"North" Versus "South": Justices and Judges Edition
A comment made elsewhere in the ongoing "Southern" battle deserves further examination and refutation because it shows, in my opinion, a lack of understanding with regard to the Supreme Court -- something that we are seeing with the overheated Republican reaction to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the high court. The comment suggests that "northern" justices were responsible and deserve derision for one decision and "southern" justices have been overlooked and deserve credit for another. (That is the argument boiled down to its essence.)
Recently, we've read a similarly structured argument about slavery: that "the north" started it. (FACT: Jamestown, Virginia was the first US colony to accept 20 slaves as payment for repair supplies from a slave ship damaged off the shores of Jamestown. That started this country's long and painful history with slavery.) [AUTHOR'S NOTE: See sidebar, below.]
Although some would point to the distinction of "legalizing" slavery came first in the North as justification for its continuance in the south. I would retort that in the game of "geographic who's more guilty," Virginia once again upped the ante by changing the initial "legalization" from what amounted to "indentured servitude" from which descendents of slaves could be born free, into enslavement into perpetuity, for not only the slaves but all of their descendents for always and forever. (Even those determined to have just one drop of Negro blood.)
But (if you want to go there) the point is not who started it, but rather, who ended it.
The eleven states that chose to forcibly secede from the nation (and had to be forcibly returned), in part at least to preserve their "heritage" of slavery, will always be remembered for that. Just as Arizona will always be remembered as the last state to approve the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday.
(This argument reminds me of pleading with my parents that I was not as culpable as a sibling when we were bickering over this or that, because he or she "started it." An argument that got no traction then, and gets none now.)
The variation on the "he started it" argument now comes with the suggestion that Plessy v. Ferguson (the "separate but equal case later overturned by Brown v. Topeka B.O.E., which is included in this variation on a theme) was decided by a majority of justices from "the north," and that Brown was decided by justices from the South.
Let me state that this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial system -- particularly the appellate court system -- in this country. Trial courts are the finders of fact. To the extent that geographic location might play a part in the outcome of a case, it would be at the trial level.
From US Courts.gov: "The federal courts often are called the guardians of the Constitution because their rulings protect rights and liberties guaranteed by it. Through fair and impartial judgments, the federal courts interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes. The courts do not make the laws. That is the responsibility of Congress. Nor do the courts have the power to enforce the laws. That is the role of the President and the many executive branch departments and agencies."
At the appellate level, particularly the federal appeals system, the facts of the case have already been determined, and the case is within the juridiction of the appeals court if the matter is a:
- Case that deal with the constitutionality of a law;
"State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions. Their interpretation of federal law or the U.S. Constitution may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may choose to hear or not to hear such cases." (Also from US Courts.gov.)
"For example, in the
United States, both state and federal appellate courts are usually restricted to examining whether the court below made the correct legal determinations, rather than hearing direct evidence and determining what the facts of the case were. Furthermore, U.S. appellate courts are usually restricted to hearing appeals based on matters that were originally brought up before the trial court. Hence, such an appellate court will not consider an appellant's argument if it is based on a theory that is raised for the first time in the appeal." (From Wikipedia/)From US Courts.gov: The Founding Fathers of the nation considered an independent federal judiciary essential to ensure fairness and equal justice for all citizens of the United States. The Constitution they drafted promotes judicial independence in two major ways. First, federal judges are appointed for life, and they can be removed from office only through impeachment and conviction by Congress of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Second, the Constitution provides that the compensation of federal judges "shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office," which means that neither the President nor Congress can reduce the salary of a federal judge. These two protections help an independent judiciary to decide cases free from popular passions and political influence."
So the decisions handed down by the appellate courts, as well as the Supreme Court, are not dictated by the home state of the judges or justices presiding. That is because the judges and justices are responsible for the interpretation of a range of laws and at the US Circuit Court of Appeals, each of the 13 districts may hear cases from a number of states.
Now, could we, by some stretch of the imagination arrive at the conclusion that "home state" influence plays a part in the role of impartial judgement of the constitutionality of a ruling or (without being circumlogical) equal protection under the law? No. Although judges and justices on both the federal appeals bench and the Supreme Court may come from various geographic locations, and their alliances may morph into stranger configurations than an amoeba, the fact that they are limited in the scope of what may be considered to render a decision prevents this geographic alignment.
