Why Memphis needs to protect the Klan

posted at 10:01 am on March 30, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Officials in Memphis, Tennessee are girding themselves this morning for a potentially explosive situation in the middle of their city. The Ku Klux Klan is back, and they’re planning a rally where they will bus in supporters from all over to demonstrate in the center of town. If you’re in the law enforcement business, this is a tense time.

A large portion of downtown Memphis, Tennessee, will be locked down Saturday to avoid hostilities during a rally organized by the Ku Klux Klan.

WMC-TV reported on Friday that pedestrian, commercial and auto traffic will be diverted around the area surrounding the Shelby County courthouse, where the rally is scheduled to be held.

The only people allowed inside will be klan members and participants in an opposing rally organized by a local civic group, Power to the People, and all of them will have to go through a security checkpoint.

It’s easy to get all up in arms over events like this, but it remains important for Memphis – and every other location in the United States – to do the hard work required to keep the Klan safe and prevent violence at their rallies. No matter how offensive their principles or the remarks made by any of their members, the one thing you don’t want is the government limiting anyone’s rights of free speech, even if they only do so by failing to adequately protect those engaging in unpopular speech. Long time readers already know that I’ve never been much of a fan of the “Occupy” crowd and their rodent infested, far too rapey camps. But I don’t want their voices shut out of the conversation by the government and they still deserve the same protections under the law as anyone else.

But another reason for a second look at today’s rally in Memphis is the subject of their protest. Apparently they aren’t just showing up to air their usual complaints about people with the wrong color skin, or Teh Jooooos or whoever else they’re hating this week. This time they’re actually protesting official public policy.

Organizers of the “white unity event” said it will be a response to the Memphis City Council’s decision in February 2013 to rename local parks named after Confederate figures Jefferson Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest and the Confederacy itself.

It’s an interesting debate, and one worth having in my opinion, even if it’s the Klan bringing it to light. I have cause to travel in the South pretty frequently these days and some of the cultural tug of war going on there is worth a look. I’ve yet to meet anyone who wants to bring back slavery or promote any sort of white supremacy, but I do talk to more than a few folks who harbor some strong, lingering feelings about The War of Northern Aggression. And some of them clearly don’t like the idea of the government doing things like this. It’s not that they agree letter and verse with everything that Jefferson Davis or Forrest believed in, but they also consider them important, historic figures who shouldn’t simply be whitewashed from the pages of history just because society has evolved.

This will be an unpopular event, no doubt, and the media will have a field day talking trash about Southerners in general as they usually do. But this is still free speech in action, and the City of Memphis needs to make sure it remains protected.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

Sachiko on March 31, 2013 at 1:25 PM

I understand what you are saying, I just don’t agree. Democrats get a pass on everything and we are lumped in to all that is evil. What’s new?

Cindy Munford on March 31, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Sachiko on March 31, 2013 at 1:25 PM

I certainly do not support the Klan. After all, I belong to a religion (Catholicism) targeted by the Klan for extermination.

That said, I view their freedom of speech as similar to that of Westboro Baptist Church — they should be allowed it, but so should those who oppose them.

unclesmrgol on March 31, 2013 at 1:34 PM

But I have to ask, why is failure to protect the Klan from the consequences of unpopular speech a violation of the first amendment? The first amendment specifically forbids the federal government from censoring speech or otherwise restricting it. It does not in any way shape or form guarantee people an audience, or safety in exercising that speech.

/KABOOM

gryphon202 on March 30, 2013 at 2:32 PM

The right of people peaceably to assemble to petition their government for a redress of grievances. It’s in there somewhere — just not in those exact words.

As for protecting people from the consequences of their speech afterward, well… this is instructive.

unclesmrgol on March 31, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Dark current so because it never happened to you; it never happens? I also worked with locals, and I know how I was treated I was treated at times.

melle1228 on March 31, 2013 at 1:59 PM

The Ku Klux Klan is a despicable organization.. although I don’t think they are any more despicable than the Democrats.

Nevertheless, protecting free speech is far more important than putting them out of business.

Axion on March 31, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Why Memphis needs to protect the Klan

Wouldn’t want the Klown Kar Klan to remain fearfully silent only to be thought fools.

Organizers of the “white unity event” said it will be a response to the Memphis City Council’s decision in February 2013 to rename local parks named after Confederate figures Jefferson Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest and the Confederacy itself.

The local parks named by the loyalists after King George III and Benedict Arnold and Great Britain itself have gone by the wayside.

They must’ve been renamed nary a peep from those in the Klown Kar Klan.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Dark current so because it never happened to you; it never happens? I also worked with locals, and I know how I was treated I was treated at times.

melle1228 on March 31, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Didn’t say it never happened, just said it never happened to me or my close relatives.

I don’t know why you had such a very different experience.

