Reflections on the Confederate Statue Kerfuffle
I feel that I finally have to write some comments on this topic. I've tried to fight the good fight on Twitter (with some reasonable success: for example, my anti-New York Times tweets often get hundreds of impressions/readers). I don't think I get as many discussions in my Facebook feeds; Reason definitely comes down in favor of free expression, but there are also a number of libertarians who suggest that these statues were established in the post-reunified South with the intent of intimidating blacks, who argue against the evil anti-liberty rationales behind secession and suggest that we need to side with those who want no part with those who fought to maintain the perpetuation of slavery in the South.
I think I've made my position clear in numerous blog post comments and tweets, but let me summarize the key points here:
- I agree that the institution of slavery is an unconscionable violation of natural rights. However, slavery did not have a European genesis; for example, it was an issue for the Jewish exodus from Egypt. I understand that slaveowners would come up with their own (often paternalistic) rationalizations for violating the rights of thousands, if not millions, of people. That some would even use the Bible (e.g., Paul's epistles) to justify their ongoing behavior is an abomination.
- The institution of slavery was slowly dying out across Europe and the New World. My belief, and the belief of other libertarians, including DiLorenzo, was that this would also have happened in the South eventually. (Note that Brazil, a top post-Confederacy emigration destination, peacefully ended slavery a generation after the end of our Civil War.) Why? Because an independent North would have repealed the Fugitive Slave Law. This would have increased the costs of maintaining slaves. The South was facing increasing pressure from its cotton export customers for non-slavery supplies. Free labor was unhappy with wage-dampening effects of competing against slave labor, never mind being taxed to subsidize crony, corrupt Big Plantation owners. I feel that the Confederacy trying to become more competitive with its more populated, affluent Northern neighbor would have abandoned slavery sooner than later and likely rejoined the US voluntarily. In fact, even without slave labor, the South regained its spot as the world's leading cotton producer just a few years after the end of the war.
- For me and other pro-liberty folks, the Southern secession was a logical consequence of the guaranteed right of free association. Lincoln made it clear at his inauguration that slavery was negotiable, that what was not negotiable was the collection of tariffs in the South. The Emancipation Proclamation, which did not free slaves in the Union slave states like MD, was more of a diplomatic maneuver to persuade anti-slavery Europeans (England, France) from recognizing the Confederacy. We also see the war as principally one of Northern aggression; the North was much more populous and economically diverse, not to mention with an existing military, supply sources and infrastructure. In fact, Lincoln's election came without the necessity of even a single Southern electoral vote. To a number of Southerners, this reflected basically a tyranny of the majority in a remote government, not unlike something they rejected 4 generations earlier, and exacerbated secession.
We could go on and further describe the post-Reconstruction period in the South, the rise of Jim Crow, etc. In part, this reflected a bad court system that failed to enforce Civil War era amendments, explicitly rejecting government-sponsored discrimination, protecting individual rights equally under the rule of law.
Now what do I think of Confederacy-era statues, the Confederate flag, etc.? I and other pro-liberty people are not nationalists. If there is government, we want it to be minimal and decentralized. We don't want the government to hinder the human right to migrate or to exchange goods and services. I do cherish America and its Constitution and heritage; I do see a right to self-defense.
That being said, I see government taxation and regulation as excessive and at the expense of our liberty and free market. I'm not particularly fond of government-subsidized and/or maintained art, but what do I make of arguments that Confederate statues "glorify" racism, slavery, treason and so on?
Not much. For one thing, they don't change the reality of the outcome of the War of Northern Aggression. I personally think they reflect a recognition that Americans served on each side of the war, and there were elements of honor, gallantry, and heroism in these soldiers. There is honor in protecting one's homeland, heritage and distinctive culture, which cannot simply be reduced to the institutional evil of slavery.
In a similar way, I have not been a fan of a leftist movement to banish the Confederate flag from public display (including, apparently, at Six Flags Over Texas!) Did I see the Confederate flag as being somehow a state of denial over the war outcome, a symbol of defiance, a subversive symbol in favor of reinstating the slavery-dominated South? No. I think in part it reflects a shared regional identity, heritage, culture and pride; I also believe there's a conservative heritage in favor of limited central government, a more open market, a more religious, social conservative populace.
Now when Gov. Haley (R-SC) called for ending flying the Confederate in the aftermath of the racist massacre in a Charleston church, I wasn't crazy about the implicit identification of the Confederacy with racist extremism (there was also a lot of racism in the North), but at least this was a more local response.
To a large extent, I saw things like memorials and statues on both sides as a form of national reconciliation after a cruel war costing the lives of over 600K, an implicit warning of the outcome of bad public policy. Pretending that the past did not occur by wiping our past clean only sets the stage for a future war, even more catastrophic, because we won't have learned from history. This is not about a few crackpot white supremacy groups, who are literally a rounding error in a nation of 323M and have no support nationally, including the inarticulate Trump Administration (note also that the Justice Department is also looking at the Charlottesville murder)
So what led to this rant? A note in
today's newspaper reveals Madison, WI Mayor Soglin is removing Confederate monuments IN THE LOCAL CEMETERY because he thinks they glorify INSURRECTION when conciliatory language notes their valor in combat. (Apparently Confederate soldiers, even though they were American, are "less equal".) I'm not making this up; check out the link. Political correctness has reached a new low.
A Mini-Rant on Paywalls
I just saw a note from the Gray Lady saying that I was bumping into their upper limit of monthly "free webpage views" and got a sales pitch for an unlimited use monthly rate. Um, no: I'm mostly reviewing op-ed pieces and have written a number of tweets implicitly advertising their content. If you think I'm paying for the privilege of promoting your material, you're delusional.
Of course, the Wall Street Journal is the granddaddy of paywalls. I used to subscribe when they were charging something in the range of $49-79/year. But when they kept on escalating prices even beyond the competition, I simply wasn't using the portal to make it worthwhile (in addition, in checking out stories, I look at a variety of sources, most of which are free/ad-supported.
I would have figured by now we would have more metered subscription services, e.g., micro-payments (say, a few pennies for a story), reduced alert-link, national news subscriptions, etc. I'm particularly appalled when they charge for op-eds. I've never made a penny on my blogs. So if they want my business, they need to come up with a reasonable business model. WSJ loses out because I've rarely cited them for years now on the blog.
