The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Wattree's picture

    A Radical Conservative Perspective: America Would be Better Off Without Black People

    By Wattree on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 12:28am |

    Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

     
    A Radical Conservative Perspective: America Would be Better Off Without Black People

     

    I rarely get into the debate over the lingering racism in America, because I feel that the vast majority of the American people have made an honest and concerted effort to put racism behind us. So as long as it’s not blatant or damaging to individual or collective African-Americans, I look upon it as merely a distraction used as to keep the American people divided and unaware of the most insidious threat to America - the gross assault on the poor and middle class.

    But all too often when African-Americans complain of racism that is indeed blatant and damaging to their financial or emotional well being, they’re met with rolling eyes and the implication that it’s a figment of their imagination. Confirmed racist are aware of this situation, and often use that knowledge to ply their passion for constant, but subtle racism. As a result many African-Americans are forced to go through life constantly being subtly harrassed by people like the individual below. It's like going through life with a tenacious fly buzzing around your face. It won't kill you, but it's quite irritating, and it has a direct causal relationship to what’s been dubbed the “angry Black-man syndrome.”

    Thus subtle racism is a very effective device for keeping America divided, because virually every Black person is aware that the mindset illustrated below lingers just beneath the surface of polite society. And unfortunately, more often than not, it's the innocent White person, making a completely innocent remark, who's forced to bear the brunt of the resulting frustration - and the GOP has become masters at this game.

    The most recent example of the GOP engaging in subtle racism is when Mike Huckabee claimed that President Obama viewed the world from the perspective of the Mau Mau. Then when it became clear that he'd crossed the line, he claimed that he misspoke and didn't understand what all the uproar was about. The true attitude that the GOP harbors toward African-Americans is reflected in this exchange that I recently had over the internet:

    Pepe says:
    March 24, 2011 at 1:39 pm (Edit)

    I agree blacks have destroyed this country and they are the reason we never evolved into a great nation. We have to feed and clothe 30 million lazy ass blacks that dont want to work and dont know who their daddy is. We could save this country by sending their asses back to Africa and sending the Mexicans back to Mexico closing our borders and live in peace and harmony imagine a white america for whites only.

    Reply
    Eric L. Wattree says:
    March 24, 2011 at 2:23 pm (Edit)

    Hey Pepe,

    Spoken like a true fascist. It sounds to me like you’re the one who doesn’t belong here. You’re views are un-American. Aren’t you smart enough to see that? If America was filled with people with your mentality, it would no longer be America.

    Even if you got your wish that America was all White, with the kind of people that you represent, the right-handed people would start discriminating against everybody who was left-handed. You see, you’re suffering from an inferiority complex, and you probably lack talent, and you’re comment clearly demonstrates that you lack intellect. So due to your insecurity over your shortcomings as an individual, you have an innate need to feel like you’re a part of something special that’s bigger than yourself - being White. Psychology 101.

    If you had any kind of brain at all, you’d realize that you’re advocating the very same philosophy that countless Americans died to abolish. So again, by definition, you’re un-American. Thus, every headstone in Arlington Cemetary attests to the fact that your very presence desecrates this veteran’s site.

    Reply
    Pepe says:
    March 24, 2011 at 2:48 pm (Edit)

    pls save all that bs for someone else look at japan. They have a great society bcs they didnt let hordes of third world savages in. little crime and high employment above average living standards. It’s called quality of life buddy. If we don’t send them back to Africa give them half a state and see how they do. Have you been to Atlanta. What a shithole. Anyway grow up so our kids can have a better future safe from mindless idiots that smoke blunts and drink 40 oz beer all day. Spreading diseases and having abortions like crazy. this is insane.

