Two tweets in particular annoyed me:
- the first said that whatever Columbus' faults, he wasn't a slave trader or owned slaves like other people, like Robert E. Lee: "General Robert E. Lee was the Commanding General of the Army's rebellious South that seceded from the United States of America over slavery. Slavery is the most uncivilized and evil act perpetuated on any human being."
- Auschwitz (or some Trigger handle referencing it) noted a big distinction between the reminder of the evils of the Holocaust and (say) memorials to leaders of the Third Reich. (Even in writing a rebuke of that position, this Jewish rabbi largely grants the myth of white supremacist talking points on Confederate statues.)
An initial comment on the first quote's reference to slavery: as a libertarian, I grant slavery is an abominable institution, but State authority/imprisonment, etc. can be a variation on slavery as a crime against freedom, and the deprivation of other natural rights (including life and property) can also be devastating. Columbus has been accused of other crimes against indigenous people, and it's pathetic when, instead of answering the challenges, you try to deflect attention to others.
But let me first address the Columbus whitewash. I don't really want to start another historical kerfuffle here, But Columbus allegedly wrote: "With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.” What is your definition of slavery? "[T]heir Highnesses will see that I can give them ...as many slaves as they choose to send for, all heathens." I will point out there are some Columbus apologists who refute politically correct accounts of Columbus' alleged atrocities against indigenous peoples (e.g., see here).
Now the issue I have with the first bullet has more to do with the insulting, false characterization of Lee. First, I would recommend the reader to look at Roesch's essay on "The Real Robert E. Lee". It was only when Lincoln decided to raise troops against the original Confederacy, that Southern border states, including Lee's beloved home state of Virginia, left the Union; in fact, Lincoln offered Lee command of his Army, but Lee could not take up arms against Virginia.
Responding to one point in the quote, Lee's command during most of the war was for the Army of Northern Virginia; he was named General in Chief in February 1865 in the waning days of the war as the Confederates were outnumbered, on the defense, and defeat inevitable; his surrender at Appomattox Court House came 2 months later, effectively the end of the war.
In fact, secession was not a uniquely Southern concept; it had been raised by the Federalists in the early nineteenth century worried about the expanding Democratic-Republican Party, it had been cited by Virginians furious at the Alien and Seditions Act, it had been considered by Northern abolitionists, and South Carolina's fury over the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. Arguing the war was about "slavery" is patently absurd. Lincoln himself was ready to write perpetuity of slavery in the South into the Constitution; he asserts that he did not believe he had the authority to abolish slavery and he would only use force to protect federal property and revenue collection (cf. first inaugural address). Four slave states remained in the Union. Slavery would only formally end months after the end of the Civil War upon the passage of the 13th Amendment.
Why did the South secede? For reasons similar to why the Federalists had contemplated it decades earlier: they felt marginalized in and exploited by the federal government. There were lots of interregional differences, including tariffs and federal spending on Northern projects. Lincoln won the Presidency with zero support from the South.
Now Lee really didn't like slavery and he wrote that before the birth of the Confederacy; I believed that he preferred a gradual approach to emancipation including buying out slaveowners (similar to how it was achieved in DC and elsewhere, I believe). Now a lot of people will point out he had some prejudiced views against blacks, not politically correct today, but then so did many, if not most, of his contemporaries including Lincoln. Free blacks had migration constraints (e.g., settlement in Illinois), and Virginia, for instance, had rules against former slaves staying in the state upon free status. Also, Lee personally opposed Virginia's secession.
One of the stories you'll hear about Lee, e.g., on Abbeville videos, is how after the war, a black visitor attended a church service, and Lee joined him in solidarity at the communion rail (here's an unsympathetic reference to the incident.) Please don't judge him by today's standards; it's unfair and disingenuous.
The Confederacy believed the states never lost their sovereignty, that government required consent of the governed. Lee and countless other Southerners believed the war was about was their independence, not the institution of slavery; in fact, slavery was put on the negotiation table with European powers, and there were plans in the latter stages of the war to emancipate slaves who would fight with the Confederacy.
