The Colorado Confederatarian

To this here blog entry of mine:

Sharf.

DeGrow.

OK, away we go.

Ole Joshua Sharf begins his Denver Post “Gang of Four” blog entry as follers:

Those of you with long memories, that is, those of you who can remember back past the Iowa Caucuses a few months ago, will recall that Ron Paul tried to make the case to Tim Russert that we - that is, the Union - need not have fought the Civil War. He argued that the slaveowners could have been bought out. He claimed that the War engendered race hatred that took 100 years to overcome. And he claimed that Lincoln left the Constitution permanently disfigured by his conduct.

It may be a bit nitpickin’ to say so, but the Russert interview weren’t a “few months ago”. It wuz las’ month. Sharf may be thankin’ of-att interview by Bill Maher, which was back in March of 2007, where Paul made simulur commints. In neither interview did Paul say-att Lincoln left the Constitution permanently disfigured by his conduct, tho he no doubt duz believe it. Even certain pro-Lincoln fellers admit it. Per Joe Sobran:

Lincoln achieved what the Princeton historian James MacPherson calls “the Second American Revolution,” giving the Federal Government virtually full authority over the internal affairs of the states. Columbia’s George Fletcher credits him with creating “a new Constitution.” A third historian, Garry Wills of Northwestern University, says he “changed America,” transforming our understanding of the Constitution.

Mind you, these are not Lincoln’s critics — they are his champions! Do they listen to themselves? They are saying exactly what Jefferson Davis said: that Lincoln was abandoning the original Constitution! But they think this is a high compliment. Lincoln himself claimed he was “saving” the old Constitution. His admirers, without realizing it, are telling us a very different story.

Tho Paul duz uncritic'ly buy into the noshun that the slaves’ freedom coulda been bought, that weren’t really the nub of his argument. Sure, as Josh notes, their redemption from servitude probably wouldn’t-a been possible given all the realities of th’ sit-ee-a-shun. But Paul’s MAIN point is that if othah countries eradicated slavery peacefully, America shud have been able t’ do so too. And that is in fact the analysis of a number o’ WBTS scholars, Jeffrey Hummel included.

Now, ole Ben DeGrow pooh-pooh’s Hummel’s book in his latest response t’ me, sayin’-iss ‘bout it:

And yes, Snaggle-Tooth, I have read Jeffrey Hummel’s book: His argument happens to suffer from much of the same narrow view (sed with refrince to Sharf’s commint-att such a view don’t rise ‘bove the quality of argmint coming from a “college debating society”).

I gis I’m gonna have to ask Messrs. Sharf 'n DeGrow to forgive me fo’ optin’ to accept the analysis of a feller like ole Prof. Hummel ovah theirn. Hummel’s book has received accolades from the likes of Gary Gallagher and Kenneth Stampp, two WBTS historians who are acceptable to mos’ Yankees. Gallagher, whom DeGrow has menshuned positively in a recent exchange with me, sez of the Hummel book, “Even veteran students of the conflict will find much to challenge their thinking in this forcefully argued and clearly written study.” Stampp calls it “a lucid, edifying account of the Civil War era. Mr. Hummel has an impressive command of the relevant contemporary literature. His interpretations are thoughtful, often provocative, always well worth considering. Civil War buffs will want this book on their shelves.”

So, to the main point ‘bout Hummel’s argument, one “well worth considering,” as it relates to Ron Paul’s belief that the War of Northern Aggression need not-a been fought.  Here are th’ two editorial review of Hummel’s book from Amazon.com:

1. In this insightful treatment of the Civil War (addressing the causes, the war itself and Reconstruction), Hummel's text argues against the thesis that armed confrontation was inevitable. "As an excuse for civil war," he says, "maintaining the States territorial integrity is bankrupt and reprehensible. Slavery's elimination is the only morally worthy justification." But slavery, he suggests, was on its way out in any case. Not only was it a political liability, but the institution's many-faceted costs (social cost, enforcement, uprisings, mistreatment) outweighed any profits. If, after decades of unsuccessful compromise, the North had recognized the South's revolutionary right to self-determination and had let the Gulf states secede, slavery would have succumbed in the border states. Hummel goes on to argue, as have many others before, that after a devastating war and the disappointment of Reconstruction, a federal government that once interfered only a little in the affairs of individual states "had been transformed into an overbearing bureaucracy that intruded into daily life with taxes, drafts, surveillance, subsidies and regulations." Hummel, a professor of history and economics at Golden Gate University in San Francisco, quotes David H. Donald, saying, "Before the Civil War, many politicians and writers referred to the United States in the plural"--i.e., the United States are, a grammatical agreement no longer used after 1865. With its insightful analysis (not to mention the extensive bibliographical essays that elaborate each chapter), Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men will supply both the academic and Civil War buff with an added perspective on the causes and consequences of the Civil War.