In short, we cannot come to some conclusion that our country's tawdry racist past is the fault of one region over another. We can argue -- and history supports -- that the eleven states which opted to secede from the union did come from one section of the country. We can argue that the de jure segregation which plagued this nation for the century after Emancipation was centered in one region of the country. We can categorically state that although de facto segregation was pervasive throughout this country, north and south, its most despicable displays were in one particular region of the country.
This is not a question of who started it. It continues to be a question of who ends it. And when.
SIDEBAR
From the Washington Post, by Courtland Millow, September 6, 2006:
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/05/AR2006090501288.html)
"There came . . . a Dutch man-of-warre that sold us 20 negars."
-- from the diary of John Rolfe, a tobacco farmer in
Jamestown, Va., in 1619
And so began slavery in America -- with the first 20 Africans being referred to with a word that retains its sting some 400 years and 30 million African Americans later.
As Jamestown begins a commemoration of its founding in 1607, this less-than-cheery subject poses a special challenge for party planners. Jamestown is distinguished as the first permanent English settlement in what would become the United States; but it was also the first to achieve what historian Paul Johnson called "self-sufficiency through the sweat and pain of an enslaved race." [...]
The museum exhibit, on the other hand, may not offer such an easy out. A group of transatlantic researchers has finally put a face on those anonymous 20. And as more is learned about how their stories began, there will be no escaping the pain of their tragic end. The slaves were from Angola, in Southwest Africa. Their homelands were the kingdoms of Ndongo and Kongo, regions of modern-day Angola and coastal areas of Congo. They were entrepreneurs, a literate and morally upright people who held family in the highest regard. They were renowned for preparing their children for adulthood -- and the tradition persisted even after the slave ships began to arrive.
Thanks to the researchers, what had been a central feature of slavery -- the dehumanization of the black slave -- has finally been personalized for the first of the millions who would follow.
Jade:
Good post.
Two good examples of courageous federal judges from the south who took a large role in "ending it" are: (1) Hugo Black, appointed by FDR to the Supreme Court in 1937. Justice Black, who briefly was affililated with the KKK in the 1920s in order to further his political career, nevertheless became a staunch member of the liberal wing of the Court for 34 years, took part in the unanimous Brown v. BOE decision and late in life urged the Court to abandon "all deliberate speed" in favor of "desegration now," and (2) Frank Johnson, a district judge later appointed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals by Jimmy Carter. Judge Johnson played a big role in enforcing the Brown decision on the local level, even enduring death threats.
May 28, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We can argue -- and history supports -- that the eleven states which opted to secede from the union did come from one section of the country. We can argue that the de jure segregation which plagued this nation for the century after Emancipation was centered in one region of the country. We can categorically state that although de facto segregation was pervasive throughout this country, north and south, its most despicable displays were in one particular region of the country.
This is not a question of who started it. It continues to be a question of who ends it. And when."
Good point. Good post.
May 28, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not a question of who started it. It continues to be a question of who ends it. And when."
Yeah
May 28, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first slaves came into Virginia, but within 5 years they were coming into Boston, and in terms of States recognizing the institution of slavery, legalizing it is more important. And most of the early states legalizing it were in the North. This doesn't diminish Southern guilt, it simply increases Northern guilt. Can that be clear for once? And there was indentured slavery before black slaves arrived in Virginia, the practice of indentured slavery for much of the white population that arrived in the New World.
In terms of who ended it, yes, Northern states ended the practice of slavery quite a bit earlier than the South, though continued to profit in a big way via shipping of finished cotton goods, tariffs, port preferences, et al. That many were willing to take an economic loss in the end to rid the South of slavery is commendable. Whether the North would have ended it early if there was a good economic use is another question. Southern states further north like Virginia had significantly smaller slave population than Deep South states like Mississippi and South Carolina where cotton harvests were much greater. King Cotton ruled back then.