    Reply
    Eric L. Wattree says:
    March 24, 2011 at 3:39 pm (Edit)

    You know, Pepe,

    A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Have you ever heard of a logical syllogism? You probably haven’t. That’s why you’re such an inefficient thinker. Your entire philosophy of life is based on an ILLOGICAL syllogism. Black people are like any other group. There are good and bad, brilliant and ignorant within our ranks, and your very existence suggests that the same is true among Whites. Yet, your thinking suggests the following:

    All dogs have fleas. My cat has fleas. Therefore, my cat is a dog. That’s clearly inefficient thinking. But you continue to embrace that philosophy in spite of clear evidence to the contrary for the reasons cited in my previous post.

    You have this gnawing need to feel superior in order to dress your wounds of insecurity. And the very existence of a Black man like myself is a direct assault on your delusions of grandeur. So you’re desperately trying to hold on to your self-esteem by insisting that you’re superior by virtue of your race, in spite of the fact that it’s abundantly clear that you’re nowhere close to my intellectual equal. I can handle people like you on one brain cell. It’s like dealing with a child - and you know it. Thus, all of your hostility.

    Your delusional portrayal of ALL Black people are inconsistent with the facts. I’m a former Marine, and my son had a distinguished career in the Air Force, and he’s now a federal agent. The Air Force and several federal agencies were literally fighting over him. So tell me, Pepe, when was the last time America fought over you?:

    23 April 2002

    MEMORANDUM FOR OFFICER TRAINING SCHOOL SELECTION COMMITTEE
    FROM: 92 SFS/SFO
    2 E. ARNOLD STREET
    FAIRCHILD AFB, WA 99011
    SUBJECT: Recommendation for Staff Sergeant Eric L. Wattree

    1. I wholeheartedly concur with Staff Sergeant Wattree’s request to attend Officer Training School. He represents the enlisted ranks with the highest standard and will bring that dedication and professionalism to the officer corps.

    2. Eric continues to lead a stellar military career; his enlisted performance reports speak for themselves. His leadership and experience, especially in contingency environments, remains a vital asset to our unit and wing. As one of my primary Phoenix Raven team leaders, he’s propelled to the forefront of all major deployments throughout the world. He’s repeatedly secured aircraft and crews, supporting a wide variety of missions, in the most austere and terrorist-ridden environments where security is severely inadequate. The diversity of these missions never limited SSgt Wattree’s capacity to adapt to each situation. For this reason, Eric was selected as our 2000 Outstanding Phoenix Raven Member of the Year and the 2001 Air Force Reserve Component Airman of the Year for the 92d Security Forces Squadron.

    3. Whether operating under peacetime or contingency operations, Eric easily assumes control and tackles every situation with meticulous tenacity, a quality highly desired in our Air Force officers. Requested by name, Sergeant Wattree, provided security for presidential Banner missions throughout Greece, Peru and Viet Nam. While deployed to Afghanistan, he flew numerous combat missions in our nation’s pursuit to eradicate terrorism through Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. Additionally, he provided round-the-clock force protection for aircraft in other high-threat environments including Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Oman.

    4. Sergeant Wattree motivated his personnel during the worst conditions and raised the level of esprit de corps to integrate personnel from other Air Force specialties into a cohesive team. His leadership, integrity and devotion to our Air Force play an integral part in our future leadership. Eric has what it takes to become a commissioned officer and earns my full support to attend Officer Training School.

    FRANK HELLSTERN, JR.,
    Captain, USAF
    Operations Officer

    After serving six years in the Air Force the agency that he’s currently working for obtained a same-day discharge for him with just a phone call so he could begin Special Agent training in Quantico, Virginia.

    I raised that young man. So I put forth the proposition that if America had more people like me and fewer like you, and whoever raised you, that this would be a much better country – and I have the evidence to back that up. What do you have?

    Eric L. Wattree says:
    March 24, 2011 at 5:27 pm (Edit)

    Just as I thought. The silence is deafening.

    Eric L. Wattree
    http://wattree.blogspot.com/
    [email protected]
    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does. 

