Thursday, July 11, 2013

On The Recent Unpleasantness

The Washington Post has a good quick review of the relationship between libertarians and the Civil War.

On the one hand, I find it incredible that there are "sides" to this thing in 2013. Still, there's some problematic treatment of the war on both sides (mostly, of course, on the neo-Confederate side). I've got a sort of running series of bullet points that structure my thinking on it.

1. There's nothing inherently good or bad about secession.

2. Secession outside of constitutional processes for breaking up the union is "illegal", but in a fairly trivial sense. The fact is, we pretty much make up morality and law. That doesn't mean it's random nor does it mean it's relativist. But in the case of secession at least it's pretty consequentialist and subjective. I classify the revolution, East Timor, and South Sudan as good secession. I classify New England in the early republic and the Confederacy as bad secession. But ultimately it's because of how I evaluate the projects that these parties were pursuing relative to the projects they were breaking up - not because "secession" has any kind of moral content.

3. The Deep South left because they wanted to preserve slavery, the Upper South left for more complicated reasons, including a naiveté about the prospect of war that lead to a real shock when war appeared on the horizon. This, as a Virginian, is a point I like to harp on.

4. Reasons for the war do not have to be symmetric. Neo-Confederates love to point out that Lincoln didn't start the war to free the slaves. I agree he didn't, but who cares? That's not proof that the Confederacy wasn't erected to preserve slavery from perceived threats. Even when slavery did loom large for Lincoln most of the North was still indifferent. Again who cares. In Jim Crow most of the North was terribly racist and segregated. Who cares. None of this absolves much less disproves the case against the South.

5. If you celebrate Confederate secession you are celebrating - bar none - the dumbest and most reprehensible collective decision making the American South has ever seen. Plenty seceded to preserve slavery, which seals this point sufficiently on its own. But for the sake of argument let's grant the neo-Confederate claim that it wasn't about slavery. Even if you think that, breaking up the union is still an awful decision and fighting a war to break up the union is that much worse. I don't care what Tom Woods says about nullification - this is not a move Washington, Jefferson, or Madison would have endorsed. And the fact that we don't have any in the pantheon south of Virginia for me to cite is telling: the Deep South has always been a liability. When they act like a liability they should not be lionized, they should be considered an embarrassment by anyone that proclaims pride in being from the South. And when other parts of the South follow suit they should be considered an embarrassment too. The unpatriotic nature of neo-Confederate perspectives isn't so much that they want to break off (they'd still be "American" if they did that). The unpatriotic nature of the movement is that it repudiates certainly the greatest accomplishment of a group of North Americans from 1607 to date, and probably the greatest accomplishments any group of Americans will ever be able to lay claim to. Why celebrate that?

6. And this is where I turn from disagreeing with the neo-Confederates to generating some friction with the other side - because while there's nothing to celebrate in Confederate secession there is plenty of substance to the idea of taking pride in the South. For better or worse, the Confederate flag has come to be a symbol of the South. What I don't think most non-Southerners understand is that most uses of the Confederate flag today genuinely aren't racist. Most aren't even neo-Confederate (although there's some of that obviously). If you haven't actually lived in the South I'm not convinced I can take your evaluation seriously on this (some that think this do have experience in the South, so I take that more seriously even though I may still disagree with them). So a lot of the neo-Confederate brouhaha is actually ginned up unnecessarily by a misinterpretation of exactly what it is that people are embracing. More often than not it's (1.) enthusiasm for Southern culture and (2.) balking at seriously obnoxious stereotyping and condescension from the rest of America.

7. And yet, I don't display the Confederate flag in any capacity and own only one item with the flag displayed on it. Why? Because even though I don't think most Southerners intend anything problematic by it, symbols mean different things to different people. I care less about non-Southern whites that get worked up by it, but I do care a lot about minorities that understandably interpret the symbol as a threat. If no one saw it as threatening there'd be no problem in having it around. But they obviously do, so what's the point of it? This is obviously context-dependent. I'm sure in some parts of the South minorities understand as well as I do that in most cases it's not meant to be threatening and therefore they don't feel threatened by it (granted, it's in those parts of the South that you're also going to find some of the people that do intend it to be threatening, so it gets complicated). In Northern Virginia that's a non-starter. Err on the side of not making your neighbors feel threatened is a good policy in my opinion!

