No one's mentioned Zoroaster, so I guess I will: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the major post-Zoroastrian religions. Their relationship is incredibly incestuous if you choose to think of them as siblings; they draw in different ways on other offshoots like Mithraism, Sabaeanism, and Gnosticism. Tracing the influence of Zoroaster would be a bit like tracking the influence of Mary Shelley or William Shakespeare on 21st century science fiction: you could graph it in many ways, but a line won't work.
When you can get your brother's favorite gal to strike 58,000 voters from the records, who needs to tamper with voting machines?
But I certainly think trusting electronic voting machines is silly. If you'd like to support Rush Holt's legislation to change that, go to http://capwiz.com/voice4change/issues/alert/?alertid=2295036
This is, um, a book review, and not participation in this topic: McPherson's BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM has some interesting things on economic concerns of the South (not regarding slavery) under Chapter Three, "An Empire for Slavery," Section II (beginning on page 91 of the trade paperback). BATTLE CRY also has a nice mention of one of my favorite Unitarian ministers, Theodore Parker, who used the phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people" in a speech in 1850.
Emma has told me I may not post any more about the Civil War for at least two weeks, and she is a wise woman, so I won't. But, obviously, it's a pet obsession, so I'll continue to read what's here, so long as this thread seems to be active. (I'm currently reading MacPherson's single-volume book on the Civil War, because it's been a couple of decades since I've done much reading about it.)
I just wanted to say that I'm not running off in a huff. I'm only returning to lurker mode. I'm grateful for the corrections and suggestions offered so far, and will be grateful for any future ones.
And since I'm breaking the spirit and perhaps the letter of Emma's order with this final post, I'll add: thank you, Kevin, for the swastika link, and Claude, I am in awe; that's one of the finest late-night posts I've seen.
I especially admire "How could the argument of original state sovereignity apply to them if they were not sovereign in origin?" My problem with basing the supremacy of federal power on "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State," is that "Territory and Property" would seem to refer to federal possessions, not to the states themselves, since the states can hardly be property of themselves; they're the entities that united to have shared property. Apologies for the previous sentence; I'm a bit tired to try to simplify it now. All that was only preface to saying that you have pointed out a complexity I had not considered, and I'm grateful for that.
Jack, I'm a bit torn. On the one hand, I'm grateful that you read it, 'cause in my last go-around about the Civil War, the fellow who seemed to think I was a rabid slaver would not read the essay.
On the other hand, I wish you'd addressed whether a few of his points are true:
"On March 2, 1861, Congress passed what would have been the Thirteenth Amendment. This Amendment made it impossible ever to change the Constitution so as to give Congress authority to interfere with the domestic institutions of a state, including slavery. It established that:
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
"In his first Inaugural Address, Lincoln went out of his way to endorse this ironclad protection for slavery in the states where it was established, as it was exactly what he had always maintained: ?I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.? So if the South had stayed in the Union, slavery would have continued as long as the states desired."
And this:
"Lincoln helped draft the new constitution of Louisiana. In it, he refused to acknowledge black citizenship and suffrage in Louisiana, even for black Union veterans, just as he had always publicly opposed granting citizenship to blacks in his own state."
And this:
"Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas voted to remain in the Union even after the Confederacy was formed. They reversed themselves only after Lincoln decided on an invasion that they considered both unconstitutional and immoral."
And, most importantly, this:
"If one had to pick one cause of secession around which the other causes revolved, it would have to be the forty-year-long moral and constitutional conflict surrounding the Northern policy of imposing a protective tariff at the expense of the South. As Charles Adams has shown in his brilliant study of the issue, such pundits as Charles Dickens, Lord Acton, and Karl Marx regarded the tariff as the fundamental cause of both Southern secession and Northern invasion. Marx supported the North, but he had no illusions as to what the war was about:
"'The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.'