DarkCurrent on March 31, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Yes, poor, rural Arkansas farm families like mine fought to allow a few rich plantation owners to keep their slaves. Yep, that’s it.

That’s the seventh stage of grief, aptly named acceptance.

You know little of history if you don’t know the causes of the war, or the opinions on the causes from both sides.

Ditto.

Lincoln didn’t go to war against the South to free the slaves but to keep the South from leaving the Union. That’s common knowledge. Or so I assumed.
Charlemagne on March 30, 2013 at 10:36 AM

True.

Also true: Davis did go to war against the North to protect slavery in perpetuity and the South started the war.

That’s historical fact. No assumption is necessary.

Your probably get a majority of Southerners to agree to peacefully leave the USA.

The majority of Southerners agreeing to leave the USA have an odd definition of the word peaceful.

Would you support it?

Charlemagne on March 30, 2013 at 10:40 AM

No.

I personally find it difficult to like blacks Confederate sympathizers because of ideological and political differences as well as their inability to let go of the past. A past more often than not that is used as a political weapon against conservatives and the GOP.
Charlemagne on March 30, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Heh.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Americans, same flag, war criminals, Al Qaeda, etc. Are you also against them being honored with memorials, museums, parks, etc?

(Dot gov links, too.)
rogerb on March 31, 2013 at 4:53 AM

Of course.

When you can positively identify the specific individuals guilty of war crimes, you may remove their memorials.

You may do that only after removing those of Davis, Forrest, and the Confederacy.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Thus, your comment is a weak attempt at moral equivalence where none exists.

LagunaDave on March 31, 2013 at 6:15 AM

It certainly was weak. But remember, rogerb doesn’t care to argue about the Civil War.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Now, please explain why my comment is racist — when 93% of blacks voted for Mr. Obama? That certainly is a majority voting against their best interests…

unclesmrgol on March 31, 2013 at 12:22 PM

It’s not, but prefacing your comment by calling the majority of them idiots is not conducive to getting them to embrace conservative ideals.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2013 at 3:13 PM

The Ku Klux Klan is a despicable organization.. although I don’t think they are any more despicable than the any other group of Democrats.

Nevertheless, protecting free speech is far more important than putting them out of business.

Axion on March 31, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Fix it.

Slowburn on March 31, 2013 at 3:58 PM

It’s not, but prefacing your comment by calling the majority of them idiots is not conducive to getting them to embrace conservative ideals.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2013 at 3:13 PM

If 40 years of crushing poverty and gang violence hasn’t gotten them to even consider changing their minds, “idiots” is not only weaksauce (esp. compared to “racist”) but a pretty apt description.

MelonCollie on March 31, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Yes, poor, rural Arkansas farm families like mine fought to allow a few rich plantation owners to keep their slaves. Yep, that’s it.

Truth hurts, doesn’t it?

Fun fact: they considered poor whites like your family barely one step above their field slaves, and middle-class whites weren’t exactly treated as equals either.

MelonCollie on March 31, 2013 at 4:00 PM

It’s not, but prefacing your comment by calling the majority of them idiots is not conducive to getting them to embrace conservative ideals.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Most of them do endorse conservative ideals. They don’t vote that way. If one votes for the Easter Bunny wearing a Santa Claus outfit handing out free gifts from some place they’d rather not think about, and ignore all the other stuff the pretty bauble hander-outer is doing to them with their gifts, they are not playing with a full deck.

unclesmrgol on March 31, 2013 at 4:23 PM

The local parks named by the loyalists after King George III and Benedict Arnold and Great Britain itself have gone by the wayside.

They must’ve been renamed nary a peep from those in the Klown Kar Klan.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2013 at 2:50 PM

There wasn’t anyone around to protest when that happened. Loyalists were all put on ships and sent packing after the war.

NotCoach on March 31, 2013 at 4:51 PM

The United States wasn’t what it is today, the states were more important and very different from each other with a much less powerful central government. Why anyone is surprised that people fought with their own, even if they didn’t “benefit” from slavery is surprising. People are equating the nation then with the nation now, you just can’t do it. It should be of some comfort to most that many people did feel strongly enough about the immorality of calling another human property that they left their land and fought their neighbors and families. Also, from what I have read only about 30% of the population was interested in breaking away from King George. And stop high fiving Texas if you think no one should push back against Washington.

Cindy Munford on March 31, 2013 at 5:06 PM

I suppose we will have achieved some form of true equality when names like Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and the Confederacy as park names and on buildings are more footnotes to history than points of contention.

Unlikely though, given the efforts to keep all that alive and not just as historical notes.

Russ808 on March 31, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Russ808 on March 31, 2013 at 5:25 PM

There is a Nathan Bedford Forrest High School in Jacksonville, FL and for some reason every time the name change issue comes up (and it’s pretty often) it never happens. It’s surprising to me.