In terms of some supposed level playing field of justices, why do you think Bush went to such efforts to try to pack the Supreme Court - say with Harriet Myers? Why did Republicans up the court from 9 to 10 in 1862, drop it from 10 to 7 in 1865-1867, and then raise it back up to 9 justices? No regional or political slant in those moves I'm sure. The disastrous anti-Civil Rights slant of the Supreme Court in the last quarter of the 1800's is well documented. Now, why is the 9th Circuit Court considered very liberal? How come the DC Circuit Court is considered conservative? Why do we have articles like this:
Court cases are typically appealed to the the circuit court in which they reside, unless shopped around by the Federal Branch (Marcie Wheeler and bmaz suggest that Bush & Co. made the mistake of forum shopping torture cases to Vaughan Walker in the 9th because they detected a specific important sympathy for one of their points, though the end result is likely not enough sympathy for their liking).
Maybe I'm missing your point, but it seems like you're saying that appeals courts don't take on the local flavor, have no geographic biases, which would be at extreme variance with what we observe. Or did I miss something?
May 28, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
your appearances here seem to have become slightly paranoid and more reactionary, Desidero, as well as tiresome and utterly predictable in their puerilness and dead-end commentary (uh huh, nuh uh, uh huh, nuh uh...).
methinks you dost protest (and post) too much. very few people in these parts hate the South, yet you write as if everyone does. what are you really trying to prove and to whom are you actually trying to prove it?
also, your facts might prove more useful if they were not so closely attached to some kind of Lost Causeismness.
May 29, 2009 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your comments might be interesting if you addressed one fucking thing that I wrote.
May 29, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it's not a question of who started it, why so much real estate about who started it?
May 28, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because many people on "progressive" blogs toss around Southerners-as-Nazis phrasing without noticing that plenty of Northerners actively participated in slave owning, including some figures I published about high slave ownership in New York City in the early 1700s - 42 percent of households. Now for those folks who are up on their US history and know all about it, fine. For those who say things like "we don't need those racist Southerners in our party" (meaning *all* white Southerners), I've been trying to hint to them that they're off-base and indeed hurting the long-term interest of the party, which is more than just to try and occupy office, it's also to try to steer and bolster progressive attitudes, which you don't get if you simply insult people and flaunt your ignorance about real historical events, including ones that may be important to them such as whether they qualify as being "Nazis".
May 28, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, "It doesn't matter who started it," is just a big fake-out, because it matters enormously to those who say those exact words?
That brings me back to something I said quite a long time ago, which got lost in the "give and take" or "I hate you because you are pretending to be likeable," I speak from authority because some of my best friends are............ my children are hispanic.......my ancestors are pirates.......oh, good grief!
We have enormous shit in front of us today. Right now. Can we please move on?
May 28, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't move on because we don't have the votes and attitudes to do it. Part of the reason is that Democrats can't make headway in the South, and part of this is because of this oblivious one-side-only historical attitude towards any Southerner (no matter that plenty of Southerners are recent immigrants after Northern factories closed or other waves to the South).
People like to have pride in themselves. When the US bombed Kosovo, the Russians took the Pristina airport for a few days and sent an aircraft carrier to the Adriatic. Some people were mad at this - my response was to let Yeltsin save a little face, have their small meaningless temporary occupation at Pristina, because they were selling out their Serbian allies in a big way to help us. If we didn't give them a little room for self-respect, Yeltsin would have to do something that actually hurt our interests.
Most Americans don't like being told what to do. But the whole general policy of the last 150 years has been telling the South what to do. That the South was guilty of Slavery is obvious. That the North was complicit with the South in letting it rebuild its racist structure after Reconstruction ended is also obvious. That racism and racist attitudes haven't ended is also obvious, but that things have gotten a whole lot better is also obvious. Now, do we want to encourage more change in the South, or do we want to keep poking the Slavery wound every time a Southerner opens his or her mouth, despite the fact that progress in the South has not been just a legal issue, it's been a very real and practical daily change for millions of black and white Southerners? While I don't think the 2008 election was only a litmus test on race, Obama got 47% of the vote in Georgia, 53% in Virginia, 50% in North Carolina, 42% in Tennessee, 43% in West Virgina. So maybe we can talk to Southerners about something besides race, stop making fun of accents and religion and everything of their history, discuss perhaps health care and job growth/protection and pollution and high-tech investment and human rights/prevention of torture, the economy and so on? People don't realize what they're doing - if they see a female politician they have to comment on her appearance, if they see a Southerner they have to refer to civil rights, slavery or some other related issue (unless it's just a barefoot in-breeding joke). We can do better.