    Comments

    Interesting. They did not use to think having black people around was such a bad idea. First as slaves and then doing the shitty jobs for no pay that THEY did not want to do.  As long as blacks knew their place, as it were.

    Oh yeah...there was that bit about the civil rights legislation and anti-discrimination. Maybe THAT is what pisses these people off so much.

    </snark>


    by cmaukonen on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 1:38am

    Yeah, plus they discovered Mexcans. Seriously for a moment, I have grown up in Texas and, believe me, racism is not dead.  It's just not as public as before. Many rednecks know full well that they are poor and ignorant and racism gives them an out to allow them to look down on someone else.


    by The Decider on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:29pm

    holy sh**&&*

    I gotta review this.

    When will this stop?

    Political correctness is now a bad phrase!!

    I do not get this at all and I will be back tomorrow!

    If you wish me to sign a petition or sign onto an email or....

    This is George Wallace when he said that he would never be out n&**&&^*&ered again!

    What the hell is going on here?


    by Richard Day on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 3:07am

    What is this? A debate with a wingnut commenter proves what? 

    You throw in this strawman:

    But all too often when African-Americans complain of racism that is indeed blatant and damaging to their financial or emotional well being, they’re met with rolling eyes and the implication that it’s a figment of their imagination.

    What does that mean? Who are you talking about? Yeah, if you complain to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, you'll get rolled eyes, cause they're acknowledged racist idiots. But are blacks really surprised by which kind of people are supportive of complaints, and which are dismissive? And is it impossible to give a single concrete example of this vague, sweeping statement, just for an inkling of context?


    by Desider on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 10:38am

    PeePee uses the example of an Asian country to support the idea of an All-White country. This is an impressive ethnic disconnect. PeePee might notice that in crime free Japan, the Yakuza has stepped in to provide aid that was not forth-comong from the Japanese government. Furthermore. PeePee should note that the Japanese public does not trust the information provided by the Japanese nuclear energy agency. "Looting" (hundreds of people entering a beer plant,for example) has occured as people struggle to survive.

    The presence of the Yakuza means that Japan has it's criminal element just like all societies. The entering of businesses during a disaster is common in all societies.

    Peepee might feel superior to the criminal class, but I doubt that Peepee is the intellectual superior to Wattree, or the other commenters on this site. PeePee probably will continue to feel superior as his effective income remains  stagnant as the Republicans continue there battle against people who work for a living rather than make money by mere,y shifting other people's money from one place to another.

    Thanks for this post Eric, reading the rants of a racist like PeePee reinfoces my belief that these folks are no true intellectual threat to anyone. Peepee is just a scared, undereducated buffoon who can only feel superior by comparing himself to his stereotype of Black people. When confronted by a real-life Black person like Wattreee, PeePee the coward runs.


    by robbit on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 11:42am

    Billie Holiday said that being black in America was like going through life wearing shoes a size too small. It was true then, is now and I guess it always will be. Or like William Faulkner said, "The past is never dead. It's not even past." All in all quite challenging to be black in America... The good news is that anyone who can transcend that will probably get a free pass out of Samsara.


    by David Seaton on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 1:18pm

    Oh gag me. It's tough being a black junkie or a black living in poverty, tougher than for a white equivalent. But if you're black middle class, it's not that bad, even if always a bit tougher than for a white. Even Billy Holiday was expressing that - a size too small, not 5 sizes or shoeless.

    Here's one picture of the new South, rather brazenly saying Faulkner's pronouncement is now wrong (he had plenty of reason to say it at the time, as the Civil War's/slavery's efffects were still much stronger *60-80 years ago*):

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/us/20race.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

    Here's Bob Somerby writing about this same issue (which led me to the Times article):

    http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh032111.shtml

    And Bob's regularly complaining about liberals who trash our education system and continually screw up the data - ignoring the serious progress blacks and Hispanics have made in our school system over the last 20 years, pretending it's a failure.

    I didn't notice Barack Obama having such a tough time rising in America, having a bank VP as a granny and a cherry prep-school upbringing.