Cindy Munford on March 31, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Also, from what I have read only about 30% of the population was interested in breaking away from King George.

Cindy Munford on March 31, 2013 at 5:06 PM

That makes sense since most Americans at that time considered themselves British subjects. The Rev0lutionary War was not a war about foreign invaders, but a war about representation. Americans felt they deserved the same rights and representation all other British citizens received.

NotCoach on March 31, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Speaking of cops and crowd control, anyone hear about the latest (last night) crowd control “success” by the Chicago cops?

Video

Del Dolemonte on March 31, 2013 at 5:36 PM

There wasn’t anyone around to protest when that happened. Loyalists were all put on ships and sent packing after the war.

NotCoach on March 31, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Actually, they weren’t. My Loyalist ancestors left New York City for Canada right after the War of 1812. Until then, they lived rather unmolested. We (or, rather, that side of the family) didn’t return until after the Civil War — my great great great grandfather ran contraband into the South overland from Canada — and would report back to Washington about Southern troop dispositions and such. He was, at one point, caught by the Rebels as a result of his accent and movements, but lied his way out by showing off and selling a good deal of his partly empty wagonload of Canadian contraband. That only happened once. I shudder to think of where I might be politically if my family had stayed in NYC.

unclesmrgol on March 31, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Fun fact: they considered poor whites like your family barely one step above their field slaves, and middle-class whites weren’t exactly treated as equals either.

MelonCollie on March 31, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Fun fact: You are confusing the Jeffersonian/Jacksonian South with the Hamiltonian North, MelonCollie.

Punchenko on March 31, 2013 at 5:42 PM

NotCoach on March 31, 2013 at 5:36 PM

I guess between security and many didn’t know the difference in treatment it makes sense.

Cindy Munford on March 31, 2013 at 5:43 PM

unclesmrgol on March 31, 2013 at 5:40 PM

They still left or were forced to leave, whether by sea or land.

NotCoach on March 31, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Strangely neither I, during my short time there, nor my blue-eyed uncles who went to school in Hawaii for decades, ever had anything bad actually happen on so-called ‘kill haole day’. Weird.

DarkCurrent on March 31, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Are you white?

Solaratov on March 31, 2013 at 6:08 PM

They still left or were forced to leave, whether by sea or land.

NotCoach on March 31, 2013 at 5:45 PM

1814-1776=38 years. Sadly, we didn’t reach the tolerance level here that would preclude such behavior until after 1945. Google “no no boy”.

unclesmrgol on March 31, 2013 at 6:32 PM

this post is embarrassing. i support free speech but jazz shaw is a dummy for choosing “why memphis needs to protect the klan” as a headline and for even entertaining the idea of renaming parks after confederates at a “white unity event”. the conservative movement will remain in rough shape until individuals like shaw get some self-awareness and realize that defending the klan (even under the guise of free speech) is at best horrible PR and at worst an indication of invidious sympathy. smh…

j4z7y on March 31, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Are you white?

Solaratov on March 31, 2013 at 6:08 PM

More pink than white actually.

DarkCurrent on March 31, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Most of them do endorse conservative ideals. They don’t vote that way.

The same may be said of the majority of Hispanics and Asians. They don’t vote that way either.

If one votes for the Easter Bunny wearing a Santa Claus outfit handing out free gifts from some place they’d rather not think about, and ignore all the other stuff the pretty bauble hander-outer is doing to them with their gifts, they are not playing with a full deck.

unclesmrgol on March 31, 2013 at 4:23 PM

The majority of Hispanics and Asians vote for the Easter Bunny wearing a Santa Claus outfit handing out free gifts from some place they’d rather not think about,….

They must not be playing with a full deck either.

I highly doubt you’d say that about them, or to them, though. Instead, you’d probably try to assuage their fears about what some on our side do say about them, or to them, and follow that up with an exemplary lesson of what conservatism is all about.

Unless, of course, I’m wrong about that.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2013 at 10:14 PM

There wasn’t anyone around to protest when that happened. Loyalists were all put on ships and sent packing after the war.

NotCoach on March 31, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Neither was the Klown Kar Klan. Despite that, I’ve yet to meet, or even hear about, one descendent of a loyalist lamenting the lack of parks named for King George III, Benedict Arnold, or Great Britain itself.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2013 at 10:20 PM

The United States wasn’t what it is today, the states were more important and very different from each other with a much less powerful central government.

If the Southern States hadn’t:

1. yanked the US Constitution from its own citizens,

2. replaced it with another requiring the government to protect the institution of slavery,

3. started a foolish war,

4. hung those that wanted their US Constitution back or hunted down like dogs and summarily executed those that refused to fight for the Lost Cause,

we might not have the powerful central government we have today.

They did, so we do.