May 29, 2009 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero, I have no dog in this fight. As a South Floridian with ancestors going back to my great great grandmother coming straight from England to West Palm Beach, I'm neither northern or southern. I'm more a conch shell.
But I take a basic exception to your original premise in this comment and in your original post that "many people on "progressive" blogs toss around Southerners-as-Nazis phrasing..." I've been reading liberal/progressive blogs for a while now, and I just don't see this tossing around that you claim is so plenteous on these blogs. I even Googled
and the only hit was your blog.I am the first one to rant, rave and laugh hysterically etc on the politics within the respective legislatures in the South, because, well, that's all you can do with the asshats running them. I spend a great deal of time in Atlanta which is blessedly blue, but I will freely say that the rest of this state is stark raving mad. But so is Florida, politically speaking. And California. And so on. Nothing in there about Nazi's, Civil War or Sherman marching to the sea with the meanings that you imputed. And in thinking real hard about it, that is all I do see on the progressive blogs.
Of course, I don't see every one of them, so a comment or two such as you spoke of probably does happen. But is this really an attitude running rampant across the progressive blogosphere, or the random, now and then asshat type of comment?
It is unfortunate that you chose to take your anger out here in the Cafe, when apparently the blog that offended you did not even originate here.
However, Jade is exactly right. There were 11 Southern States that were the cause and the problems involved in the original sin of slavery and then the ones that came during and after the Civil War. Any involvement of the North is so inconsequential, that trying to split the blame just doesn't work and can be seen as both blaming the victims and reducing the other's share of wrongness all in one immoral argument. And it was the North, for whatever reasons, that put forth the effort to end slavery.
The reason that I'm getting involved in this at all is because one of the best things about TPMCafe is the amount of respect among the regular denizens for other viewpoints, backgrounds, worldviews and educations. (Trolls are usually exempt from that, of course.) And because I have not witnessed what you claim is the Nazi persecution of Southerners here, I would hate to see it introduced artificially, causing much upset, when it did not exist here in the first place.
You may feel persecuted on the subject by comments in other blogs, something that happened at the Piggly Wiggly or whatever is the reason for your feeling that way. But it is your problem and while blaming the North is not a good solution, you are free to do so, but not at the expense of innocent Cafe members and in a hysterical and hyperbolic manner.
I thought long and hard before writing this comment and I truly am not trying to be offensive to you or your beliefs. But I can find no evidence that your premise and arguments are correct, factually or morally, which means that the results from the blog you wrote are extremely unfair and unnecessary. Thanks for reading this.
May 28, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I started this to combat ignorance. The British started the practice, and they did it all over their colonies. The Northerners like the Southerners pitched in, though in some cases both tried to stop it. Try this one for innocent lambs:
Try this from SlaveNorth.com:
Know your history, know your cuts of meat. Britain and the Unites States pushed slavery. The Southern states found more use for slave labor, so held onto it much harder and longer. The Northern states participated some in slave ownership, but mostly took a financial interest, from shipping slaves to products from the slave Caribbean to finishing and exporting cotton goods derived from Southern slave labor to extracting huge protectionist levees on shipping and incoming goods that affected the South.
So since you are English, you do have a dog in this fight and are just as tainted as any of the rest of us - look up the history of Jamaica, look at the acts of England on slavery in the Colonies, Google "Bristol Liverpool slavery".
Regarding wording in blogs, I could go back to threads I had over at OpenLeft, as well as refer to various "the Confederate flag is the Swastika" comments here, whatever else. I know how to read, I know how to interpret, and whether my condensation Googles as the only phrasing that way is immaterial.