2. Hummel (history and economics, Golden Gate Univ.) presents some uncomfortable truths for both sides of the Civil War. For the South, Hummel builds a case that the war was indeed about slavery. For the North, he shows that a war to preserve the union was morally bankrupt and that freeing the slaves was the only justifiable reason for fighting. Yet Hummel demonstrates that even a war for such a noble cause was probably unnecessary, since slavery was politically doomed in an independent South. Hummel also illustrates some of the cost of the war, such as Lincoln's suppression of political opposition, the closing of dissenting newspapers, and the creation of big government under Republicans Lincoln, Johnson, and Grant. Here, Hummel steps on some toes. A worthwhile purchase for public and academic libraries.

It needs t’be remembird that Ron Paul is a politishun, not an academic. ‘N all politishuns often say some pretty lamebrain thangs. It’s jus’ as true of John and Rudy and Mitt and Fred and Mike (espeshully Mike) as it is of Ron. Yes, ole Dr. Paul’s notion ‘bout how America coulda bought the slaves’ freedom is likely a silly one. But his belief that the war need not-a been fought is a sound one, and Hummel’s work cain’t be so eas’ly dismissed as Missur DeGrow thanks it kin.

Now, this here’s sumpin’ of an aside, but I gotta go into it. Speakin’ o’ yirs-truly, Josh Sharf writes-iss next:

Lucky enough to be a Virginian, I know something about Lost Causes, and one of the lostest of causes is arguing with someone about religion. So I know better than to get into a spitting match with a Ron Paul supporter. Especially one with a Google Machine powerful enough to scare up lots of quotes about how the South just wanted to be "Let Alone."

And yet, given the superficial appeal of such an argument, and that it can be used as a starting point for undermining national resolve in more important issues, it could be worth discussing with more than equally superficial dismissal.

Ooooeee, well ain’t the condesenshun just thick?   Sounds like he might hate Virginia too!

Ain’t sure, tho, wut he means ‘bout religion. Maybe he means-att ole Snaggle-Tooth is one of the “faithful”, an “acolyte" of the Neo-Confed’rate movement.  But I gis I can allow him his snootiness. I once here tawked about the faith the of neocons in simulur terms.

But thin ole Josh gits aftah me ‘bout Google sirchin’ fir the quotes in the sidebar t’ th’ right. An’-att one really makes me scratch my hed. First, how duz he know that I didn’t type these out of a book? Maybe I got a Word doc with var’yus ‘n sundree Reb quotes on ‘em. Second, maybe I found ‘em online without Googlin’. Third, wut do it matter whethuh o’ not I found the quotes online?  Duz Missur Sharf dispute that Davis, Stephens, “Claire Wolfe” and H. L. Mencken sed what I sed they sed? If’n he does, he oughta point out where th’ inakyuracies lie in that sidebar.

Them quotes were selected to serve as indercaters of what the filosofical slant of this here blog was gonna be, att’s all, an-att accounts for the “superficial” nature of that little section of my web site. They occurred in a sidebar entitled “More About This Web Site.” Meatier stuff was obvously to be found in the “Journal” section. Hope that clears it up for ye some, Josh.

Anyhow, after a purswaysive argument as-ta why the South wound’t-a simply accepted a fistful of dollars fo’ they slaves, Missur Sharf writes:

The South chose disunion, because it believed by 1860 that life without slavery was inconceivable. It relied on federal support for slavery where it could (fugitive slave laws), and denied federal authority where it might limit (the territories). The slaveowners didn't believe in being compensated for an economic loss, because by 1860, slavery was as much a social as an economic issue .

So fur, so good. But wut ole Josh nevah addresses is that it simply bends credulity to argue that slavery, despite the Southron slave-owing class’ tenacitee, would have lasted much longer thin it did in Brazil or Nigeria, the last two countries to abolish slavery (1888 and 1936 respektuvely). When Russert told Paul that if the war weren’t fought, “we’d still have slavery”, Dr. Paul responded, “Oh, come on, Tim.”