Why anyone is surprised that people fought with their own, even if they didn’t “benefit” from slavery is surprising.

It’s not surprising that people fought with their own. What’s surprising is some deny the fact the CSA was formed to protect the institution of slavery, then give specious reasons to justify fighting with their own, even if they didn’t “benefit” from slavery.

People are equating the nation then with the nation now, you just can’t do it.

True. The nation was infected with the institution of slavery then, now it’s not.

It should be of some comfort to most that many people did feel strongly enough about the immorality of calling another human property that they left their land and fought their neighbors and families.

It is.

Also, from what I have read only about 30% of the population was interested in breaking away from King George.

That would make the 70% that didn’t want to break away from King George III, on the wrong side of history.

From what I have read only about 20% of the South was not interested in breaking away from the Union. That would make the 80% that was interested, on the wrong side of history as well.

And stop high fiving Texas if you think no one should push back against Washington.
Cindy Munford on March 31, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Texas will receive as many high fives as I can muster for pushing back against Washington.

Up to, but not including, the point it decides to yank my US Constitution and start a war.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Get the names of all the Klan members and match them up to party registration. Guarantee dollars to donuts it’ll be Dems by a long shot. See: Westboro Baptist Church being Gore-bots.

BKennedy on March 31, 2013 at 10:53 PM

rukiddingme on March 31, 2013 at 10:33 PM

I guess it is safe to say that your reaction to history is as illogical to me as mine is to yours. Yes it would have been awesome if it never happened but it did and it never is as cut and dried as anyone would like it to be.

Cindy Munford on March 31, 2013 at 11:15 PM

I guess it is safe to say that your reaction to history is as illogical to me as mine is to yours. Yes it would have been awesome if it never happened but it did and it never is as cut and dried as anyone would like it to be.

Cindy Munford on March 31, 2013 at 11:15 PM

The South had won — slavery was the law of the land. States rights — the rights of the free states to restrict or outlaw slavery within their borders — had been defeated in the Supreme Court — the Taney Court — by artful use of the commerce clause by its proponents — the Fugitive Slave Law was Constitutional and the law of the land — and the Missouri Compromise was illegal.

There were no longer slave or free states — only slave states.

This decision was wholly conforming to our Constitution, and legally correct.

When Abraham Lincoln took office, he acknowledged the reality of the situation, and his desire to uphold the Constitution in its entirety.

Then South Carolina, worried about Lincoln’s Republicanism, attacked a Federal installation, and another section of the Constitution regarding rebellion came into play. Other states joined South Carolina, but the fact of rebellion was obvious. Not even the Taney Court — populated almost exclusively by Southerners — could find fault with Lincoln’s military response to the rebellion in the South. They did find fault with his abrogation of habeas corpus, but even that was allowable in wartime under the Constitution — as Congress quickly passed the Habeas Corpus Act to allow Lincoln unbridled power to deal with Southern sympathizers in the North.

The South lost that war — snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, so to speak. The Constitution was amended to assure that loss.

And that’s where we are today. Had the South not rebelled, we might still be a slave state today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jXfcpnYgu8

unclesmrgol on April 1, 2013 at 12:11 AM

And that’s where we are today. Had the South not rebelled, we might still be a slave state today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jXfcpnYgu8

unclesmrgol on April 1, 2013 at 12:11 AM

.
No, we would NOT still have legal, institutionalized slavery, had the rebellion not begun.

One way or another, that business well past it’s time of being practiced (it really never should have gotten started).

Some form of Constitutional Amendment abolishing slavery, was COMING ….. with or without that war. The south knew it, and decided to “beat them to the punch”, and secede first.

The “States Rights” issue should never have been used as a defense of the practice of slavery.

listens2glenn on April 1, 2013 at 12:34 AM

unclesmrgol on April 1, 2013 at 12:11 AM

Kind of a weird “win” isn’t it. As I mentioned further up the thread, I wonder what would have happened if there had been no war and the fast arriving industrial age made slaves obsolete?

Cindy Munford on April 1, 2013 at 12:52 AM

TEST ?

listens2glenn on April 1, 2013 at 1:04 AM

Awright, what the hang words did I use in my last two comments here, that would have tripped the “filter alarm”?

listens2glenn on April 1, 2013 at 1:06 AM

listens2glenn on April 1, 2013 at 1:06 AM

Those things can be weird.

Cindy Munford on April 1, 2013 at 1:12 AM

the conservative movement will remain in rough shape until individuals like shaw get some self-awareness and realize that defending the klan (even under the guise of free speech) is at best horrible PR and at worst an indication of invidious sympathy. smh…

j4z7y on March 31, 2013 at 8:48 PM

It is the difference between the right and the left. For the left, rights are situational — to be granted or denied at the whim of the observer. To the right, rights are absolute — there are very few reasons, if any, under which one would deny them.