8. In a similar vein, the Confederate flag is not the Nazi flag - it's more like the checkerboard on the Croatian flag. Leaving Hinduism aside for the moment, nobody uses the swastika today unless they have a view point on race and society consistent with Adolf Hitler. This is not the case for the Confederate flag. Lots of people use the Confederate flag today who - despite other things we might not like about them - don't even share views on race and society with Strom Thurmond much less Jefferson Davis. In this sense it's like the Croatian flag. This flag is very touchy for a lot of people in the former Yugoslavia who associate it with the fascist regime that allied with the Nazis. The flag pre-dates this regime and most Croats don't intend to be expressing a pro-Nazi stance. They just see it as a symbol of Croatia and they acknowledge that there are both dark and light parts to that history without embracing the dark parts. The trouble is - as I noted above with the Confederate flag - different people see that symbol in different ways. This is not the case with the Nazi flag. Pretty much everyone is on the same page as to what that means.

*****

So in summation, if you display the Confederate flag I'm not one to pounce on you or call you a racist. I would suggest you think carefully about how and why you're using it. If you celebrate the Confederacy I think you're an idiot and an embarrassment. If you celebrate the South you're OK in my book. If you want to get into the intricacies of the legality of secession I really don't care - of course it can be legitimate, but that doesn't change my assessment of the Confederacy at all. My beef with the Confederacy was never a legalistic opposition to secession.

27 comments:

  1. The fact is, we pretty much make up morality and law.

    Does that mean like what it sounds like?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you're asking, probably not.

      Delete
    2. Phew! For a second, I thought you were saying we pretty much make up morality and law.

      Delete
    3. I am saying that.

      The difference is what you and I read in to "we" and "make up".

      I said that doesn't mean what it sounds like [to you]. I didn't say that I'm retracting the sentence.

      Delete
    4. I should have never unleashed the idea of dominant logic.

      Delete
  2. If you want to get into the intricacies of the legality of secession I really don't care - of course it can be legitimate, but that doesn't change my assessment of the Confederacy at all. My beef with the Confederacy was never a legalistic opposition to secession.

    We're talking about a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people, and you don't even care if the official reason for the war is based on sound legality?

    Again, is it worth me arguing with you, or are you going to say, "Of course I don't mean the straightforward meaning of my words! What's wrong with you people!" ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well I said initially I don't think it was legal. That was my second point. You're right, if it were completely legal then the reasons for going to war to prevent it would have been awfully convincing. I think it was pretty clearly an illegal rebellion.

      My point is that that in and of itself doesn't really do much. The Revolution was an illegal rebellion too and I could honestly care less that it was.

      If it was legal that would indeed open a whole different can of worms.

      But like I said, no one runs around complaining that the awful thing about the Confederacy was that it was an illegal institution any more than they raise that complaint about the Continental Congress.

      Delete
    2. "any more than they raise that complaint about the Continental Congress."

      Oakeshott made exactly this point.

      Delete
  3. I was with you all the way up until this point: "But for the sake of argument let's grant the neo-Confederate claim that it wasn't about slavery.[and to be sure, I agree with you that for the South (at the very least, for many of the relevant politicians) it *was* about slavery.] Even if you think that, breaking up the union is still an awful decision and fighting a war to break up the union is that much worse."

    Why is breaking up the union an awful decision?

    Why would fighting a war to preserve the union not be a pretty terrible decision as well?

    Also, the South would say that they didn't want war, they just wanted to secede. It was the North that essentially started the war (yes, I know about Fort Sumter).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the issue here is that you -- like neo-Confederates -- are saying "the South" when you mean, "the white supremacist aristocracy of the southern states". Even considering whether secession was legal or a good idea makes it appear that you assume such rule to be legitimate. At best, weighing the merits of secession makes one appear fairly indifferent to white supremacy. You can understand how this does not sit well with everybody.

      And to say that George Washington and Lincoln and other revered leaders were also white supremacists will not cut it. Secession only made sense in pursuit of a purely white-supremacist agenda. This is simply not true of the actions that those other leaders are remembered for.

      Also, I am amazed that it is so often pretended that the south merely wanted to preserve slavery within its 1860 borders. The representatives of slavery in fact wanted to export it westward and even further south if possible (and even this representation is, I think, low-balling their territorial ambitions). They had spent much of the 1850s trying to force slavery on Kansas against the will of its inhabitants, and pushing northern states to change their own laws to facilitate slave-holding. And in 1860, it was unthinkable that the Republicans would even try to abolish slavery in the southern states; the "radical" proposal that the Confederates found unacceptable was simply to disallow slavery in any new states where it did not already exist.

      Delete
    2. Will, no, that can't be the problem because Daniel explicitly said "But for the sake of argument let's grant the neo-Confederate claim that it wasn't about slavery." My questions assume this assumption (and like Daniel, I think the assumption is in fact erroneous) and so they cannot be responded to by saying 'yeah, but the South only wanted to secede because of the white-supremacist agenda of its leaders' (even if that in fact was the case).

      Delete
    3. First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
      March 4, 1861
      http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

      "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

      Letter to Horace Greeley by Abraham Lincoln
      August 22, 1862
      http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1057

      "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

      Delete
    4. "Neo-Confederates love to point out that Lincoln didn't start the war to free the slaves. I agree he didn't, but who cares? That's not proof that the Confederacy wasn't erected to preserve slavery from perceived threats."