"Modern" (meaning deluded) people think of Slavery as only a Southern issue. It's an English, Southern, Northern, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Arab issue. I don't mind saying the South bears the brunt of the blame in the Colonies for its extended use and attempts to expand it. But I won't accept the scolding attitude that no one else was involved. In some ways the North's attitude was worse, because the South dealt with its slaves up close. The North can continue investing money in slave trade and exploitation from a distance, such as the example of Connecticut's ivory trade based on African slave labor well into the 1880's. Of course we all do this now, including harsh conditions and military actions to support it in Latin America, England's colonialization of India up to 1949, buying the fruits of sweat shop and prison labor from Asia now. Of course there's no separation of who does this investing and profiting now - we're all involved. And whenever progressive ideals start to affect the pocketbook, progressives start disappearing in droves, flocking to their Blue Dog representatives who capitulate on the critical issues. I remember Barbara Mikulski voting against CAFE standards because of "soccer moms". So it's okay to be progressive as long as it doesn't keep Johnny from soccer practice (or doesn't cost a little bit more, since I imagine that SUV didn't come cheap). But hey, I guess it's not just on economic matters - 75% of Americans felt Bush didn't make a mistake invading Iraq in March 2003. In May 2003, it was 79%, even without finding WMD's. So we can blame Republicans all we want, but look at who's supporting their policies and leaders. Yes, it's all related.
May 29, 2009 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right now, the problem is that you are "combating ignorance" in a place where there is very little to no ignorance taking place, except in your own head.
In other words, you are looking for weapons of mass destruction where they don't exist.
None of your other arguments matter because the first one fails so completely.
At this point, I'm not sure what else to say.
May 29, 2009 5:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about, "Hey, I'm from England, we were doing slavery while you were still in dighties."
May 29, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with seashell's contentions here. I don't see seashell arguing facts, but a label. And the label Nazi for anything that occurred in the south is, to me, out of line! And without precedent.
There must be something else going on here, seashell. And I suspect it's an effort to spread the term Nazi so thin by applying where it doesn't belong and where it's never been used before - in order to dilute the term itself, when applied to some events which followed the second world war.
Seashell's comments make sense to me. She thought about them carefully. She's disputing the use of a term as far as I can tell. With good reason, I'd add.
Yes, a chair and a table have four legs. But that doesn't entitle someone to call a chair a table, based on the number of legs. Or to call a table a chair for that matter. Dogs and cats have four legs as well. So does a donkey, but that doesn't mean you can call a chair an ass.
I'm not entering into this discussion except to back seashell up. No one at TPM has been using the epithet Nazi related to the Civil War. Let's keep a label like that out of the discussion and stick to the facts. Seashell has made a good point and made it well. Backed it up with googling.
May 29, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
See my comment down below.
May 29, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
case in point of your incipient paranoia, Desidero, your quote of someone else's words, and then your subsequent comment:
Desidero quoting the commenter: "we don't need those racist Southerners in our party"
Desidero then comments on the quote: "meaning *all* white Southerners"
really? did the commenter actually say he/she meant "*all* white Southerners"? isn't that just your interpretation? no wonder your posts are so desperate, flailing, and full of non sequiturs. you have an underlying inference disorder. you have an imaginary back-and-forth playing in your head. please take up your emotional issues in therapy instead of in TPMCafe.
May 29, 2009 4:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll keep them where I fucking want to, thank you. The "she's an apologetic racist" response to WW Staebler was a classic point. There are numerous others, not just here, also at OpenLeft, also at many other "progressive" sites, which frequently means for Southerners that they can show up if they self-flagellate enough for the crowd. There is little appreciation for a Southern viewpoint in the progresso-sphere. Or even a rural one.
May 29, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I personally think that states' rights deserve a lot more discussion and credibility. I wouldn't say that the progressosphere doesn't "cotton to" southern perspective, I just think that it is to DC-centric in its viewpoint and tends to ignore the organic framework... which leaves the southern viewpoint ignored before the discussion even begins.
IMHO
May 29, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could be a good explanation, though I think ít also finds centers in places like Philly, Ann Arbor, Wisconsin, various places in California - which could just reflect as well the blogs I tend to read, but I think there's a bit of urbanization and specific activist areas. Would be interesting to map out blog centers. What's the geographical/demographic bias or signature of the blogosphere, to touch slightly on one of Jade's contentions that didn't get discussed much.