To the right, yelling fire in a theater is the place where freedom of speech has ended. To the left, h8 speech is where it ends — with the definition of h8 being situational — for example, opposition to Obamacare.

Strangely, even some on the left think like those on the right — as the ability for Westboro Baptist Church to picket military funerals at their leisure shows. That decision involved leftist judges ruling in favor of protected speech. If Westboro, whose message is far more repugnant than the Klan’s message in Memphis, is permitted a right to assemble and participate in free speech, then certainly the Klan is. Note that there were no burning crosses — an example of speech-used-as-threat by the Klan. In fact, this protest was almost benign in comparison to what Westboro customarily does.

unclesmrgol on April 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Awright, what the hang words did I use in my last two comments here, that would have tripped the “filter alarm”?

listens2glenn on April 1, 2013 at 1:06 AM

If it involved the Civil War, you have stumbled upon Allahpundit’s Speed Trap.

https://www.fewmets.org/index.php?amount=0&blogid=1&query=Allahpundit

unclesmrgol on April 1, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Kind of a weird “win” isn’t it. As I mentioned further up the thread, I wonder what would have happened if there had been no war and the fast arriving industrial age made slaves obsolete?

Cindy Munford on April 1, 2013 at 12:52 AM

The industrial age was what revived the dying institution of slavery in the early 1800′s. Eli Whitney’s cotton gin was the mechanical device which made large scale cotton growth practical and which breathed new life into the institution of slavery.

I believe that the machine age would have ushered in new reasons for enslavement — the crews working on the railroads in the South were often slaves. Had industrialization spread from the North into the South, the South might well have used slaves for that too.

We would still have slaves today — and the reason would be rooted in our Constitution. The Constitution is a very stubborn document — quite resistant to change. Slaves were property (that’s the point of the facetious insurance advertisement I put in my comment) — and to remove them from that category would have required an Amendment similar to the 14th — perhaps with a buyout clause similar to that in the legislation which freed the slaves in DC. Remember, we Americans — especially on the right — put a great store on the importance of not taking one’s property without compensation.

A Constitutional Amendment requires approval of three quarters of the States. In an environment where slavery had spread across the entire United States, with slave states stretching from California to Georgia, and possibly from Texas to North Dakota, this would have been a very hard sell indeed.

The reason the British and so many others were able to legislate slavery out of business very early in the 1800′s was due to their lack of such a document — every new law acted as a modification to an imaginary constitution comprised of a stacking order of older laws. Such is not the case with a constitution — it always trumps any contrary law.

unclesmrgol on April 1, 2013 at 10:08 AM

The “States Rights” issue should never have been used as a defense of the practice of slavery.

listens2glenn on April 1, 2013 at 12:34 AM

Agreed. Any putative “states rights” vanished in the decisions of the Taney Court leading up to the Civil War. There was no ability to prevent the spread of slavery into every state of the Union — they were all now slave states.

unclesmrgol on April 1, 2013 at 10:10 AM

And that’s where we are today. Had the South not rebelled, we might still be a slave state today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jXfcpnYgu8

unclesmrgol on April 1, 2013 at 12:11 AM

Bull. The South’s entire economy and social structure was built around a monocrop agricultural industry which was already falling apart. They chose the equivalent of balancing oneself on a toothpick point.

At the point just before they shelled Fort Sumter they had two choices: restructure their society or start some kind of armed conflict.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 10:11 AM

The “States Rights” issue should never have been used as a defense of the practice of slavery.

listens2glenn on April 1, 2013 at 12:34 AM

Agreed. Any putative “states rights” vanished in the decisions of the Taney Court leading up to the Civil War. There was no ability to prevent the spread of slavery into every state of the Union — they were all now slave states.

unclesmrgol on April 1, 2013 at 10:10 AM

I get a laugh out of people who wail about states rights and conveniently forget that the North wasn’t even allowed to protect fugitive slaves; they had to go all the way to Canada.

Where were the “states rights” of every state that didn’t want a bunch of loathsome slave-chasers trampling about their state looking for their escaped ‘property’? Out the window, that’s where.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 10:17 AM

At the point just before they shelled Fort Sumter they had two choices: restructure their society or start some kind of armed conflict.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 10:11 AM

You conveniently forget the effects of the cotton gin. The South had a very robust agrarian economy due to King Cotton. That’s why they were so sure that the British would support them — for they were supplying all of the cotton mills of England and the United States. And, in fact, that’s why many private outfitters in Britain supported the Confederacy, and why Britain remained neutral during the Civil War — the tale of the CSS Alabama is instructive.

