Re: Re: Re: RE: American looneyism EVERYWHERE

2000-05-12 Thread Carrol Cox

The causes of the Slave Drivers' Rebellion are complicated, *but*
it is doubtful that all the other reasons would have led to actual war
were it not for the belief of the Southern Slaveocrats that slavery was
in danger. The Articles of Confederation have several clauses aimed
at guaranteeing the perpetuation of slavery. See also Barbara Jeanne
Fields, *Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground: Maryland during
the Nineteenth Century* (Yale UP, 1985). She argues that the slaves
knew before Lincoln did that the war would abolish slavery -- because
they knew the southern planters better than Lincoln did.

In any case, it is sheer hypocrisy to argue that *today* the Confederate
Flag represents anything but the aggressive defense of white supremacy,
whatever its lying defenders may pretend. Giving other reasons for
"honoring" the Confederacy should be put in the same category as
opposing affirmative action in the name of "equality" or claiming that
*The Bell Curve* is simply scientific honesty.

The oppression of Black people has been and continues to be *the*
central political fact of the United States, and is the one issue on which
there can be no fuzziness.

Incidentally, "looneyism" is much too gentle a label for Confederate History
Month.

Carrol




Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: American looneyism EVERYWHERE

2000-05-12 Thread Jim Devine

Carrol wrote:
The causes of the Slave Drivers' Rebellion are complicated, *but*
it is doubtful that all the other reasons would have led to actual war
were it not for the belief of the Southern Slaveocrats that slavery was
in danger.

There's a whole lit on this that suggests that it wasn't the Northern will 
to end slavery as much as the Southern plantation-owners fear of its end 
that sparked the conflagration. The owners saw their slaves as assets and 
would suffer from severe capital losses even from a mere murmur about 
manumission. (It's as if the stock-market goons started hearing about a 
proposal to expropriate their shares.) So they over-reacted (in the sense 
of starting a war, since it made sense from their own view-points).

BTW, there were a whole lot of civil wars in Latin America even where 
slavery was not an issue, over issues of free-trade vs. protection. So that 
suggests that "all the other reasons" _could have_ led to actual war. In 
any event, it's very hard to separate all of the other reasons from 
slavery. Southern slavery was more than mere slavery. It was part of a 
"plantation/cotton/slavery" complex that was (for example) necessarily 
oriented toward the world market  (and thus against protectionism). (More 
than cotton was grown, but the other plantation crops were export-oriented, 
too.)

BTW, on the topic of "looneyism" (which appears in the subject line). I 
think the real "looneyism" is societal. Can anyone think of anything more 
looney than the continued accumulation of atomic, biological, and chemical 
weapons? (I'm sure you can, but you get the point.) I think the solution to 
Doyle's problem is something that most people have done already: drop the 
use of the term "looney" (and lunatic) as applied to individual psychology. 
I know that even though my son has a neurological problem that leads to 
behavioral difficulties and sometimes emotional extremism, he's not a 
"lunatic." Nor are those with schizophrenia, clinical depression, etc.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
"From the east side of Chicago/ to the down side of L.A.
There's no place that he gods/ We don't bow down to him and pray.
Yeah we follow him to the slaughter / We go through the fire and ash.
Cause he's the doll inside our dollars / Our Lord and Savior Jesus Cash
(chorus): Ah we blow him up -- inflated / and we let him down -- depressed
We play with him forever -- he's our doll / and we love him best."
-- Terry Allen.