"From 1820 to 1860, the United States suffered bitter sectional conflict over the tariff and surrounding issues. As of 1860, approximately 76 percent of American exports were agricultural staples. Nearly all came from the South, and were exchanged for British and European manufactures. The South raised little objection to an 1816 tariff to pay the debt from the War of 1812. The result was a 25-percent tax on woolen, cotton, and iron manufactures, a 30-percent ad valorem tax on various goods, and a 15-percent duty on all other imports. The 1816 tariff was to have expired in three years but was extended until 1824. Under this tariff, northern profits on manufacturing climbed as high as 25 percent, while agriculture yielded no more than four percent, and Southern land as low as two percent. Charles Wiltse observes that ?Tariff sentiment rose with rising profits. . . . The protectionist movement . . . came to be as completely sectional as slavery itself.?
"This spectacular increase in Northern profits prompted an increase of the tariff in 1824. The minimum duty on cotton goods, which had been 25 percent, was raised to more than 33 percent, for a stunning average rate of 37 percent. South Carolina?s economy depended almost entirely on exporting staples on an unprotected world market. A year after the new tariff, the price of cotton dropped from 21 cents per pound to 12 cents a pound, and the next year it dropped again to 8.8 cents a pound. From 1825 to 1827, her exports declined from 11 million to eight million. Not satisfied, the North again raised the tariff to an average of 50 percent on dutiable goods in 1828. This was done in full knowledge of what it would do to the Southern export trade. South Carolina?s response was nullification of the tariff until it came down to 10 percent. This led to the nullification crisis in 1832. A compromise was reached on dutiable goods at around 19 percent, where it hovered until Lincoln?s election in1860.
"In 1860, Lincoln ran on a Republican Party platform that proposed raising the tariff back to the high level that had prompted South Carolina?s nullification. The North, it was clear, would use its Congressional majority to pursue its interests even if it meant wrecking the Southern export trade. Accordingly, following Lincoln?s election, South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860. Congress promptly raised the tariff to 47 percent on March 2, 1861. Lincoln said that South Carolina could stay out of the Union if it liked, but he would still collect the revenue; like Rome, the North would live by tribute. To ensure that the North continued to receive its bounty, Lincoln reinforced Fort Sumter, located in Charleston Harbor. The purpose of the Fort was to protect the harbor?s tariff station. The Confederacy resisted paying tribute to the Union and, as their fathers before them had done, they drove the tax-collecting military from the fort. Contrary to myth, there were no casualties from the exchange at Fort Sumter. Clearly, none of this had anything to do with the moral question of slavery."
If the writer's a lying bastard, I'd like to know. Because I respect different interpretations of facts, and I even respect mistakes about facts. But I despise liars.
If he is a liar, I have to give him credit for one thing. A Libertarian citing Marx is a pretty canny guy.
Oh, and would someone who claims the South had no right to secede please tell me where it says in the Constitution that a state can't leave?
Will
it's funny how when I belittle people by labelling their arguments "religious", implying that they're not subject to reason or analysis, those people get angry.
And I can't imagine why, because I'm such a nice and reasonable guy.
Patrick, I know extremely intelligent Jews and Catholics who are great at reason and analysis. But their fundamental beliefs remain different. Too often, when discussing the Civil War, it seems to boil down to The Church of Lincoln versus The Church of Lee. The Church of Lincoln says, "You're defending slavery!" The Church of Lee says, "You're defending Big Brother!" The truth, I think, lies elsewhere. I think the Civil War is so important because so many different issues were at stake, and so many things about America changed, including the way we refer to it (from the plural "the United States are" to the singular "the United States is"), that to say that it's all about slavery is to miss the point.
And when I say "religious," I include myself. Among the divisions in this argument are those who believe that slavery could only be ended by violence and those who believe economic pressures would have ended it in another ten or twenty years, with a much smaller loss of life and, more importantly, with far fewer social repercussions: The history of the Civil Rights movement is a history of the consequences of the Civil War. Had slavery ended by itself, I believe blacks and whites would have become equals in the US (or the Confederacy) much sooner. Neither of those positions can ultimately be defended by reason, or if so, I sure can't do it and haven't seen it done.
Another division is between people who believe that war is sometimes necessary and people believe that it is never necessary. I fall into the latter camp. Definitely a religious position. Definitely mine. Everything I say should be weighed against that belief. I'm at least as subject to prejudice as the next guy.