Now let me respond to the Auschwitz jab. Robert E. Lee, for a person of his prominence, was relatively humble; for example, he wore his simple colonel's uniform for much of the war, even though he held the rank of general, and in his remaining post-war years he went on to head an obscure college. Lee attracted the attention of multiple subsequent Presidents, including those who had served in wars, like Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, who included his among 4 portraits in the Oval Office. He had rejected efforts to continue the war as a guerrilla movement and fully embraced reconciliation in the aftermath of the war. He almost certainly would have rejected things like recognition in monuments, statues and the like.
There are lots of reasons for various symbols that were erected sometimes years after the war. It was not for nostalgia for the days of slavery. The majority of Southern households did not hold a slave. Farming did not require the institution of slavery; cotton exports resumed within a few years of the end of the war under variations of wage labor, tenant farming and/or sharecropping. Whereas it's been politically correct (but economically illiterate) to argue that slavery was lucrative and the foundation of American prosperity, it was in the post-Civil War era that America became the world's leading economy, and there were intrinsic inefficiencies with the practice of slavery, including overhead, fugitive flight, outright sabotage and/or minimal production: workers were not vested in the gains of improved productivity. Slavery had largely died out in the Northern states with a diversified economy, and it was just a matter of time before similar factors played out in the South. Foreign and/or Northern customers increasingly preferred output not produced by slave labor. In fact, slavery in Brazil collapsed without a bloody civil war just 20 years later. Some would argue the North, no longer constrained by Southern political resistance, would have quickly banned slavery and repealed the Fugitive Slave Law, and the South would have found it impossible to stop slave flight across a long border.
No doubt some racist groups like the KKK would try to co-opt movements that celebrate regional pride. But just like Union veterans and family celebrated the sacrifices they had made during the war, the Southerners wanted to celebrate the same. They saw the war as unprovoked aggression against their homeland, and there was honor in defending the homeland. It took years for the South to recover from the war, there was initial resistance against Confederate monuments and the like, and it took years to raise funds for monuments and/or statues. It was part of national reconciliation to acknowledge the valor and sacrifices made on both sides of the war, and Lee was a clear leader in the reconciliation effort.
Let's keep in mind that many officers, including Lee and Jackson, had also served honorably for the US in prior engagements (like the US/Mexican War). But a very large plurality of statues were of a generic "Silent Sentinel" type, mass-produced and cheap (from Northern factories, of course), which were viewed more as a tribute to the Southern soldier/kin who had sacrificed for his homeland. Of course, the politically correct reject that characterization. They much prefer the systematic racism underlying Jim Crow. There is no appreciation for heavy-handed military occupation in the Reconstruction era, the memory of Sherman's war crimes near the end of the conflict, etc. Not to mention widespread discrimination in the North, including the segregation policies of Northern academic Woodrow Wilson.
Personally I don't like this one female politician of color, arguing "let's just relocate controversial states to museums". Really? In the land of the free, instead of arguing tolerance, we advocate a form of public censorship? Vandalism is a crime; you're not destroying your own property. And do we really think that protesters will be mollified by relocation to museums? How long before they start targeting museums "celebrating symbols of slavery"?
I know my MA alma mater, the University of Texas, resorted to such a "solution" (no, I'm not aware of any museum attacks) over Confederate statues, formerly on campus. The funny thing is during my 2 years as a student I never was aware of or noticed any statues on campus; I probably wouldn't have gone out of my way to see it if I became aware of it.What I would have resented was some intolerant crank deciding whether I had the right to see the statue. The Confederacy is a fact of history. The institution of slavery is, regrettably, also a fact of history. Acknowledging history does not imply its endorsement. Almost anyone in the past probably did or said things we don't agree with; we should not judge things based on our own preferences. Personally, I don't like public monuments in general; I have no interest in seeing Mt. Rushmore or Stone Mountain Park. But I'm not going to impose my preferences on other people.