May 29, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero, your "Southern" viewpoint is racially biased. Many Southerners with different ethnic backgrounds do not share your perspective.
Your initial dismissal of the efforts of Black union soldiers as "romantic BS" pointed out your bias. You then amended your remarks to say that you admired those Black soldiers who fought for the Union, but had to find Southern comfort by adding that the Black effort was minor in the grand scheme of things. Then you topped it off by stating that the masses of African-American did not rise up against the Confederacy.
Perhaps you should spend time reading the history of darker hued Southerners who engaged in work slow downs on plantations, significantly impairing the Southern war effort. In addition slave escapes presented the North and South with a dilemma. Initially, slaves were returned to their owners by Union soldiers. The shear number of slave escapes played a role in Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Your viewpoint that slaves did not play a role in the defeat of the South is in error. The slaves aided the collapse of the Southern economy.
There have been repeated statements that slavery would have ended without the War because of industrialization. You should read about the Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond, Virginia. This munitions plant supplied the South and half of the staff, including mechanics, were slave labor.
Industrialization would have led to the use of slave labor as cheaper labor to complete with the cheap White labor force in the North.
Even when slavery ended, the South used techniques like sharecropping and use of prison labor to continue access to a cheap labor force. techniques would change, but profiting from another man's sweat would have continued. The war did provide a whiff of freedom for former slaves who could keep the funds that they earned.
May 29, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Distorted readings.
The masses of black did not rise up against the Confederacy. Some did, a small percentage of the fighting forces, as I gave the figures - 4.5 million soldiers in all, 180,000 black, half from the South, a number of which defected to the North ASAP, some of whom fought on the other side. Those who fought likely committed a great amount of bravery and heroism, but I don't see why we should act as if black involvement in the Civil War was hugely significant militarily. My back-pedaling was simply that I'm not trying to insult either the passion or the skill of those who fought. This all began because someone accused *me* of having a romantic notion of the glory and honor of the Old South and then threw in this tidbit as if every slave rose to fight off their shackles.
Now, whether slaves running away affected the war was an issue I never addressed.
Whether an industrial version of sharecropping could exist requires its own thesis. Not for me. The presumption that the South could have turned to industry fast enough to employ the millions of slaves is rather absurd. Factories are capital-intensive, cotton farming isn't. The South didn't manage to industrialize much in the course of 100 years after the war.
May 31, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this is true, Des, then the liberal-progressive World is poorer for it.
Why, logically would a Southern perspective be dismissed, though? If this is actually happening 'round the blogosphere, then those doing it are making bad arguments of their own. On the blogs, when an argument sucks, it's called out as a fallacy, a false analogy, ad hominen, O/T, etc. It would seem to be the ultimate in bad arguing to expect self-flagellation or to be outright dismissive of a Southern viewpoint, just because it was a Southern viewpoint.
So really, why waste breath on Socratic dimwits? And I mean those you refer to on the blogs, not those you engage here, who clearly are closer to the top of Socrates' class.
A final thought. It occurs to me that it's only a few percentage points that separate a "solid" Red state and a "solid" Blue one. This idea of feeling superior on race issues due to your being North of the Mason-Dixon line is beyond me, frankly. So is the flip-side, though, this defensive, slightly hysterical idea that all Northerners view the South, and its inhabitants as backwards, Dixie-loving racists, and that we then expect all Southern Progressives to wear a ciclice and repent their heritage.
As the great peacemaker Rodney King suggested,
"Can't we all just get along?
May 29, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, part of it is simply it reflects poor logic - I've yet to get anyone to respond why Milosevic and Lincoln differed in their stated motives and methods - and part of it is that we're stuck with an ugly stalemate in Congress because the Blue Dogs we've made friends with vote against us, while it might be trying to find non-hateful middle ground with this large area called the South might give more progressive Democrats some kind of meaningful majority, rather than a paper majority that has to tremble and barter away everything for those 60 votes. If things were hunky dory in Mudville, then I suppose the party could simply stick with feeling superior to Southerners as a basic tenet.
May 31, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent!
"Ending it" indeed has become a very long process - particularly if the "it" is racism in the United States. It is deeply embedded culturally and institutionally, and quite frankly without acknowledging the constructed privilege of whiteness, I do not see that ending any time soon. It is comfortable for too many to point at the South and stereotype "their" racism, thereby claiming the "North's" and their own biases as nonexistent.