Where were the “states rights” of every state that didn’t want a bunch of loathsome slave-chasers trampling about their state looking for their escaped ‘property’? Out the window, that’s where.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Exactly. As I’ve stated over and over above, the South had won the slavery battle. By going to war against the United States, the slave states snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The northern states had a larger population of warfighters, it had the iron and coal necessary to forge the tools of battle, and it even had a strong Constitution allowing the Federal Government powers of conscription.

If you’ve ever read the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, they went back to the doomed model of confederation — the one discarded as unworkable more than eighty years earlier. That Constitution was so badly written that there were Confederate units which legally refused to fight outside of their own state’s boundaries — a recipe for piece-meal disaster if ever there was one.

In a war, the South was doomed from the start in exactly the same way Japan was doomed from the start. However, had there been no war, the South would have prevailed — probably even unto today.

I count it a great stroke of luck that the South attacked. The Gettysburg Address sums up what needed to happen to remove the sourge of slavery from our land.

unclesmrgol on April 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM

You conveniently forget the effects of the cotton gin. The South had a very robust agrarian economy due to King Cotton.

And ONLY cotton. Depending on a single crop will fail sooner or later. Just ask the Irish (potatoes), or even Cuba (sugarcane). And England was already beginning to look at alternatives like Egyptian cotton.

If you’ve ever read the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, they went back to the doomed model of confederation — the one discarded as unworkable more than eighty years earlier.

I’d heard there were similarities, which explains more than a few things because the Articles of Confederacy were tried and failed miserably “A rope of sand” was the best period description I’ve ever heard of them.

I count it a great stroke of luck that the South attacked. The Gettysburg Address sums up what needed to happen to remove the sourge of slavery from our land.

unclesmrgol on April 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM

It wasn’t really luck at all, uncle. Sooner or later their topheavy economy would have come to the point it did in the 1860′s, be it by abolition-inspired boycotts or a price/demand crash of their one crop. They had won the slavery battle, but utterly failed to construct a stable society.

Gettysburg absolutely got it right. Legal means had totally failed at that point; half the nation was literally dependent on slavery. No slaves, no profitable cotton, no nothing.

As a bit of trivia, do you know why slavery was allowed to exist when the USA was being formed? Because it was the last big stickler issue, debates had been dragging on, and the weather was wretched in an era with no AC. And since it was already dying out, why drag things on any more?

…unfortunately, industrialization changed all that.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 12:03 PM

unclesmrgol on April 1, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Hmmmm, interesting, I would have thought that continued slavery would not have been cost effective.

Cindy Munford on April 1, 2013 at 2:42 PM

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Don’t forget tobacco! Farmers were still getting subsidies on that from the government well into my adulthood.

Cindy Munford on April 1, 2013 at 2:44 PM

The KKK clearly is a ghost summoned by white liberal guilt; like the Portrait of Dorian Gray it only exists to remind them their grand project failed; human nature could not be changed… as they see the white hoods they wonder in the depths of their mind, in some alternate history, could things have worked out differently so that slavery would have been ended for good? But as the pen goes to the next bill guaranteeing black dependency, it’s clear: The South really did win the peace.

RiverCocytus on April 1, 2013 at 2:45 PM

“Madam Senator,” the aide said, “the bill you propose increases spending; I thought you admitted we we strapped for cash.”

“Infrastructure work is the best work for the inner city black man,” she replied, “and we have to beat back the increasing unemployment and stimulate the economy.”

“… to get re-elected?” the aide replied.

“Well, no, to help the cause of our president.” She chuckled, “There’s hardly a chance of anyone but a Democrat being elected in this side of the city.”

“What happens when the money runs out?” the aide asked, “Do those workers have to wait for the next stimulus? Or doesn’t that just foster dependency on the government?”

She laughed again, slightly nervously: “That’s an excellent talking point. You’re getting good at this.”

Looking around conspiratorially, the lady senator then fixed her gaze upon the young man. “Listen,” she said, “When history proves us right, even the conservatives will vote for us, like they used to do. You don’t think this state is run on good feelings, do you? At the end only one thing matters: Money.”

“And the one who has the right to dispense it?” he asked tentatively.

“Always.”

RiverCocytus on April 1, 2013 at 2:58 PM

If 40 years of crushing poverty and gang violence hasn’t gotten them to even consider changing their minds, “idiots” is not only weaksauce (esp. compared to “racist”) but a pretty apt description.
MelonCollie on March 31, 2013 at 3:59 PM

I failed to see this earlier. It may be a pretty apt description. It certainly is a counterproductive description. If during the process of even considering changing their minds they hear the messenger mutter they’re idiots or they’re playing with less than a full deck, they’ll likely place their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen any further.

It’s the same point he made in the provided link, that Asians used to be reliable Republicans. According to him, comments by some conservatives about them are one reason why, despite endorsing conservative ideals, they don’t vote that way. My point was the same applies to his comment about the majority of blacks.

