Am I A Confederate Sympathizer? No Way...
It was bound to happen sooner or later, particularly when I troll left-fascist tweets. Oh, I don't go looking to make trouble; there are literally thousands, if not millions, left-fascists and right-fascists on social media. I literally would do nothing but fritter my life away on social media if I had some obsessive compulsion to respond to each and every piece of published nonsense.So why do I respond to some rather than others? On Twitter, I sometimes look at trending hashtags and many of the hashtags are political in nature (the majority of which exhibit Trump Derangement Syndrome, occasionally Trumpkin). In some cases, I pick one out arbitrarily, in others, it may be particularly hypocritical, uncivil, politically correct, strident and/or have a particularly obnoxious or polemical meme or image attached. My responses aren't particularly personal (although I don't suffer fools gladly; occasionally I'll throw in an "idiot" or so, more for emphasis in making a point that I think should be obvious), but usually I'm trying to make a contrary point, not start a Twitter war. I have had long Twitter threads in the past (I usually have been tolerant of the occasional reply, including to my own original Tweets, if it's constructive or sincere). The Twitter wars usually do not end well; I am articulate and a good debater (it's usually not a good idea to take on a philosophy major who knows about logical fallacies), and the other side usually degenerates into a personal attack (which is why you have functionality to mute or block others).
I use Facebook a lot differently; I limit my friends almost exclusively to relatives, and I subscribe to a number of groups, mostly libertarian or conservative. I think most of my family and work colleagues (never mind my dissertation chair) would never believe that I, the writer of abnormally long, detailed emails, can say anything in 140 characters or less: the standard joke is my chair used to tell folks it takes me 20 minutes to introduce myself. To a certain extent, I'm meticulously building to my point, not unlike my favorite columnist, George Will. What do I respond to? Well, for example, Trumpkins will spam libertarian threads on immigration. In other cases, Statist Progressives will vigorously defend, say, health inspectors shutting down private charity distribution of certain foods, occupational licensing, conscripting vendors to service "gay weddings", etc. In other cases, I found libertarians cheering imposing social experimental federal policies (like "gay marriage") on traditional communities to violate the principles of federalism, Subsidiarity. And, as I'll discuss shortly, this includes the current politically correct kerfuffle over Confederate flags or statues, where I believe the libertarians at Reason and elsewhere seem to be abandoning the principles of free expression and voluntary association.
I was born in Texas, but I lived there just a few months before my Air Force enlisted Dad got reassigned to an AFB on Cape Cod. I did spend two years (roughly) in South Carolina (and then a year in Kansas) before my Dad was assigned to South Texas after returning from an isolated tour in Southeast Asia. I lived in integrated military communities with black, Latino, and Asian/mixed ethnic families. My high school and undergraduate college had large percentages (if not pluralities) of Latinos; my best friend in fifth grade was black and a Latino education major was my best friend at OLL. My best friends at Houston were my office mates, a(n anti-Catholic) Baptist and a Taiwanese immigrant woman. I received a belated offer for an assistant professor position at a well-known historically black university in Louisiana. Two black DBA's I've worked with have served as professional references, and perhaps my two closest professional colleagues and friends are a Jew and Hindu respectively. I have dated a black woman and Latinas; a number of siblings married non-Catholics, one niece is married to a man of color, and at least two nephews have dated and/or married Latinas. One of my nephews is openly gay (and I think one of my nieces may be). At work, I've had female, black, (East) Indian, or Latino supervisors, and I've worked (as an employee or contractor) for woman- and Indian-owned companies. I've also mentioned at the OLL cafeteria, I was once invited to a large table of coeds, with the lady inviting me mentioning that I had a reputation of treating women just like I treat guys. (I protested that I hope not, that I'm attracted to women.)
So when a progressive called me a "racist" over my critical tweet on the politically correct issue of Confederate statues this past weekend, I didn't feel the need to be defensive, challenge his personal attack (e.g., some of my best friends are black). Progressives typically accuse people who don't agree with their intolerant,strident dogma as racists, homophobic, etc. It's a simplistic black-and-white world of judging people. You can like, even love other people while disagreeing with their opinions. I'm a Catholic--but I oppose restrictions on other faiths. It doesn't reflect a compromise of my own beliefs; if others were to convert to my faith, it should be an exercise of free will, not the use of force. I don't believe in banning drugs, not because I think I approve of transacting or using drugs but because I know it's bad, counterproductive public policy. I highly disagree with Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler, but I oppose a ban on their works. If Ann Coulter were to give a speech locally, I wouldn't go, even if she was willing to pay me to attend, but I would vigorously oppose the local university banning her appearance.
Nobody needs to lecture me about the evils of slavery. Slavery contradicts the unalienable natural right of liberty, the fruits of one's labor, self-determination, the property of one's own body. It violates the idea of equality under the law. There is no doubt that slavery was integrated into the Southern economy, particularly the production of cotton. There is no doubt that prospective or realized federal government actions (including high protectionist tariffs) posed an economic threat to Southern economic interests. As an earlier clip embedded in a post noted, there were more anti-slavery societies in the South than North. Less than 1 of 7 Southern citizens owned slaves. Slave labor depressed local wages. Fugitive slave recovery was a drain on government finances. Moreover, as the economy diversified, from the Northern and border states, we saw states abolish the evil institution of slavery. Many economists believe that slavery would have died on its own, without killing 620K soldiers in the process, not to mention countless other lives.
Let's not forget: slavery was not abolished until the end of 1865, months after the end of the war and the assassination of Lincoln. Lincoln explicitly disclaimed interest in abolishing slavery--in fact, was willing to guarantee it under the Corwin Amendment. There was already a Fugitive Slave Law on the books. Many Northern businesses had a profitable stake in King Cotton. The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the 4 slave states still in the Union. Northerners also did not like the idea of emancipated slaves flooding the North; Lincoln was looking at options to resettle freed blacks elsewhere. [So this idea of the North as "good" and the South as "evil" is at best dubious.] Another fact to throw into the mix: within a few years after the thirteenth amendment was passed, the South was back to being the leading global supplier of cotton, this time without slave labor.
The issue of secession thus didn't really focus on slavery but on political independence from a central government it didn't trust. And let's point out that Jefferson Davis was willing to concede the slave issue in exchange for diplomatic recognition and in fact opened the Confederate Army ranks to slaves, promised liberty. The Southern states did not attack the North; the North invaded the South. And the issues became, from a liberty standpoint, the right of voluntary association and the right to self-defense, the Non-Aggression Principle.
So for many Southerners, the Confederate flag and the statues of Davis, Lee, and others are not about protecting the memory of slavery but about defending one's home, culture, etc., from the tyranny of an unjust remote central government as the Founding Fathers had done some 80-odd years earlier. Let's not forget that proto-libertarian Lysander Spooner was not just an abolitionist, but he bitterly opposed the North's invasion of seceded states.
You can certainly argue that the Confederate leaders were flawed men, and the protection of the institution of slavery was morally unconscionable. But you do not have the moral right to impose your assessment on the free expression of others. If you don't like a statue, create your own, e.g., of Abolitionists.
Now personally I don't like taxpayer money being used to celebrate the memory of political whores. I have no interest in seeing statues of Confederate heroes. I think local residents should decide the status of these statues and not be intimidated by the cultural Marxists. I've seen two writers I normally agree with throw free expression under the bus: Jeff Jacoby and Ronald Bailey.