    Really what I notice is the class warfare in what's paraded as a "classless" society. It's very dangerous to be poor in America, and in combination with being a minority escalates the problem.

    But plenty of blacks are fairly safely in middle class, plenty have reached the top of society, and while there can always be stupid racist incidents to mar the success, I'd rather be there than a lot of other positions in the world for whatever ethnic group.


    by Desider on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 2:19pm

    Recall that Barack Obama's bank VP grandmother was a white woman and not a black woman, he was raised in Hawaii, a place where many cultures have lived together for a long time.

    Please note that Eric Wattree is not only writing about black people in poverty, he is also writing about the experience of middle and upper class African Americans who do experience financial hits because they are black, this is what we call institutional racism. One great example is the recent mortgage scandals.  If you happen to be African American or Latino you probably won't get a good deal on your mortgage interest, or credit card interest rates. Certainly these judgements are not based on their credit scores but on long held stereotypes, and a system that takes advantage of those stereotypes. I am very surprised you seem unable to wrap your head around those facts.

    The Charlotte Observer reported in August that blacks who borrowed from 25 of the nation's largest lenders were four times more likely than whites to pay high rates. Even blacks with incomes above $100,000 a year were charged high rates more often than whites with incomes below $40,000, the newspaper found.

    Institutional racism survives in this country, denying it exists does not make it the truth.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 2:55pm

    While I appreciate your quote from the Charlotte Observer, there's not enough detail to really say why this is occurring, whether it's a regional issue or nationwide, how significant the rate differences are, etc.

    Not that Mortgage lenders deserve much credence after the mass ripoffs of late, but, "The center's data did not include all the factors used by lenders, such as a borrower's total debts, making the study's conclusions incomplete, said Doug Duncan of the Mortgage Bankers Association."

    If blacks on average carry higher debts whether rich or poor, and this affects mortgage rates, then it can make a difference. I don't know if that's true though, and wouldn't hazard to guess.

    But in any case, more blacks these days have the luxury to be considering mortgages. (okay, probably better in 2000 than 2011 due to criminal neglect/enablement from the last administration)


    by Desider on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 4:15pm

    And my original response was as much to David as it was to Watt. Easy to sit in Europe and pretend that nothing ever gets better in America (even while I rail about how much has gotten worse, racism doesn't seem to be one, at least not for blacks - all the anti-Hispanic hoopla and the anti-Muslim hysteria seems to be where the real action is these days)


    by Desider on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 4:20pm

    There really was plenty of data available on blacks very often receiving subprime loans even if their incomes and credit rating reports would have/should have allowed them to receiver prime. 

    Schools continue to be a problem in black neighborhoods, which is why so many families want vouchers for private or parochial schools.  You may say it's the poverty of the neighborhoods, not the racial aspects, and that I don't know.

    I do know that it would be hard to say anything too concrete about living black if you're not, though we can borrow experiences from friends' lives.  But I think if you want to look at statistics and not feelings or racist comments, but something more analytical, you'd have to look at a bunch of different areas.  For me, a big one is the prison population, the rate at which juries convict innocent blacks, (and their innocence is later proven by DNA evidence or recanted testimony), misidentification of blacks in line-ups and court, and even the pMRI scans of people looking at photos of black faces v. white or other faces, sometimes a good indication of emotional response. 

    Another would be employment statistics: all other things equal as one could assess them, does a black person get the job if whites are hiring?  (I've read stats in the past about it.)  Loans, other than mortgages show discrepancies, things like that.  Nope, don't have links, and I do know that studies can be unconsciousl weighted depending what you'r e looking for, and hopefull these studies weren't looking for anything but what's so.

    But today is better than the past, except for the cretins who will always need to hate someone Other, and there do seem to be plenty of them right now.  And as you say, as the big expansion of the Hispanic population gets known abroad, look out for creepy prognostications about that.  (I love the idea of whites being in the minority soon, myself.)