My children voted for the Democrat in their mock election at elementary school. I’m thinking my wife and I will have an easier time getting them to embrace conservative ideals if only we can muster the strength to refrain from calling them idiots and telling them they’re playing with less than a full deck.

After having received his iamignoringu card, apparently I’m wrong about my children, and he isn’t wrong about them or Asians.

So be it.

Thanks for the reply.

rukiddingme on April 1, 2013 at 5:17 PM

I guess it is safe to say that your reaction to history is as illogical to me as mine is to yours. Yes it would have been awesome if it never happened but it did and it never is as cut and dried as anyone would like it to be.
Cindy Munford on March 31, 2013 at 11:15 PM

If you can only see my reaction to history as illogical, then I have failed to communicate properly. Since I’m only able to see your reaction to history as moral relativism, then maybe you have too.

That said, it is as cut and dried as I would like it to be. The cut is a distant relative on my father’s side was the dog hunted down and summarily executed for refusing to support the Confederacy. The dried is had the South been victorious, it’s highly likely my children would be someone else’s slaves.
Thanks for the reply.

rukiddingme on April 1, 2013 at 5:19 PM

The “States Rights” issue should never have been used as a defense of the practice of slavery.

listens2glenn on April 1, 2013 at 12:34 AM

Where were the “states rights” of every state that didn’t want a bunch of loathsome slave-chasers trampling about their state looking for their escaped ‘property’? Out the window, that’s where.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 10:17 AM

+ infinity

rukiddingme on April 1, 2013 at 5:46 PM

rukiddingme on April 1, 2013 at 5:19 PM

I guess it is true that I am practicing morale relativism to a degree, but it isn’t my intention. Obviously the stakes of the history and the outcome are more personal for you and yours than for me. While my family history is touched by the founding, it was from the North and the move South was during WWII and as noted somewhere above, my experience with the segregated South is muddled to say the least. I don’t seek to diminish or glorify, but to have a glimmer of understanding of the unfathomable.

Cindy Munford on April 1, 2013 at 7:33 PM

It’s the same point he made in the provided link, that Asians used to be reliable Republicans. According to him, comments by some conservatives about them are one reason why, despite endorsing conservative ideals, they don’t vote that way. My point was the same applies to his comment about the majority of blacks.

Asians and Hispanics have a real present day issue which would push them into the Democratic column. It’s far different from the situation facing blacks. Blacks don’t — they wound up in the Democratic column starting from the mid 1930′s as a result of welfare handouts during the Depression. Blacks have never voted nationally for Democrats at less than 65% since the 1930′s except once — for Eisenhower. I think it’s the reliable digs from the Treasury.

Those handouts — probably needed during the Depression when blacks (who were, up to that time, overwhelmingly agrarian) were forced from their tenant farms into the cities by foreclosure and discrimination by white landlords — are now a detriment to blacks as a group. The emergence of a perpetual black welfare class can be traced to the late 1950′s when continuing welfare to the poor generally became available. As a result of this dependency, black marriage rates have plummeted, because an unmarried mother can get money which would be unavailable if she were to have married. With said plummet, upward mobility has decreased — a single parent family is a stacked deck against achievement — Dr. Ben Carson included, as he himself has stated.

One of my black co-workers actually had this welfare-related self-destruction happen to his daughter. He and his wife both have firm middle class jobs, and they had emphasized the need for an education to their children, but his daughter decided to drop out from school and shack up with her boyfriend. The inevitable happened — pregnant. When my co-worker suggested that she marry the guy and set up a stable, Christian, life, she refused, saying “Marriage? That’s a white thing!”. He replied to her that he and her mother were far from white, and yet they had married before she was conceived so that when she was, there would be that stable life. He’s now taking care of both of his grandchildren — as foster parent — and is in the act of adopting them — because his daughter refuses to take responsibility even to the extent of doing what the courts want her to do to be reunited with her kids. My co-worker is exasperated — the ghetto has reached into his own house and snatched one of his children away. She loves her children, but won’t do the work to keep them. She’s pregnant again. This kind of behavior is repeated over and over — it’s a rite of passage almost for black women to assert their independence from their parents using Government money. I believe his rant.

And whom does he blame? Let’s just say it’s not race-based, although he has choice words about blacks who vote Democrat. He’s had to change barber shops.

My children voted for the Democrat in their mock election at elementary school.

If you aren’t a liberal when you are young, you are heartless, and if you aren’t a conservative when you are adult, you are brainless.

My kids started out as Democrats — both are now Republicans. The epiphany for my son came as a checkout clerk in a supermarket — he discovered that there are three kinds of welfare checks (or, rather, cards) — two of which allow you to buy liquor. One is direct (you can use the card) and the other is indirect — the person buys something, is allowed to get money out as change, and then uses the cash to buy the liquor. As my son put it “my tax dollars are buying booze for a drunk!”