In a different frame of reference but making an analogous point, I personally would prefer to see Pete Rose in MLB's Hall of Fame; he is the most prolific batter in baseball history. Rose was banned because as a manager he later bet on baseball. By advocating Rose in the HoF, I'm not endorsing his gambling activity. Similarly, I would like to see Shoeless Joe Jackson in the HoF. Jackson was expelled from baseball in the aftermath of the 1919 Black Sox scandal (throwing the World Series). Jackson had a stellar World Series, had a hit record that stood for nearly 50 years. It's hard to charge Jackson with deliberately throwing the Series.
Now the issue I have with the first bullet has more to do with the insulting, false characterization of Lee. First, I would recommend the reader to look at Roesch's essay on "The Real Robert E. Lee". It was only when Lincoln decided to raise troops against the original Confederacy, that Southern border states, including Lee's beloved home state of Virginia, left the Union; in fact, Lincoln offered Lee command of his Army, but Lee could not take up arms against Virginia.
Responding to one point in the quote, Lee's command during most of the war was for the Army of Northern Virginia; he was named General in Chief in February 1865 in the waning days of the war as the Confederates were outnumbered, on the defense, and defeat inevitable; his surrender at Appomattox Court House came 2 months later, effectively the end of the war.
In fact, secession was not a uniquely Southern concept; it had been raised by the Federalists in the early nineteenth century worried about the expanding Democratic-Republican Party, it had been cited by Virginians furious at the Alien and Seditions Act, it had been considered by Northern abolitionists, and South Carolina's fury over the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. Arguing the war was about "slavery" is patently absurd. Lincoln himself was ready to write perpetuity of slavery in the South into the Constitution; he asserts that he did not believe he had the authority to abolish slavery and he would only use force to protect federal property and revenue collection (cf. first inaugural address). Four slave states remained in the Union. Slavery would only formally end months after the end of the Civil War upon the passage of the 13th Amendment.
Why did the South secede? For reasons similar to why the Federalists had contemplated it decades earlier: they felt marginalized in and exploited by the federal government. There were lots of interregional differences, including tariffs and federal spending on Northern projects. Lincoln won the Presidency with zero support from the South.
Now Lee really didn't like slavery and he wrote that before the birth of the Confederacy; I believed that he preferred a gradual approach to emancipation including buying out slaveowners (similar to how it was achieved in DC and elsewhere, I believe). Now a lot of people will point out he had some prejudiced views against blacks, not politically correct today, but then so did many, if not most, of his contemporaries including Lincoln. Free blacks had migration constraints (e.g., settlement in Illinois), and Virginia, for instance, had rules against former slaves staying in the state upon free status. Also, Lee personally opposed Virginia's secession.
One of the stories you'll hear about Lee, e.g., on Abbeville videos, is how after the war, a black visitor attended a church service, and Lee joined him in solidarity at the communion rail (here's an unsympathetic reference to the incident.) Please don't judge him by today's standards; it's unfair and disingenuous.
The Confederacy believed the states never lost their sovereignty, that government required consent of the governed. Lee and countless other Southerners believed the war was about was their independence, not the institution of slavery; in fact, slavery was put on the negotiation table with European powers, and there were plans in the latter stages of the war to emancipate slaves who would fight with the Confederacy.
Now let me respond to the Auschwitz jab. Robert E. Lee, for a person of his prominence, was relatively humble; for example, he wore his simple colonel's uniform for much of the war, even though he held the rank of general, and in his remaining post-war years he went on to head an obscure college. Lee attracted the attention of multiple subsequent Presidents, including those who had served in wars, like Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, who included his among 4 portraits in the Oval Office. He had rejected efforts to continue the war as a guerrilla movement and fully embraced reconciliation in the aftermath of the war. He almost certainly would have rejected things like recognition in monuments, statues and the like.