    I heard an interesting discussion on Dylan Ratigan's show about the new census info, and how that will affect Obama's chances in 2012.  Been tinking of blogging about it; Reuben Navarrette thinks Hispanics are pretty pissed at the President.


    by we are stardust on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 5:52pm

    Great post! Thank you for your past and present service to our country.


    by Watt Childress on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:27pm

    it’s abundantly clear that you’re nowhere close to my intellectual equal. I can handle people like you on one brain cell.

    Best Line Ever. Great Post Eric.


    by mageduley on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:07am

    You know I heart you, E., but for my money this isn't up to your old standards; sorry.  Sit on the answering emails or comments that are too self-glorifying, IMO.  It makes the arguments too narrow, and doesn't really move the debate along.


    by we are stardust on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 9:26pm

    Without black people we'd have food like the English and music like the Scots (ok, so I love bagpipes too.)

    Without those fucking crackers from the South, however, we'd have decent politics.

    Some of us are not so sure who actually won the Civil War, (by way of long term outcome...)

    Why couldn't we just have freed ths slaves, moved the African Americans into Illinois, and cut those racist motherfuckers loose to *inbreed on their own like they always love to do.

    *(Apologies to Faulkner for theft)


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 9:44pm

    And, preemptively, don't anybody dare reproach me for "crackers".  I use the term advisedly.  Suck it up.


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 9:46pm

    Like in "Animal Crackers". Made respectable by the Marx Brothers.

    Also Randy Newman (lyrics for "We're Rednecks")


    by Desider on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 1:04pm

    Putting this at bottom:

    I'm guessing you think that I chose the "sensitive reader's" side, despite suggesting that the reader was being sensitive. In reality, whereas I was kinda starting from the position that both sides were right, I ended with the position that both sides were wrong. I also went to pains to say that my own opinion ain't worth squat.

    You say that "slavery period" doesn't leave any wiggle-room, which makes me think you haven't played many semantics games, because I can guarantee you that if you started pressing you'd find the "sensitive reader" wiggling quite a bit. And, as I already indicated, I would not use that phrase myself, because my semantic interpretation of that phrase would make it quite silly indeed.

    That said, while you seem willing to condemn "slavery period", you don't seem to have an opinion on the "War of Northern Aggression" phrase. (I will note that Desider's use of that phrase while not explicitly supportive of it, was implicitly defensive of it.)


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 9:58pm

    What Quinn said below; I admit that as soon as some asshat demands, "Define 'slavery period' or something, I bail.  I read it as faux-intellectual discussion.  And I hate faux-intellectualism.  ;o)

    And I remember now that Tmacarthy is a 'she', not a 'he/she'.  But I was in the process of drawing a hot bath, and didn't rush back to correct it.

    Q addressed 'war of northern aggression', I assume.  I also get tripped up on time-stamps and who said what things on a thread with many comments.  When I get it wrong, I just blame Obey.


    by we are stardust on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:08pm

    VA. If you're to support a "side," then do it. If you're going to mediate, don't be an asshole about it.

    1. It wasTMac who first used the phrase Northern Aggression, and then Des quoted her - using a block quote. Go on, scroll up and look. You were wrong.

    2. It's great that you're "sure" TMac has a more sensible point of view. Nowhere, however, has she said what you'd like her to say. She just keeps saying, "slavery, period" - and shitting on people who say "slavery, primarily." So stop saying you're sure she must think it.

    3. There is nothing comparable to her comments about owned or have owned slaves. So, no, not at all comparable. 


    by quinn esq on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:00pm

    My "side" is that they're both wrong. Re-read what Des said when he quoted her. The part that I'm saying was implicitly defensive of the phrase is the following:

    TMccarthy has trouble with the phrase, "The War of Northern Aggression", even though, surprise, the South left peacefully and the North attacked. (Lincoln and Qaddhafi sitting in a tree....?)

