly granted" clause of the Constitution denotes that any power granted "may be resumed", and that "every power not granted thereby remains":

...the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will...

If the members of the Union did not agree that this ratification and specifically this written clarification of the terms of ratification fit with what was written in the Constitution, that ratification should have been rejected at the time. Three of 13 new states asserting this is extremely strong prima facie evidence. Before someone argues that "if it's not written in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist", Supreme Courts have been arguing ever since ratification about the specific interpretations of various terms of the Constitution and its Amendments, without most of these validations of intent being further added into the Constitution in more explicit, verbose language. If I sign a contract with a German company to be adjudicated under the laws in Atlanta, Georgia, and I qualify my signing by explicitly writing in my acceptance, "this is to ensure that under disagreement, I will not have to travel to a German court in Germany", the contract does not have to be rewritten as long as all the parties accept that that's a valid interpretation. If they disagree and do not voice their disagreement, then they have not co-signed in good faith and the contract is likely either null and void or will be interpreted as expressed in my signing statement.

Addendum 2: It would seem odd that anyone in 2009 could regard land claims, permanent borders and other attempts as eternal national and geographical truths as anything but wishful thinking. Poland shifted 100 miles to the west after WWII. Israel/Palestine is still renegotiating land partitions for the last 60 years, Britain arbitrarily plucked Kuwait out of Iraq 90 years ago, while the rest of the Middle East's borders were hurriedly scratched in, Holland perversely tossed Irian Jaya to the budding independent Indonesia 50 years ago, Yugoslavia dissolved messily over the last decade, Czechoslovakia split amicably, the Soviet Union broke up with territory arguments continuing in the Caucusus, Scotland got governmental powers devolved from Britain, Belgium continues to go through ethnic/Constitutional crisis, China keeps its claws on Xinjiang and Tibet, regained Hong Kong properly after 100 years, and now has its sights on Taiwan (which has gone between independence, Japanese and Chinese ownership over the years). We plucked Panama out of Colombia so we could build a canal, Bolivia and Ethiopia have had their wars trying to get some seafront, and so on. The US had the luxury of ethnic cleansing to make sure no serious claims against stolen property would occur later, and some of the land gains were more or less on the up-and-up serious real estate deals (Alaska and the Louisiana Purchase especially) versus our thefts elsewhere. Bolstering the premise of our inviolate Union because we stole a lot more land later is kind of a thieves' bargain - one gets caught, we all get caught - more than a legal premise.  Most troubling is if we try to carry some principle out of this to other nations composed by agreement - Italy, Germany, Spain, etc. Should Spain accuse Catalonia of high treason because it's pushed for and gained greater independence? Should the United Kingdom punish Scotland rather than acquiesce to its wishes? At a time when the world is evolving better and friendlier solutions to altercations, we have people still basking in the primitive urge to violence to settle all complaints. I guess that seemed like the easier solution, as long as someone else's land and culture was destroyed. Russia would likely agree, Iraq perhaps not. Though seems like Russia became a bit testy when terrorists/freedom-fighters started sticking it to *Russian* territory. Can give but can't take, it seems.

Addendum 3: As I stated above, Brazil gave up slavery in 1888, even though it was still rapidly increasing it after the Civil War. In practical terms, we saved perhaps 15-25 years of slavery by carrying out the bloody Civil War, and got to deal with its repercussions instead. Europe had already moved on before the war, the North had already moved on, and it was simply a matter of time. In the 90's Clinton isolated Milosevic and he was gone in 10 years. In 2003 Bush decided to own Hussein, and instead we own Iraq. Wars have consequences. Violence is often a choice, not a necessity.

Addendum 4: Should have put in  a reference to Jade's post to make it easy to hop back and forth. Here it is, for posterity now that this is a dead thread. But Quinn's long mesmerizing synopsis should live on - summarized by "What if the United States has become the Old South". New Empire, Old South. Brilliant.  

Having called Lincoln chickenshit yesterday, seems I can go me one better.

It appears that there's something Republicans and Democrats can finally agree on after all - we are chickenshit. Sen. Ben Nelson speaking for the Democrats agrees with Sen. John Kyl speaking for the Republicans: Just the idea of bringing the "bad guys" to America for a maximum security trial or tribunal gives us the runs [and hides]. Maybe we can put them at the North Pole inside Lex Luthor's walls of ice, or a deep hole bored into the Earth's crust, or sealed up in a Kryptonite vault, or perhaps on the Dark Side of the Moon. Bipartisan hysteria for these post-partisan times.

You'd think that spreading the word among terrorists that "Americans are pissing their pants as we speak" would be bad PR, that we're so scared shitless of these funky guys in their pancake brown Pakol hats that we won't even let them inside our borders after being shackled and hobbled and blindfolded for 6 years just to find an excuse to string them up. And this comes on Memorial Day, when we're supposed to remember all those brave and heroic acts in time of warfare, the people who throw themselves on hand grenades, drag buddies out of a firefight, parachute behind enemy lines to blow up targets and free prisoners, march hundreds of miles under full pack, horrid weather and enemy fire, who go on patrols just to see whose fire they'll draw that day...

Perhaps we need to get Arnie out to publicly declare that Terminator II was only a movie, that he's really not an invincible cyborg and that his stalker really can't turn into molten metal and back to human form in seconds. Perhaps we need a Congressional psychologist to walk our representatives through their post-9/11 trauma, so they can stop blubbering like babies when the lights go out and stop writing legislation that starts with, "I hope Mummy and Daddy will be around forever to keep me safe and sound...." I finally start to understand why these people turn to trembly jello when they see a man or a woman in uniform. They are stark fucking petrified. Crap, you can probably whisper "boo" in the Capitol Building and they'll be jumping out the windows. And these assholes are writing our laws, conducting "oversight" of our institutions. OUR REPRESENTATIVES. My God, what have we chosen, how far down can we go? I used to think this was all partisan posturing, but no, they're dead serious. No wonder they support torture. They'd support nuclear annihilation if it would make their bad nightmares go away. Briefcases full of unmarked bills, virgins in paradise, scrapping the Constitution - anything, just make the bad guys go away!!!

Get these people some help. And get 'em out of government service, quick. They reflect badly on all of us.

I've had this argument on OpenLeft as well, and the rampant hatred towards the South and ignorance about a number of pertinent issues remains a sticking point to developing intelligent discourse, civil relations, as well as regaining a decent Democratic following in the South. You see, it's hard to get people to listen to you when you tell them time and again they're traitorous genocidal freaks. I know it's hard to believe but some people have thin skins that way.