The Lie that will not Die

We mark the 150th anniversary of the Civil War in 246 days.

While April 12, 1861 saw the initiation of a shooting war accruing from hostility that had simmered for decades. Tension between North and South reached the boiling point almost 30 years before the first shots were fired on Fort Sumter. Andrew Jackson's smackdown of nullification and almost three decades of ensuing compromises and appeasements couldn't prevent the inevitable cataclysm for one and only one reason.

Slavery caused the war.

Governor McDonnell's proclamation of Virginia's "Confederate History Month" four months ago set off a firestorm and a well-earned Presidential rebuke. McDonnell forgot to mention why the war was fought as he eagerly pandered to the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other denialists. Realizing that Virginia's black voters outnumber her white idiots, a chastened McDonnell issued an apology. Analysis of his law school thesis reveals that McDonnell is a Christian extremist, a misogynist and likely a bigot. His apology is therefore a fraud.

Which brings up a question regarding big states of denial. Could any denialism top McDonnell's unpardonable proclamation? Only if proclaimed by the Texas State Legislature.

Texas elected officials saw fit to enshrine the lie that will not die by proclaiming "April is the month in which the Confederate States of  America began and ended a four-year struggle for states' rights, individual freedom, and local government control...".

Did they really say "individual freedom"?

Texas brushed off slavery with liberal use of legislated ignorance: "the morally abhorrent practice of slavery has in the minds of many Texans become the prime motivation of Southern soldiers, despite the fact that 98 percent of Texas Confederate soldiers never owned a slave and never fought to defend slavery; and WHEREAS, Politically correct revisionists would have Texas children believe that their Confederate ancestors fought for slavery when in fact most Texans joined the Confederate armed forces to defend their homes, their families, and their proud heritage as Texans..."

Really?

Because only 2% of fighting Texans - over 2,100 men - were slave owners, Texas can disavow slavery as the cause of the war? The founding documents of the Confederacy explicitly cite the preservation of slavery as raison d'être. Texas was an acknowledged, belligerent member of the Confederacy. Therefore, Texas has ownership of slavery as the cause of the war. Notions of "proud heritage" in context of the Civil War are simply execrable.

Andy Hall, guest blogger at theAtlantic and purveyor of the insightful Dead Confederates, provides expert analysis of a deeper lie. The two-percent figure is an exercise in profound ignorance. Andy is a Civil War scholar with a Texan's intolerance for bullshit. His guest post on theAtlantic explains why slavery is the only root-cause of 600,000 Americans killed in a titanic struggle that redefined war itself.

Hop on over, give it a read and introduce yourself. You can mention TheRaven, they know me there.

Country of the credulous?

Glenn Beck again invokes not-so-subtle racism directed at the President.We've caught Beck at the antebellum game of southern aristocrats. Beck urges his audience to study history. He's apparently confident that most will instead stick with People magazine and the National Enquirer.

Beck runs a clip of the President's recent address to the AFL-CIO. The President thanks union members for their work keeping special interests in check. Beck then throws a tantrum, marches up to the video screen, points to "AFL-CIO" in the backdrop and screams...

The AFL-CIO is a "special interest"? It's very important to note that Beck is using "special interest" in a pejorative context. He impugns current and retired AFL-CIO members as participants in special interest privilege.

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations is the largest federation of labor unions in the United States. It consists of 56 national and international unions, which represent more than 11 million workers, or roughly 8% of the U.S. workforce. The AFL-CIO also represents a wide swath of occupations, including: nurses; airline pilots, federal government workers; transit workers; postal workers; construction trades; fire fighters; miners; utility workers; merchant marine; police; longshoremen; and, others.

Bearing in mind that Beck's audience skews to an older, whiter, more blue-collar demographic, his slam of the AFL-CIO is more surprising than his racist rant at an 11 year old girl. Perhaps it's not as shocking as his history of on-air abuse, including cruelty towards a woman who had recently miscarried, but given that the Alliance for Retired Americans is an AFL-CIO affiliate claiming 3 million members, Beck's outburst potentially enraged far more than the 11 million people who are currently active union members.