    Doesn't that sound defensive of the phrase to you? And, yeah, I'll cop being guilty of trying to mediate AND to failing at it miserably. As for me being "sure" that TMac has a more sensible POV, I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong. As I said, there are trivial examples that would demonstrate that. For example, surely the Civil War would not still have happened if the North was quite confident they couldn't win (and one can dream up hundreds of trivial scenarios under which that would be true).

    As for #3, I think you're reading into what she wrote something that's not there. Still, it wasn't a nice thing to say, which takes me back to the beginning. They're both wrong. Des is just more in control of his emotions, as I think he's just playing around, whereas TMac clearly takes it very personally.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:07pm

    TMac thinks anyone she disagrees with is a TeaBagger, and treats them as such. She's doing it again here, with Des, and with her slavery comments. As for Des, if you've followed along a bit, he's intellectually stimulating, and even when hellaciously wrong, his self-control and manners are many times better than most peoples, certainly mine.

    As for Northern Aggression, I decided during the TPM wars on this that it was not a good topic to discuss with most Americans, simply because they see it in terms of specific battles and Lincoln and so on, and are so emotionally engaged. Which is fine. But it means they often have an awful time pulling apart the issues of secession... and slavery. As though the two were always and everywhere the same question. For Canadians, used to thinking about Quebec, this is baffling. 

    So, Northern Aggression. My view is, if push came to shove, I'd support the Civil War being fought. But only on the grounds that it was intended to end slavery. If it was to be fought, with hundreds of thousands killed, solely (solely)(SOLELY)(solely) to maintain the Union, I regard that as immoral. I believe people have the right to leave political arrangements, and when they do, if they really want to go, they have that right... NO MATTER what previous political documents have been signed. This strikes me as a sensible position, as pretty much every single nation I can think of has gone through this same step - e.g. the US States had within the previous century actually broken away from Britain and its political bonds.

    For me, this changes my perspective on who committed violence against who during the run-up to the Civil War. e.g. If Quebec left Canada today, and Canada not only refused to leave forts within Quebec's bounds, but began to resupply and send in reinforcements, it would be very difficult for me to see these as purely peaceable acts, rather than as acts of war. 

    In the actual case, it seems the outgoing US President thought the Feds did not have the legal or constitutional right to compel the States to remain in the Union by force. Lincoln thought differently. I disagree on the preserving the Union bit. But I agree with the ending slavery bit. But some in the US actually think - even with slavery as my only justification for fighting - that I must therefore be against Lincoln and the Union, and thus... pro-slavery. There was an extended fight about this as TPM, with people actually throwing those charges.

    So to hear TMac doing the same today, and not one person calling her on it, says to me that liberal Americans still have problems sorting this stuff out. Can''t see the relevance? Try this. Imagine if I disagreed with someone on issues of sexism here at Dag, and followed it by saying, "it was as though you, yourself have raped and you feel really guilty about it." Now, personally,I'd argue having a slave and raping are both pretty low moral acts, right? So... precisely how long before everyone was having a big to-do about whether I should be banned for the rape comment? Ten seconds? Which means there's something wrong, that this should happen, again, at a site where there are so many self-proclaimed defenders of civil rights and who are all rah-rah fighting the Civl War now... but who give people a pass to behave like that.

    I just personally find it to be spineless, and rather pathetic.


    by quinn esq on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:18am

     I believe people have the right to leave political arrangements, and when they do, if they really want to go, they have that right

    Mais biensure-tu es Canadien--vive le bloc! (Down here, we run things differently...)


    by jollyroger on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 1:38am

    What you touch on is a big lesson for today's war.

    150 years later we can't even quite agree whether the Civil War was fought to end slavery or to keep the union together.

    In Libya, we're "protecting civilians" but in a way that "supports the rebels" (clearing any enemy vehicles and personnel from their path) and ensuring "regime change" (and probably "protecting the oil" as well).