Kevin, I did a quick google for my name and things like "kiss" "flag" "jew" and "jewish" and came up with nothing. So maybe your kibology poster's memory leaked into my mind. I dunno. I wasn't trying to claim credit for something I didn't write or trying to get the quote right; I just found it amusing to see one of my posts being cited.
Jo, nice point about the "if only." But keep in mind that Lincoln thought the proper solution was to send blacks back to Africa, not to send them west. The romanticization of Lincoln is understandable, but arguably more at odds with history than the romanticization of Lee: Lee freed his slaves. Lincoln was prepared to sign an amendment to the Constitution that would have protected southern slavery. (I forget which amendment it would've been; it's mentioned in the article I cited in my last message.)
I better drop out of this discussion now, because one of the things I've learned about life on the internet is that religious arguments just end with people getting angry.
Kevin J. Maroney, your semiquote comes from a post I made, not in kibology but in another newsgroup. One of my pet peeves is the willingness of liberals to let conservatives claim symbols they're not entitled to. The Dixie battle flag is one of them. A lot of people fought under that flag for a lot of reasons. Defenders of slavery fought in the Civil War on both sides, and so did opponents of slavery. As some black historians like to point out, the U.S. flag flew over many slave ships, but the Confederate flag flew over none. If that battle flag and the swastika were to be used as symbols of interracial love, racists and Nazis would be stripped of their most powerful symbols. And I see no reason to respect anything that racists and Nazis claim as their own.
If anyone's interested in the argument that the Civil War was about something other than slavery (a position held by people like Marx and Dickens), I recommend going to
http://www.mises.org/jlsDisplay.asp?action=sort&volume=16&number=2&submit=View
and downloading "A Moral Accounting of the Union and the Confederacy." I'm not a Libertarian; I tend to agree with them on personal issues, but not social ones. This article is written not to glorify the South or defend slavery, but to defend the principle of secession by examining our most famous example. I think the writer does a good job.
I must confess, I believe there are arguments that are not subject to reason. The cause of the Civil War may be one. Some people believe it was about slavery, and for many who fought then, it was. Some people believe the US invasion of Iraq was about freedom, and for many who fought then, it was. But when looking for fundamental reasons, it's good to look beyond the ostensible ones.
This isn't meant as personal criticism of anyone. I have friends who are Catholics, Jews, and atheists. I don't expect their incompatible philosophies to be reconciled by logic, so long as they're willing to let each other believe what they wish. I'm happy having people believing whatever they want about the Civil War, so long as they don't use that belief to justify racism or revenge.
My previous post was written offline and posted before I read any of the intervening comments--I left the comment window open while I was off. If it doesn't quite sound like a response to any of those posts, you're right, it's not.
Patrick, when I said, "It's good to be reminded that George Bush's desires, whatever they may be, affect people like us," I meant that a little as my interpretation of PI's intention, to show why I was cutting him/her/it some slack, and more--as Simon said--as a comment on US news. I was writing right after reading the link. It touched me. Clearly enough to shatter my attempt at clarity.
Speaking of the US news, FAIR has pointed out that they tend to distinguish between people who are anti-war and people who support the troops. I must go scream now.
Teresa and Patrick, I wish you would just think of me as the village idiot. I'm almost never the smartest guy in the room. I've had an unusual life that's given me some unusual takes on things. That's it, honest. I read and I write through the filter of my experiences. I misread what others have written, and I fail to consider every implication of everything I say. I make lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of mistakes. If any of my books are any good, it's because I rewrite them much more than I usually write posts on the web, and I run them by Emma and the Scribblies, and then editors at Tor help me out.
Here's what I was trying to say:
PI expressed him, her, or itself like a jerk, but I liked the link.
I agree with the power of tribal identity. I tried to give three specific examples that I didn't intend to be general: my niece, Brandi, a corporal with the Marines who I used to be able to pick up and who looks a whole lot like Pvt. Jessica Lynch and could meet the same fate at any moment, God forbid; James Riley, who reminds me of myself in college when I read f&sf and helped start the local SCA branch; and a family of five in their car that, in number, is identical to mine.