How can Beck get away with an attack on his own audience? The video clip is mercifully short. The next thing he says reveals a game older than nullification:

"Planet of the Apes" is a not-so-veiled reference to the President's skin color. It also invokes 19th century hate speech, when blacks were commonly referred to as apes or monkeys. Beck used the AFL-CIO slam to set-up his real message, a racial taunt designed to resonate with his core audience.

Beck knows his audience will understand "Planet of the Apes". He's counting on them not to comprehend his cynical reuse of the slave master's manipulation of public opinion.

Antebellum aristocracy feared two things: (1) loss of slavery; (2) empowerment of the white underclass. Slavery, and only slavery, was the primary cause of Civil War. The slave-holding class effectively disenfranchised poor whites and owned a hugely disproportionate share of southern wealth, since slaves as an asset class exceeded the combined worth of all railroads and manufacturing businesses in America. Poor whites were kept in line by: (1) obsequence to aristocracy (inherited from their English Borderlands forebears); (2) a sense of racial superiority imparted to them by slave-owners.

Beck is repeating the cornerstone of the Great Southern Lie. TheRaven wonders, once again, if Beck hasn't gone too far. Unions have served to promote racial equality. Some of the individual unions and occupations slammed by Beck are well-integrated (police; postal workers) or known for disproportionately large minority representation (Federal government). Beck says that Obama's praise of the AFL-CIO makes him think that he woke up on the Plant of the Apes. If Beck isn't brought to heel by millions of outraged AFL-CIO members, the alternative conclusion is that we're living in a country of the credulous.

Truth speaks

Isabella was a slave girl in New York who grew to be a preacher named Sojourner Truth. An interesting comparison between her travails and the mythology behind super-heroes is found here. She overcame illiteracy to become a bible scholar and in so doing asked questions that, nearly 150 years later, many  adherents still fear. Her brief address to a Woman's convention held in Akron speaks for itself.

****************************************
December 1851
Ain't I A Woman?

Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that 'twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what's all this here talking about? That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place!

And ain't I a woman?

Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?

Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full? Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman!

Where did your Christ come from? 
 
Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.  

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say.

****************************************

Click here for source.

Heritage of the Old Servant

Of all the cheap labels, linguistic shortcuts and tired slogans that pervade American culture, none are more execrable than Heritage Not Hate. This three-word defense of the Confederate flag recodes a Jim Crow taunt. Southern heritage is defined first and foremost by slavery. The south went to war to defend slavery and lost. The Confederate flag is nothing more than our enduring symbol of oppression, enslavement, racism and ignorance.

And, as with so many other modern observations, it's been said before, more elequently, by those who knew best.

************************************************

Dayton, Ohio, August 7, 1865
To My Old Master, Colonel P. H. Anderson,
Big Spring, Tennessee

Sir: I got your letter and was glad to find you had not forgotten Jourdan, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than anybody else can. I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you long before this for harboring Rebs they found at your house. I suppose they never heard about your going to Col. Martin's to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable. Although you shot at me twice before I left you, I did not want to hear of your being hurt, and am glad you are still living. It would do me good to go back to the dear old home again and see Miss Mary and Miss Martha and Allen, Esther, Green, and Lee. Give my love to them all, and tell them I hope we will meet in the better world, if not in this. I would have gone back to see you all when I was working in the Nashville hospital, but one of the neighbors told me Henry intended to shoot me if he ever got a chance.

I want to know particularly what the good chance is you propose to give me. I am doing tolerably well here; I get $25 a month, with victuals and clothing; have a comfortable home for Mandy (the folks here call her Mrs. Anderson), and the children, Milly, Jane and Grundy, go to school and are learning well; the teacher says Grundy has a head for a preacher. They go to Sunday-School, and Mandy and me attend church regularly. We are kindly treated; sometimes we overhear others saying, "Them colored people were slaves" down in Tennessee. The children feel
hurt when they hear such remarks, but I tell them it was no disgrace in Tennessee to belong to Col. Anderson. Many darkies would have been proud, as I used to was, to call you master. Now,if you will write and say what wages you will give me, I will be better able to decide whether it would be to my advantage to move back again.