    Which is it? Which did the UN sign on for? Russians are already complaining that helping the rebels wasn't the prime purpose, nor retaking Qaddafi's hometown, much less regime change.

    And I firmly agree with Quinn on his analysis of this equation.

    I think people have the right to secede from whatever union, whether marriage or countries, and typically there are costs for this, as laid out wonderfully in the Declaration of Independence:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[72] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    What this wonder clause gives is the justification for the South seceding, to address the wrongs it felt it had suffered.

    And it provides the justification for the North objecting and waging war, to assist blacks in the wrongs that they not only "felt" but most objectively and assuredly did suffer, and would continue to suffer.

    Of course the North was a player in this arrangement, making loads of money off of cotton labor through textile mills and exports to Bristol. But even a partner in murder can come clean and say, "I can kill no more, I'm throwing my lot in with the victim".

    Which of course the North didn't quite do. Even the Emancipation Proclamation, a couple years late, was a ripoff of the British effort in 1812 to get US slaves to revolt and take up freedom in Bermuda, even while the British maintained slavery in Jamaica. All ironies become possible in wartime.

    But to play the simplified history game, I think I'd be a fool to say "the North only fought the war to keep the union together". That was Lincoln's line, and I believe that about as much as I believe Obama's speech the other night - i.e. "whatever", roll of eyes.

    My guess without looking at the records is that many of the Northerners fighting in the war were not just fighting to keep the union together, but fighting to liberate black people. I don't think John Brown cared about the union - he cared about the immorality of slavery.

    And in any case, the South did secede peacefully - even convened legislatures to vote on it. And the North did attack (to retain a piece of rock in a Southern port hundreds of miles away - like our trick holding on to Guantanamo or the British keeping Gibraltar or the Russians holding Kaliningrad....). That was aggression. Justified if it's to free the slaves. Unjustified if it's just they didn't like the battered wife trying to walk out the door. "Hey, I'm not finished talking to you..."

    And funny, that's the kind of tone I usually hear when people talk about the war.


    by Desider on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 2:18am

    As for your position on the Civil War, it almost exactly mirrors my own. Just to be clear, I'm also in agreement on substance with Desider that there were a lot of other factors besides "just" slavery involved in the Civil War. I'd even go so far as to say that the vast majority of Southern soldiers did not consider slavery to be one of the things they were fighting for. Possibly true for the Northern soldiers, but not as resoundingly. Similarly, I don't think it's fair to say (not that anyone is saying it) that our soldiers today consider oil to be one of the things they are fighting for.

    As for my position on TMac, I found myself in one of two positions. Either (a) she was so far off the deep-end that she shouldn't logically be able to operate a computer (something I don't think is true), or (b) she's not saying exactly what we think she means. I went with (b). Maybe you found and Desider found a (c), but it seemed to me that y'all went with (a). Or, maybe y'all also went with (b), but were just arguing that point in a manner lost on me. It's entirely possible. As I've said before, I don't find my opinion particular valuable on this topic, but for some reason (that I'm now regretting) I chose to weigh in.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:20am

    The Canadian situation has obviously shaped my thoughts and feelings on this. At 16, I was ready to fight to keep the country together. By 36, not a chance. I'd just lament the loss of all Quebec brings. But emotionally, it's a big freight train, and incredibly interesting to work through. Imagine, in 1995, Quebec had a referendum, and we all followed it 24/7. The vote eventually had a 94% turnout. And the stay in Canada side won by 50.4 to 49.6%, with the vote count only coming to a lead late. Within Quebec, the Northern Cree voted 94% against leaving, as did the Anglos and the immigrants (by about 80/20.) It was an amazing thing. And the process of working through my stance on that has probably established my principles on the 1860 version of events. As for the personal stuff, I guess this issue just runs hot for people. A b or c, I donno. Thanks for chatting. I think I'll go fight the Libyan civil war now. ;-)

    by quinn esq on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:18am