Thank you for the going to the heart of the "debate."
May 28, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade, In re: Plessy v Ferguson, you are wrong about appellate courts. Plessy went on appeal from the Louisiana State Supreme Court to The Federal "Supreme Court as a writ of "Error To The Supreme Court Of The State Of Louisiana". Plessy affirmed the Louisiana Supreme Court Decision, but the case was never heard in any other Federal Court.
You could make a better case based of the Dred Scott opinion, as it went through Federal District Court appeal, but even that is not a clear-cut as it seems superficially. As The Dred Scott case was being decided in the Supreme Court, President-elect James Buchanan, a Pennsylvanian, secretly corresponded with Supreme Court Justice Robert C. Grier, also a Pennsylvanian, convincing him to concur with the majority decision. Buchanan was an anti-abolitionist Yankee.He attempted to force the Lecompton Constitution down the throat of Kansas at statehood, forcing it, against the majority will of the state's residents to be admitted into the Union as a slave state.
I am not trying to vindicate the South for the Civil War. The Confederacy was wrong, and the "states' right" they were fighting for was the right to own humans. I have opposed racism for my whole life. It comes from lessons I learned from my parents. This opposition has gone beyond the overt racists, and included openly opposing those who whisper at backs, thinking they are in safe company. I attacked Steve Sailer at TPM just last month, and you know this is true. I despise Neo-Confederates, and their revisionism.
None of this excuses the use of revisionism from the other side though. The causes for Slavery and The Civil War cannot be smoothly divided along a North/South division. Ever hear of The Copperheads? Contemporary racism in America cannot properly be divided along geographical lines either. The place I came the closest to getting my butt kicked for vocally opposing racism was in the Idaho panhandle, when I insulted a skin-head publicly, yet the vast majority of people from Idaho are real nice with live and let live attitudes, embarrassed this point of view has been exploited by Nazis.
A**holes come from all states, in all colors, from every religion, from every class, from every walk of life. Still, in my experience, a**holes are greatly in the minority, so it is best not to make assumptions, and learn of a person's nature, before jumping the gun.
May 28, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Highlights:
- ha! if today's South weren't still such a backwater haven of the antithesis of the actual virtues mentioned above
- Yes it is. The side of patriots and the side of freedom. The other side is the side of treason, slavery and lies.
- Honorable perhaps, but traitors nonetheless and of this there can be no debate. It is a fact, not an opinion.
- perhaps we can now require that all momuments to the CSA be buffed out and re-inscribed as what they are--the memorialization of a foul treason undertaken to defend the practice of slavery.
- "The South" without slavery would have amounted to nothing. Slavery was the only thing the made white southerners rich.
- My take on the Confederate flag - aka Stars and Bars: It is the American equivalent of the swastika and warrants treatment as such.
- Take a lesson from the Germans. They don't defend Hitler, and so they've been able to move on. When the concentration camps were liberated, who could have looked forward to a world where Germany and a Jewish state might have friendly and productive relations? But if you lie, romanticize, and deny, the past never goes away. The Japanese do it with their record in China and Korea; the South does it with the Civil War and slavery. It never works. All it does is keep wounds open that otherwise would heal. [Author: have I or anyone else denied the South kept slaves, pushed to expand it, seceded from the Union in a large part because of slavery, treated blacks horribly in Reconstruction?]
- If the Southern political legacy weren't so toxic, I'd be happy to denounce northern stereotyping. But as long as there's a Jeff Sessions in the Senate, the legacy of the Confederacy presents the much greater threat to a more perfect union. [Uh, where's Dick Cheney from? Rumsfeld? Reagan? Rehnquist? Boehner? Dan Burton? And then there's Gore, LBJ, Clinton, Barbara Jordan, Jim Webb, John Edwards (not my favorite), Andrew Young, Ann Richards,...]
- Sherman gave the south what was coming... [I never did touch on intentional mistreatment of Southern prisoners in Northern POW camps, but guess they had it coming too...]