As to my freedom, which you say I can have, there is nothing to be gained on that score, as I got my free-papers in 1864 from the Provost-Marshal-General of the Department at Nashville. Mandy says she would be afraid to go back without some proof that you are sincerely disposed to treat us justly and kindly and we have concluded to test your sincerity by asking you to send us our wages for the time we served you. This will make us forget and forgive old scores, and rely on your justice and friendship in the future. I served you faithfully for thirty-two years and Mandy twenty years. At $25 a month for me, and $2 a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to $11,680. Add to this the interest for the time our wages has been kept back and deduct what you paid for our clothing and three doctor's visits to me, and pulling a tooth for Mandy, and the balance will show what we are in justice entitled to. Please send the money by Adams Express, in care of V. Winters, esq, Dayton, Ohio. If you fail to pay us for faithful labors in the past we can have little faith in your promises in the future. We trust the good Maker has opened your eyes to the wrongs which you and your fathers have done to me and my fathers, in making us toil for you for generations without recompense. Here I draw my wages every Saturday night, but in Tennessee there was never any pay day for the negroes any more than for the horses and cows. Surely there will be a day of reckoning for those who defraud the laborer of his hire.

In answering this letter please state if there would be any safety for my Milly and Jane, who are now grown up and both good-looking girls. You know how it was with poor Matilda and Catherine. I would rather stay here and starve and die if it comes to that than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters. You will also please state if there has been any schools opened for the colored children in your neighborhood, the great desire of my life now is to give my children an education, and have them form virtuous habits.

P.S. Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol from you when you were shooting at me.

From your old servant,
Jourdan Anderson

************************************************

"Letter from Jourdan Anderson to His Former Master," was originally published in The Freedmen's Book (L. Maria Child, Ticknor & Fields, 1866), which can be viewed in entirety at Google books. It was also published in Been in the Storm So Long: The Aftermath of Slavery (Leon F. Litwack, Knopf, 1979).

Proximate Cause

Governor McDonnell's pronouncement of Confederate History Month deserves unending scorn because he pandered to the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other groups that are akin to holocaust deniers. His proclamation skipped over slavery as the underlying cause for war and was clearly aimed at a largely uneducated white majority. McDonell's outrage renders his subsequent apology unworthy of consideration.

Perpetrators of the great southern lie - for it is only in the south that we find those who trade in the "War of Northern Aggression" and related nonsense - suspend disbelief to argue every possible excuse. They either lack critical thinking skills or, blinded by other dogmas such as biblical literalism, suppress the very skills that serve their professional life to propagate coded racism. An example of "educated denialism" is synopsized here...http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/scruggs-causes-uncivil-war030607.phtml and background on the author (Mike Scruggs) can be found here..http://www.markwhiteusa.com/AboutUs.html.

There were many proximate causes of the Civil War and each one is threaded to one, and only one, central issue. The proof is a simple question: if slavery had not existed, would there have been a war? Among all proximate causes, my two favorites are: weak Federal treasury, exemplified by lack of a national currency; the out-sized influence of abolitionists on northern politics. The premise for the importance of these two factors is: the inseparability of slave labor with the southern economy; and, another simple question: what other country had a slavery problem, and how was it solved?

The central problem leading up to the war was political paralysis. The underlying disease was slavery. This is a cautionary tale for our current climate of instant polarization. Abolitionists succeeded in painting slavery with a brush dipped in pure moral tones. Southerners heard a quite different message. Slaves were not only the source of most southern income; they also comprised its largest asset class. Slaves were so important to the southern economy that an insurance market sprang up around them (http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0100-consumers/0300...). The southern ruling class heard a moral position and responded in kind, giving birth to the great southern lie.