The "preaching to the choir" comment was directed at me, not you. I meant that sometimes I say these things to reassure myself. That's what I meant by the sentence right before it that Bruce didn't quote. It wasn't clear in context. Maybe this Will Shetterly you think is a good writer would've been clearer. But the guy who's posting this wasn't.
And, based on Bruce's quote, there may be some confusion from my rather long first sentence in the post addressed to Teresa, too. I meant that the bitterness was PI's.
If this doesn't help, well, please remember the village idiot part.
Will
I had just composed this after reading Simon's comment:
I'm grateful to the folks who thought I was saying what I wanted to say, and I'm sorry that Patrick and others thought I was saying something else. I'd prefer to let the subject drop now. I think Patrick's one of the great guys in life, and I piss him off periodically without intending to, and maybe that's why I think of him as family.
And then two more posts showed up from Bruce and Teresa. So I will say something more in a bit. But I've got to consider it a little first.
Will
Jim, that's one of my favorite quotes about war. Right now, it's the last of a list of quotes about peace and war on a web site I started for the local community: the Bisbee Peace Page. Right now, I don't think the page has anything you can't find elsewhere (except for the time and place of a local silent vigil), but I'm hoping to turn it into a decent little resource in the next week or two.
Someday, I want to use "its glory is all moonshine" for something. But if someone beats me to it--or has--more power to 'em.
Teresa, "Politically Incorrect" may not express him or herself very well--bitterness is easy right now--but the link is, I think, worth following. The American news seems to be following the military in treating civilians as just another column in the statistics of war. It's good to be reminded that George Bush's desires, whatever they may be, affect people like us. If the Iraqis were better at propaganda, they would have a web page with photos of every known casualty and a few biographical facts, and maybe a comment from a friend or family member.
There's a picture, I think on the Daily Kos site, of a missing soldier, presumed dead, a slender blond girl who looks astonishingly like my niece.
Apologies if I sound like I'm lecturing, or even if I think you don't know most of this. Maybe I'm saying this more for "Politically Incorrect," who could do more good with less anger. Or maybe I'm just saying it for myself. As I've been known to say, it can be a good thing to preach to the choir. The choir needs to be reminded now and then why it's there, too.
My first thought was, "How do I send him some books?" Okay, I'm late. But if anyone finds out, please spread the word. Let's bomb Iraq with science fiction books.
As for tribes, at least three of mine are over there. There's blood: my niece is a Marine Corporal who may still be in Camp Coyote but is probably somewhere near Basra. There's readers like James Riley--and a surprising or not so surprising number of soldiers are readers; grocery stores near military bases seem to have larger book sections than other grocery stores. And there's simple human identity: a family of five were burned to death in their car in Baghdad's Place of the People. I was the oldest kid in a family of five; right now it seems like the five of us were in our car every day when I was young. Doesn't matter whose bomb that was; if there hadn't been a war, there wouldn't have been a bomb.
Here's hope for all soldiers and civilians everywhere.
I found a quote from Cesar Chavez that helps me understand why I was so baffled by Alterman. Chavez said, "There is no such thing as defeat in nonviolence."
Peace isn't for wimps. I realize that if I was to talk with Alterman, I'd probably find that we don't disagree essentially. But I'd ask him to rethink saying we lost. To borrow a phrase from someone who was no pacifist, we have not yet begun to struggle.
I was at a vigil today. Carried a sign saying "Peace on Earth." About 35 people participated, but maybe 200 drove or walked by, flashing the peace sign, honking, smiling like idiots. I was expecting solemnity. But the casualities have not begun to mount. Tomorrow is Bisbee's weekly vigil; It will probably be much quieter in tone.
Oh, I think the smiles came from relief that they were not alone, that it's okay to call for peace even now. I know that's why I was smiling.