I’m thinking my wife and I will have an easier time getting them to embrace conservative ideals if only we can muster the strength to refrain from calling them idiots and telling them they’re playing with less than a full deck.

No. Always tell them the truth. I tell my relatives who vote Democrat that they are acting idiotic — against their own best interests, and against any ethos about life that they hold dear. What’s really interesting in my family is that the unchurched are the Democrats, while the churched — including more than a few Catholics — are Republicans. I really do think it’s an evolution based on a higher morality.

But they all hate the concept of illegal immigration — they are in favor of an amnesty. I really do think that that’s why 73% of Asians pulled the lever for the Democrat this past election. Every single black person I know from work (that’s my main contact point) is against illegal immigration — they want those illegals out of here — and that includes the Democrats. So the reasons for 93% of them voting Democrat may differ, but they combined to produce a victory for the Democrats.

After having received his iamignoringu card, apparently I’m wrong about my children, and he isn’t wrong about them or Asians.

So be it.

Actually, I didn’t ignore you — I did the final vanity search for my name before closing down on this post forever, and noticed your comment — which I had not noticed previously. I normally scroll through but this time I used the “find” button on my new Firefox and started from the bottom. I’ve chosen to reply to this one because it’s later.

I am truthful to a fault. These people are idiots.

Thanks for the reply.

rukiddingme on April 1, 2013 at 5:17 PM

unclesmrgol on April 2, 2013 at 11:31 PM

Hmmmm, interesting, I would have thought that continued slavery would not have been cost effective.

Cindy Munford on April 1, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Any job so back breaking and low-paid that no “educated” person will take it is a job which would be done by a modern slave.

If you’ve ever seen pictures of farm worker housing from a few decades ago, compare them to the pictures of the slave quarters at George Washington’s Mt. Vernon plantation.

http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/slave-quarters

http://www.ncfh.org/?pid=4&page=5

Imagine any back breaking or hazardous work associated with our industrial age which can be done by a person with no education — pulling clinkers from steel furnaces, breaking up concrete, roofing… and you have a job which a slave might do.

Remember that an educated slave is a dangerous slave, so the laws about not educating slaves would probably be in full force.

If you don’t think modern educated people are capable of such things, think of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labour_under_German_rule_during_World_War_II

The number of such camps has recently been upgraded, as a result of reviewing records, from about 150 to over 3,500

There is no way Germans could not have seen the slave laborers in their midst — they pervaded Germany.

Again, we are lucky. We only did it once — in 1942 — and only a few died as a result.

unclesmrgol on April 3, 2013 at 12:03 AM

It wasn’t really luck at all, uncle.

No, it was by design. Idiotic design by guys who didn’t know victory when they had it in their hands.

Sooner or later their tophdeavy economy would have come to the point it did in the 1860′s, be it by abolition-inspired boycotts or a price/demand crash of their one crop. They had won the slavery battle, but utterly failed to construct a stable society.

They had a stable society. Even in the midst of war, few slaves abandoned the plantations — until union troops camped nearby. And, in some of those cases, the deserting slaves were returned to their owners — a blemish upon the Union. Cotton production continued — and the blockade runners found a ready market in Britain through most of the war — until the British cotton plantations in Egypt came online as a result of the disruption in supplies from the United States.

Gettysburg absolutely got it right. Legal means had totally failed at that point; half the nation was literally dependent on slavery. No slaves, no profitable cotton, no nothing.

As a bit of trivia, do you know why slavery was allowed to exist when the USA was being formed? Because it was the last big stickler issue, debates had been dragging on, and the weather was wretched in an era with no AC. And since it was already dying out, why drag things on any more?

Slavery was what we today would call a wedge issue. As to the “dying out”, I do agree that it was not expanding, because of the problems with the cash crops of the South — cotton and (to a lesser extent) tobacco. Cotton required constant attendance to prevent weevils from destroying the crop, and afterward, the seeds had to be laboriously picked out from the boll. Finally, the cotton itself had to either be spun into thread by hand, or (later) baled for shipment to a mill which would do the spinning — usually in the North or in Britain.

The fact that the Constitution calls for each slave to be called as 3/5 of a person for representation purposes indicates the huge extent of slavery in the South — to the point that the Northerners (who agreed to the 3/5 number) were afraid that their own representation would be diminished in the House if each slave were counted as a whole person. That indicates a very substantial population of slaves.

unfortunately, industrialization changed all that.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 12:03 PM

As I’ve mentioned above, the cotton gin — a marvel of the industrial age — changed the face of slavery and gave it new life. Now only half of the slaves previously needed were required, because the cotton gin made the extraction of seeds and other foreign matter from the bolls simple and easy. Slavery expanded quickly as a result of the cotton gin.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3narr6.html

unclesmrgol on April 3, 2013 at 12:22 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8