The intractability of issue becomes clear if you consider how possible loss of slave capital was perceived to also imperil other forms of capital, such as the value of plantations, and that the southern ruling class was diametrically opposed to free labor. About the only thing more distasteful than the risk of losing slave capital was the notion of an empowered class of previously servile, poor whites. The southern ruling class viewed possible loss of virtually all of their capital and income through an narrow ideological prism. Proof of their pre-war view is found in their post-Reconstruction behavior. The slave economy was re-established in all but name and majority of whites lived the same disadvantaged existence as before the war.

In hindsight, Federal purchase and emancipation of southern slaves might have been a viable alternative. The southern ruling class would have lost their primary motivation to fight (loss of capital) and then, forced to negotiate on less ideological ground, the north would have been in better position to leverage southern white underclass resentment into a political force. Reasons why this couldn't happen include abolitionist success in framing the northern argument and a weak Federal treasury. It was the Civil War that enabled (or forced) creation of our national currency.

This isn't an exercise in "presentism". Northern politicians had a fresh example for possibly preempting war with purchase/emancipation. A successful national government program to do exactly that was concluded 20 years before South Carolina initiated hostilities. The British parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. The Act provided terms of government purchase for all slaves in Britain, but not in all British possessions. The British government funded a seven year purchase/emancipation with 20 million pounds. The Act took effect in 1834 and by 1841 slavery in Britain was history.

The two core differences in Britain's experience were: (1) acceptance of slavery's economic reality, as opposed to polarizing moral arguments; (2) a strong government treasury. The counter argument to this view is that slavery was less important to the British economy than it was in the American south. That's true and is illustrated by the Act's limitations. However, such view does not consider how a similar solution could have been adopted in America with, for example, a longer emancipation period. Plus, 20 million pounds wasn't exactly chump change in 1833. The British program shows that war wasn't necessarily a foregone conclusion.

In fairness to the reason why historic inquiry is so important, the "moral vs. economic" argument should also be studied in context of northern culture and subsequent events. With very few exceptions, Abolitionists were racist. Northern blacks were an intensely segregated northern minority and the notion of free blacks possibly moving north was an anathema to the northern majority. This was the period also characterized by intense animosity towards Irish immigrants. Fifty-two years after Appomattox, The Great War caused an unprecedented labor market vacuum that accelerated the Great Migration. White reaction in northern (or non-southern) states to growing black population mirrored southern atrocities. One can argue the southern-ness of Tulsa but few would call Detroit anything but northern.

The "moral vs. economic" argument is useful for widening the debate. It does not posit an alternative past in which peace could have been simply bought with a fat cheque. It does argue for complete inquiry, with all truths dragged into the light of day. Exploration of northern culture would provide necessary balance, however, the final conclusion would remain inescapable.

Slavery caused the war.

Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name.

Governor McDonnell’s recent proclamation of Virginia’s Confederate History Month, sans slavery, was an immediate and revealing reversal from the centrist path of his campaign. While the former governor properly chose to excoriate McDonnell for his law school thesis, McDonnell sought cover by distancing himself from far right extremists. It worked. McDonnell’s law degree from Regent University should spark this question: what is Regent University? This is what Regent says about itself: "Regent University is a leading center of Christian thought and action. Driven by our commitment to global influence from a biblical perspective..."

"Biblical perspective" = huge red flag.

Peruse the Regent web site and you'll see John Ashcroft's smiling face. John was the picture of well-balanced Christian virtues as the nation's AG and he’s now on Regent’s faculty. Review the list of 17 undergraduate programs and you'll see a fairly vanilla list, albeit with strong commercial orientation (Animation; Cinema/TV). The tip-off is academic bias at the program level. There are three thought cleansing programs (Bible & Theological; Ministry; Religious) but no science programs. No biology, geology, nothing. Regent’s Chancellor & President is none other than Pat (those Haitian devils did it to themselves) Robertson. What are the odds of a Creationist mindset residing at Regent?

McDonnell's choice of Regent was made well into a business career. He earned a MBA from Boston University in 1980. He's not organically stupid, why Regent for his law degree? His 1989 thesis (available here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/d...) provides a boatload of frightening clues. Regent was McDonnell’s political springboard.

Media attention on McDonnell’s thesis was drawn to hot button words. In typical fashion, the media hit a few symptoms and missed the underlying disease. McDonnell was 35 years old when he wrote it; a grown man, certainly not some wild-eyed undergraduate. This is crucial context. A 93-page document penned in 1989 would otherwise be too easy to dismiss as long ago and far away, which is how McDonnell's gubernatorial campaign characterized it. The thesis isn't revealing so much as it is horrifying. It’s a theocratic rant from start to finish, a worldview that, regarding the relationship of the individual to the state, is closer to a Taliban view than to, for example, President Obama’s. A few selections are presented below, with translation for readers who might not fully appreciate McDonnell’s theocratic lunacy:

Very first sentence, abstract: "The traditional family is the cornerstone upon which western civilization has been built...." (Translation: if you fall outside my definition of traditional family, you are outside the principles of civilization, as I define them.)

Page 4 - "There is nothing so devastating to the family as divorce" (Translation: the subjugation and brutalization of women is a fine price to pay to preserve my narrow and historically flawed definition of the family).

Page 6 - He blames trends in delayed marriage and married couples having fewer children in part on "the self-centeredness of modern individualism". (Translation: women who pursue a profession instead of having children are evil whores).

Page 6 - He observes that children educated in public schools are "exposed" to textbooks that are "increasingly oriented to humanist values and a secular philosophy", followed by "contemporaneous purging of religious influence in the public schools has impaired the development of healthy family members". (Translation: if the Taliban would bathe more frequently, I'd invite them over for barbecue!)

Page 9 - (critiquing past Supreme Court decisions) "...the perverted notion of liberty that each individual should be able to live out his sexual life in any way he chooses without inference from the state." (Translation: anyone living outside my definition of the family, regardless of their sexual orientation, will be subject to state control over the most intimate aspects of their lives).

Page 11 - (example of frequent weasel words & phrases) "...unlike many other countries, the United States has no official national family policy." (Translation: I'm too lazy to do genuine research and figure out that "official national family policy" featured prominently in Nazi Germany).

Page 12 - he links America's founding documents, and founders, to "Judeo-Christian heritage" in which "the Creator is a God of order and authority, not chaos and autonomy". (Translation: John Calvin speaks from the grave and he won't shut the f*** up!).

Page 15 - (2nd paragraph) - too loopy to condense here but it expresses a theocratic Christian view of the individual's role in society. Families are needed to "inculcate religious values" and "glorifying God" helps "produce good citizens for the body politic". (Translation: as Hitchens so adroitly points out, since God created the universe, she doesn't need our glorification. God knows she's got game. God wants humans to glorify other humans, therefore, McDonnell is really pissing God off and she might, if we are very lucky, nudge an asteroid in his direction).

Contradictions - there's a pattern of complete contradiction, for example, page 19 describes the Republican party as committed to "equal rights for all". You could infer either that McDonnell is so drunk on Christ that he can't see such contradictions or, more ominously, that his definition of "all" treats non-Christians, single women, people in alternative lifestyles, etc., as if such individuals simply didn't exist. Considering how he conflates teenage pregnancy and adult single women with children as the same problem, demographic subsets with proportionately greater numbers of the latter should be especially wary, if not terrified. His solution to teen pregnancy and other social ills, as he defines them, lies only in religiosity and rigid state control. Orwell couldn't conjure up a more frightening view.

Please download and read the document. Form your own opinions of what appears to be part Republican homage, part Christianist battle-plan and mostly an argument for psychoactive medication. It is not "inquiry", as McDonnell claims and it certainly purveys lies regarding the intentions of America’s founders. McDonnell evidences no appreciation of America as a secular republic in his law school thesis.

Conclusion: relative to truth, personal responsibility and cynical manipulation of public opinion, McDonnell is not fundamentally different from Jimmy Swaggert, whose nationally televised crocodile tears saved his tax-free cash flow from the promiscuity and "fornication" that McDonnell cites as forces leading the decline of American society. While McDonnell's thesis seeks to paint him as a modern saint the odds are greater that he is, in fact, the f****** devil.