Oh, I should probably say what I meant by "protesting." I'll be standing in a public place with a black armband. I may have a candle, or maybe a sign with a message that's not humorous or mean-spirited, something simple like "Peace on Earth." I don't know exactly. If there are other protesters who get angry or violent, I'll point out to them that this is a time to be solemn, not a time to rage, that violence is what we're opposing. All we need to say now is that we don't approve of this war, no matter how well or badly it goes.
I confess, I don't understand what Alterman means. The war has begun. The need for peace has not gone away. We haven't prevented this war. But we can still try to lessen it. We can still let the world know that not all Americans believe that if you can't solve a problem before the weather turns warm, you should begin bombing. Should the war protesters in '63 all have gone home to wait for the Vietnam War to end?
Bitterness is entirely beside the point. If you're tired, rest. But don't give up.
I'll be out protesting tomorrow.
And my apologies if I'm being really thick and missing Alterman's joke.
CHip, didn't mean to say that I expected it to be bipartisan, just that I hoped it would be. Seems to me that you either believe in one person, one vote or, well, the Electoral College. It's odd to hear people arguing state's rights on voting in 2003. I do realize that "one person, one vote" could have a lot of interpretations, too. But I'd like to think the essential principle would appeal to Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, etc.
That's just meant to clarify my opinion, and not to start an Electoral College thread, honest. Just as I've dropped the earlier subject, I'll drop this one for now. I'm busy trying to see what I can do to help the peace movement in Bisbee, AZ.
Bruce, I feel very much like a libertarian socialist. I call myself a Green now because I've voted Green and I'm beginning to work with Greens here in Arizona, but I disagree with some Green strategies and goals. I registered as a Green with the state to help the Greens; I'll probably formally join the Green Party for the same reason. I was probably happiest calling myself a member of the Grassroots Party because they were such an eclectic bunch that you could be anything so long as you opposed the drug war.
Patrick, I'm so happy that you said, "I am very fond of Will, and this is not something over which I would stop being fond of him." I love you like a brother. Our friendship has made my life richer. Apologies if that makes you uncomfortable; I'd probably express it in more reserved terms in less turbulent times, but I'd still feel it.
I understand now that you call Green voters "Naderites" to be clear. I had heard it as being belittling. I spoke of "Democrats" instead of "Gorites" because my personal sense of allegiance says that when you vote for a party's candidate, you're part of that party, if only for that day. I hadn't realized how ideosyncratic that was. I'll do my best to stick to "Gore voters" from here on out.
My idiosyncracy led me to addressing "Democrats" in my first post. I wrote those comments after reading some earlier posts in Electrolite and then reading the Salon article. I thought the complaints were coming primarily from Gore voters, so I addressed Democrats.
Speaking brother to brother, I'd like to admit something. I'll happily be called a fool or worse by anyone. But it's hard for me to be called a liar. I often suffer for my honesty--heck, I'm glad to endure the consequences of honesty, because they always seem best in the end.
I remember two inexcusable moments of dishonesty in my life. I was caught drunk in prep school, ran off, denied having been the person the teachers caught, then thought it over when I sobered up and admitted that I was the student they caught. I was expelled; I don't regret drinking or being expelled, but I'll always regret lying. A year later, I took the G.E.D. for someone I considered a friend. I wasn't caught--and, in fact, I discovered how persuasive a liar I could be when I came close to being caught--but the $100 he paid me made me feel like a whore, not a friend, and we quickly drifted apart.
I have no idea how many minor moments of dishonesty there have been in my life, but I always try to hold little lies to the rare times when truth hurts without helping. And even then people shouldn't ask for my opinion of their shirts if they only want praise.
My pride in my honesty is probably a character flaw that comes from insecurity; if I was never tempted to take the easier path, I wouldn't care if anyone thought I had. But when I choose the hard path, I'd like for people to know I did it consciously. It's petty of me, but, hey, I'm human.
So I beg you, in the future, credit me with less cleverness. I know I should be flattered that you think I'm more aware of what I say and do than I am, but I really do just bumble along as best I can and call things as I see them.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 1 |
| 2003 | 21 |
Total: 22 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Will Shetterly:
Show all comments by Will Shetterly.