- The invention of these pitiful excuses, particularly so long after the fact, is proof of the disgusting cowardice of the authors of the rebellion and their refusal to admit what they had done. There is a similar faction of revisionists in Japan that, from time to time, raises it's ugly head to attempt the same sort of calumny regarding the agression of the Japanese Empire. [Perhaps if Pearl Harbor were sitting in Tokyo Harbor and the Japanese didn't kill anyone, this would apply]
- And isn't it interesting that now nearly half of the those Right to work (anti union) states are also those that made up the confederacy ? Which says to me they would love to have slavery back and are still pissed that it was taken away. Nice folks those old southern whites.
- But one thing is for certain, taking up the mantel of slavery and racism as a source of pride is a seriously misguided quest. [Like who's doing this?]
- In the interest of candor I'm going to say it: I really do hate The South. I was reading some blog and someone in Atlanta mentioned "Confederacy Day" - I think it was in April maybe. All I could think was - "Why not have 'Hitler Day' along with it?" [In the interest
of candor, it's easier that you fess up and don't
beat around the bush, and then we can discuss
issues straight out rather than pretending you're
saying something else]
- In short the southern whites really like slavery and were/are really pissed off that they can no longer engage in it.
- The trouble with being losers is that to feel good, you have to make sure you have someone available who's an even bigger loser -- even if you have to make that other person into a loser by your own actions. It's rather like a limping person who gets his jollies kneecapping an athlete.
- Excellent diary. The Confederacy is analogous to Nazi Germany.
- The analogy is in part that both Nazi Germany and the South believed that there were two classes of citizens and that the lower had no rights that the upper was obliged to respect.
- Desidero is struggling with a problem confronted by any group of people -- such as modern Germans -- whose ancestors have committed atrocities -- what must I do to separate myself from the wrongs that that my ancestors did or what must I do to excuse the wrongs that they did -- either by arguing that the wrongs were not so bad or that good things were also done. [I didn't talk about good things the South did, and didn't deny the atrocities]
- And as confirmed by the 2008 election, people will vote against their economic and other self-interests solely on the basis of race. See Pennsylvania during the primary. [Ha ha ha, my favorite - vote for my candidate or you're stupid *AND* self-defeating]
- The Holocaust happened, as did US Southern slavery.
- What percentage of Jewish Germans fought against the Nazis? I will assume it was a small number given the inconvenience of said Jewish Germans being in Concentration Camps. Black slaves and freedmen were welcome in the Union Army initially.
- It's because she and most antebellum daydreamers still to some degree carry chips on their shoulders.
- There's a difference between loving the land and loving the perpetration of atrocities to be sure, but it's a difference most southerners ultimately have a difficult time completely splitting.
- let me say straight out that the majority of white southerners ARE STILL NOT FULLY RECONSTRUCTED: Witness the 2008 presidential election returns. Are you kidding me? A large majority of white southerners voted against Obama. [hee hee hee - support my candidate or you are unreconstructed]
- But it's really undeniable that a good portion of the white south (including border states) plays a central roll in holding back not only the south socially, economically and politically, but also the rest of the nation because of the reactionary politics it clings to.
The South: we're your worst nightmare.
May 29, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
It appears to me Desidero is determined to be a victim here. It seems there is no one able to talk him out of it. Poor Desidero. It must be hard to understand these complicated issues, being a Southerner and all. Frankly, I don't think you are missing the points people are making because you are Southern, but because you are convinced. You are not open to new ideas about the issue, and it is very, very personal. It's an open wound you are parading through this Cafe. What is really interesting is that you chose to play out this drama here, but admit it may be in reaction to things on other blogs in the Progressosphere. I think you are stereotyping when you suggest we at TPM are the same as those at OpenLeft, and once you do that, you can get into all kinds of trouble.
May 29, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gregor. Read comment by Des immediately above yours. And then spare me the horseshit about who's got the open wounds and how TPM Cafe is so fucking exalted that it couldn't possibly have any problems on this issue.
May 29, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah, I came up with new ideas (notice references to Milosevic, et al). There were a few people who did give some thought and ideas, and I think I was quite polite and responsive to them. Regarding claiming OpenLeft was the same as TPM, I didn't.
May 31, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink