Friday, March 22, 2013

Dixie and Vikings

It appears I can now blog again.  Dave is pressing what I will call the Massachusetts version of History.  In this version the New England states never tried to secede or put forth State's Rights arguments about why it should.  There were no Kentucky Resolutions drafted by the founders of the Democratic Party.  There were no arguments over tariffs that aided the North and impoverished the South.  There were no Southern soldiers who fought because the Yankees were "down here."  There were no Northern slavers.  The states of New Jersey as well as other Northern states did not vote to disenfranchise blacks.  Also Alexander Stevens was the Vice President.   Dave would be the last guy to dis his God and hero Barack Obama because Joe Biden stated Delaware was a Confederate State and Barack was the first black candidate who was articulate and clean.

In point of fact, the Civil War was about the extension and eventually the existence of slavery in the Republic.  It is nonsense to argue without it there would have been a Civil War.  It is also nonsense to argue that there was not some ambiguity on the subject of slavery and secession in the Founding Documents.

Now I am a Jaffa man through and through.
I loathe secession and the entire "I will take my ball and go home" mentality of the South in the Civil War or the current Democrats after the election of the Second Bush. 

But those who thought republicanism was compatible with slavery had a better historical, traditional and intellectual position than those who think Republicanism requires abortion on demand.  Also what was the Republican position in its founding documents?  Oh yea they set their faces against the "twin barbarisms" of polygamy and slavery."  The Democrats are all for marital innovations even today.

I think that those who deny Slavery was root and branch of the Civil War are deluded.  I also think that those who think the South was particularly wrong about everything are imparting the views of the present on the past.    Northern abolitionists wanted to secede in the 50's to not be associated with the Slave Power.  John Brown is a big hero to liberals but he was a lawless terrorist.  If he did not exist the South might not have seceded.  Upstate New York--where Dave comes from--lauded him.  A guy who only succeeded in killing black men!

So why am I what Dave would call a Southern Partisan?  I do not laud Jeff Davis or the secessionists.  But I think this Republic has and will again require the die hard Cavalier panache of the South in extremis.  That is, I have never understood why people admired Jefferson Davis but I fully understand why the admire Robert E. Lee.

Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and the rest of the pantheon had more respect for the South and its Myrmidons than do the present South haters.  I think you have to be pretty high on your horse to be more anti-Confederate than those three.  The Army of Northern Virginia will live forever in Song and Story.  You can call it all the names you want.  Jackson's foot Cavalry and Forest and Morgan's real cavalry will be studied for a thousand years.  In the Hills and Hollers of the south arose men who would fight for their country---and it was the country of part of the Old Republic--'til all strength failed.  In an compromising  Age a Die Hard stands bright.  It ought to be tougher than it is to more anti-Southern than Sherman! 

Lincoln overcame the squishy, moral relativist Democrats of the North to enforce the Second Founding and the New Birth of Freedom.  That view of history was undermined by Southern Partisans and liberals who hated the freedom of capital in the North with no Southern opposition.  One of the more uncomfortable problems for you liberals is that the Southern Narrative of the post-War period was pimped by your heroes.  Bernie Bailyn, Gramsci, William Appelby Williams and the rest of the revisionist who attacked the "robber barons" and lauded the agricultural virtues of the Old South.  JCF and I had to hear all this crap in AP History in Greenwich, Ct!  Not because of some nostalgia for moonlight and magnolias but because hating Lincoln's America was part and parcel of a lot of the Progressivism of the first half of the 20th Century.

The Democratic tendency against the Republic continues even in its present incarnation.  Which is the Party of rewarding people on the basis of race?  The Democrats--as they were in 1800-1965.  Which is the Party of soft money to help people who owe debts.  The Democrats.  Which is the Party of declaring certain human life unprotectible by the law because of the rights of the privileged?  The Democrats.  Which is the Party of soft money and against the Eastern Bankers?  The Democrats.  But in a reversal which is the Party of protective tariffs?  The Democrats.

Also, just because a certain liberal lady blogger will go into conniptions I link to this--a Jewish Confederate Veteran's tale.

Finally, every state has its "history."  As we know from certain connections those in Minnesota and Wisconsin are taught the Vikings were good guys and peaceful seafarers and traders.  Those in Massachusetts are taught the Red Sox don't suck.  And those in New Jersey...learn the history of New York and Philadelphia.



Dave S. said...

You attribute truly fascinating positions to me based on my recent posts. Kindly cite the supporting text that you found in those posts.

Kudos for hitting all the talking points. I understand Malaysia may be in need of a new crop of propagandists to dance to their tune.

Dave S. said...

PS - Welcome back?

jjv said...

I will not recant. You are a well known Viking coddler.

A Certain Liberal Lady Blogger said...

Sorry to disappoint you, JJV. No conniptions. Doesn't surprise me in the least that there were Jewish Confederates. Every party, cause, and blog has its share of the misguided, of all religions.

And that would be Woman Blogger to you, sir.

Dave S. said...

I'm going to step into the ring for my Jersey Girl and mention Monmouth (Molly Pitcher), Trenton, and Princeton. You are more than welcome to stay on your side of the bridges and tunnels.

jjv said...

Hey, I didn't say "girl blogger."

Dave S. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JCC said...

Henceforth, I shall refer to JJV's debating technique as "Bowling for Strawmen." No explanation necessary.

And I will note that, despite what the Pope and/or some evangelicals espouse, not every religious tradition defines human life as beginning at conception. I do have respect for those who DO so define human life when they also respect human life after birth.

"It is nonsense to argue without it [slavery] there would not have been a Civil War."

Really? Even without slavery, a Civil War was inevitable? It's an untestable proposition, but given the wide variety of other tensions that the country has been able to address without resorting to civil war I find the statement to be much closer to nonsense than the hypothesis it challenges.

jjv said...

Item on slavery fixed. "Not" was a mistake. Dave I was replying to other comment.

Dave S. said...

My apologies; that particular designation of you as an idiot is withdrawn cheerfully.

Bob C. said...

This isn't so much an argument as it is a cloud of invective, and like a fog as difficult to refute. This link pretty much sums up how it felt to read it:

Dave S. said...

Mr. Spoons, is that you?!?

I would argue (heh) that the link is nothing like the above post since it has a definite structure and leads somewhere. It's also a classic of writing, unlike the above post or, for that matter, this comment. Right, let's have no more of this silliness.