There are lots of reasons for various symbols that were erected sometimes years after the war. It was not for nostalgia for the days of slavery. The majority of Southern households did not hold a slave. Farming did not require the institution of slavery; cotton exports resumed within a few years of the end of the war under variations of wage labor, tenant farming and/or sharecropping. Whereas it's been politically correct (but economically illiterate) to argue that slavery was lucrative and the foundation of American prosperity, it was in the post-Civil War era that America became the world's leading economy, and there were intrinsic inefficiencies with the practice of slavery, including overhead, fugitive flight, outright sabotage and/or minimal production: workers were not vested in the gains of improved productivity. Slavery had largely died out in the Northern states with a diversified economy, and it was just a matter of time before similar factors played out in the South. Foreign and/or Northern customers increasingly preferred output not produced by slave labor. In fact, slavery in Brazil collapsed without a bloody civil war just 20 years later. Some would argue the North, no longer constrained by Southern political resistance, would have quickly banned slavery and repealed the Fugitive Slave Law, and the South would have found it impossible to stop slave flight across a long border.
No doubt some racist groups like the KKK would try to co-opt movements that celebrate regional pride. But just like Union veterans and family celebrated the sacrifices they had made during the war, the Southerners wanted to celebrate the same. They saw the war as unprovoked aggression against their homeland, and there was honor in defending the homeland. It took years for the South to recover from the war, there was initial resistance against Confederate monuments and the like, and it took years to raise funds for monuments and/or statues. It was part of national reconciliation to acknowledge the valor and sacrifices made on both sides of the war, and Lee was a clear leader in the reconciliation effort.
Let's keep in mind that many officers, including Lee and Jackson, had also served honorably for the US in prior engagements (like the US/Mexican War). But a very large plurality of statues were of a generic "Silent Sentinel" type, mass-produced and cheap (from Northern factories, of course), which were viewed more as a tribute to the Southern soldier/kin who had sacrificed for his homeland. Of course, the politically correct reject that characterization. They much prefer the systematic racism underlying Jim Crow. There is no appreciation for heavy-handed military occupation in the Reconstruction era, the memory of Sherman's war crimes near the end of the conflict, etc. Not to mention widespread discrimination in the North, including the segregation policies of Northern academic Woodrow Wilson.
Personally I don't like this one female politician of color, arguing "let's just relocate controversial states to museums". Really? In the land of the free, instead of arguing tolerance, we advocate a form of public censorship? Vandalism is a crime; you're not destroying your own property. And do we really think that protesters will be mollified by relocation to museums? How long before they start targeting museums "celebrating symbols of slavery"?
I know my MA alma mater, the University of Texas, resorted to such a "solution" (no, I'm not aware of any museum attacks) over Confederate statues, formerly on campus. The funny thing is during my 2 years as a student I never was aware of or noticed any statues on campus; I probably wouldn't have gone out of my way to see it if I became aware of it.What I would have resented was some intolerant crank deciding whether I had the right to see the statue. The Confederacy is a fact of history. The institution of slavery is, regrettably, also a fact of history. Acknowledging history does not imply its endorsement. Almost anyone in the past probably did or said things we don't agree with; we should not judge things based on our own preferences. Personally, I don't like public monuments in general; I have no interest in seeing Mt. Rushmore or Stone Mountain Park. But I'm not going to impose my preferences on other people.
In a different frame of reference but making an analogous point, I personally would prefer to see Pete Rose in MLB's Hall of Fame; he is the most prolific batter in baseball history. Rose was banned because as a manager he later bet on baseball. By advocating Rose in the HoF, I'm not endorsing his gambling activity. Similarly, I would like to see Shoeless Joe Jackson in the HoF. Jackson was expelled from baseball in the aftermath of the 1919 Black Sox scandal (throwing the World Series). Jackson had a stellar World Series, had a hit record that stood for nearly 50 years. It's hard to charge Jackson with deliberately throwing the Series.