      Being kept in a Union against your will is also slavery.

      Delete
    5. Also:

      Jim Crow: Government Against Market Forces
      http://archive.mises.org/13502/jim-crow-government-against-market-forces/

      "Racism and discrimination can be expensive, and one of the only ways they can be maintained successfully is if bigots have access to political institutions that allow them to impose enormous costs on others at relatively trivial costs to themselves."

      The problem was government. The solution was not more centralization:

      Race and Economics
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/08/walter-e-williams/race-and-economics/

      "During the 1930s, there were a number of federal government interventions that changed the black employment picture. The first was the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, which mandated minimum wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects. During the bill’s legislative debate, the racial objectives were clear. Rep. John Cochran, D-Mo., said he had “received numerous complaints … about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South.”"

      ...

      "American Federation of Labor President William Green said, “Colored labor is being sought to demoralize wage rates.” For decades after Davis-Bacon enactment, black workers on federally financed or assisted construction projects virtually disappeared."

      ...

      "The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 broadened the number of workers covered by minimum wages, with negative consequences for black employment across a much wider range of industries. Good intentions motivate most Americans in their support for minimum wage laws, but for compassionate public policy, one should examine the laws’ effect."

      Delete
    6. The article says:

      "Secession outside of constitutional processes for breaking up the union is "illegal" ..."

      This is false because the states created the Union, not the other way around (besides the fact that only individuals have rights, not collectives such that they could have a right to impose their will on other individuals).

      The states are in a compact with each other. The general government was put in place to facilitate that compact. The compact between the states can be abandoned at will by any or all states.

      The general government has only those powers delegated to it by the states. States may undelegate that authority.

      Delete
  4. Thank you Daniel, I think this is a very even-handed and well-thought out assessment. Point 6 in particular is one that non-Southern whites routinely never seem to understand. The fact that mocking Southerners is not only accepted but even regarded as somewhat virtuous in the rest of the country is truly disgusting to me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Even if you think that, breaking up the union is still an awful decision and fighting a war to break up the union is that much worse."

    Begging the question here, Daniel. If we assume first that the Union is a good thing (or was in 1860, at least) then this is obvious. If we disagree with that contention, then breaking up the Union is not an awful decision. And if we are, say, anarchists, we will obviously disagree that the federal government is a good thing - we would desire that government, such as it exists, be constrained to as small a territory as we can get it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not begging the question at all - stating my opinion. Breaking up the union is still an awful decision.

      I have not anywhere here argued that all people agree with me that breaking up the union is an awful decision. I've asserted that to be my position. I said that these bullet points structure MY thinking on this. I'm not begging the question (at least no more than anyone who holds an opinion is ever begging the question... which I guess in a weird way you could argue but that seems like a stupid use of the term).

      Delete
  6. Good article. Your critics should read some Freehling or Oates (much less Alexander Stephens!).

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Begging the question here, Daniel."
    Nonsense. DK is saying even if we agree with the (wrong) idea that the secession wasn't about slavery that it was still a bad idea. It can be a bad idea quite apart form any ramifications regarding slavery, for many reasons. As long as there are reasons then it is not begging the question. It is stating an opinion on the question.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Daniel wrote: " The unpatriotic nature of the movement is that it repudiates certainly the greatest accomplishment of a group of North Americans from 1607 to date, and probably the greatest accomplishments any group of Americans will ever be able to lay claim to."

    I don't understand what you mean by this. What (which event or institution or other thing is the accomplishment you have in mind here? (I don't mean this rhetorically btw, I simply don't know what exactly you have in mind here)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anyone who thinks that the Civil War was not about slavery has not read the Confederate Constitution. As for non-slave holders, freeing the slaves would have generated economic and political competition, which they did not want. Hence the Jim Crow laws. The final defeat of Confederate war aims did not occur until the Civil Rights era.
    http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2012/06/14/the-law-tells-it-as-it-was/
    http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2012/09/06/ambiguous-victory/

    ReplyDelete
  10. And yes, I get that Daniel was doing an perfectly legitimate "even if".

    ReplyDelete
  11. "his is not a move Washington, Jefferson, or Madison would have endorsed."

    All secessionists, by the way. (From the United Kingdom.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right, but that was a reference to Confederate secession discussed earlier in the paragraph. But yup - it's not secession per se that was the concern of these avid unionists.

      Delete
  12. Really? Virginia was a part of th United Kingdom? Which act of parliament enacted that?

    ReplyDelete
  13. http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/thomas-j-dilorenzo/who-caused-the-1861-65-bloodbath/

    ReplyDelete

All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.