Oh, come on, indeed. As Hummel and other “historical revisionists” have so ably argued, there is EVERY reason to believe that, as Ben DeGrow even admitted to us in an earlier exchange, that slavery was “dying.” Ye don’t go fight a bloody war and “create a new Constitution” ( = kill the old one) to abolish a “dying” institution. Ye let it die naturally, perservin’ the peace, human life, and the Constitution. Ye even make it possible by so doin’ to facilitate an orderly integration of freed slaves into society. Sharf calls hissef a “Burkean conservative.” Oh yes? L’ thin let him cogertate on the fact that Burke almost certainly would have opposed the war that Lincoln brought to the South fo’ much th’ same reason that he oppos’d the French Revolution.

But thin agin’, neocons such as Sharf aren’t *really* Burkeans.  They nevah met a form of “creative destruction” they didn’t like.   An'-att's why they often referred by they crititcs as “Jacobins".

Sharf explains to us that he’s a Burkean, cuz he believes with traditionalist conservativism (aka “paleoconservatism”) “that people form societies, and are motivated by ideas and passions that have nothing whatever to do with economics.” Too bad Missur Sharf cain’t seem to see that the Southrons had they own society they wuz passhunate about, and that, slavery aside, at bottom it too had nothin’ to do with economics. I would recommend Sharf read (or re-read) the Vanderbilt Agrarians and Genovese fo’ a little instrukshun here.

Josh concludes his piece with a question:

And in the end, this debate isn't really about the Civil War, is it? It's about the current War against the Jihadis. Because if the Civil War was optional, then pretty much any war is.

‘L, several responses are in order to that-un:

1) Interestin’ that Sharf and his fellow neocons make a connekshun between the War of Northern Aggression and Iraq, jus’ like us paleocons and “neo-Confederates” do. Only diffurnce is, we conclude diff’rent thangs about them connekshuns. We say that Lincoln’s War was evidence that the North was bent on Empire, sumpin’-att’s supported by the domestic and foreign commentary of the day.  Sharf & Co. simply see it as manifestations of the “perpetual war” we need to fight to bring democracy and equality to the world;

2) That bein’ said, clearly the comparisons ain’t apt. It’s one thang to go to war agin’ furners who stike at th' heart of yur political and economic inferstruktur.  It’s anotha thang to do to war agin’ yir countrymen, who merely did what they and they Yankee brethren did in the Revolutionary War. And lastly;

3) Where’s-att evidence that Iraq was wagin’ jihad agin’ us, Josh? Or is it really “creative destruction” yer after, which means at the end of the day, as Thomas “Peace-Through-Perpetual-War” Barnett put it, that “the boys are never coming home”?

Neocons ain’t really fer fightin’ the Jihadis. If they was, they’d start listnin’ to reason. They’d re-embrace they paleocon past and start thankin' jus' a little harder 'bout jus’ why it wuz-att 9/11 occurred. They’d seek to reinstitute the old immigration policy, they’d secure our borders, and thin they’d try to get ovah they Americanism by puttin theysevves in the shoes of non-Americans in whose countries Americans have meddled so extensively, in violation of the Founding pricipul that America shud have no excessive foreign entanglements. But no, they ain’t havin’ any. Much easier to unload a lot of bombs on people. Democracy with a bang.

‘L, att’s about it. I’m done with Mr. Sharf, so I’ll briefly turn my ‘ttention back to Missur DeGrow. “Briefly” cuz I done come down with a vexatious case of diverticulitus, and need to put mysef to bed.

Ole Ben links a Liberty article by libertarian attorney Timothy Sandefur, ‘n I mus' say it’s jus’ ‘bout as good as the pro-Unionist argumint kin git. Quite Jaffian it wuz, with the acrid odor of Claremont about it. But that article got picked to pieces in-iss un', written by anothah libertarian attorney, Stephan Kinsella.  (See this here response by Kinsella too.)

And as *I* read the Sandefur piece, I was struck by the glarin’ omission about how John Locke’s philosophy applied to states as well as individuals, as outlined in iss-here book.    An’ tryin’ to argue that Lincoln was an egalitarian of the Jeffersonian type is jus’ laughable whin it is taken into account *ever’thin’* Honest Abe did and sed, not only to the Confed’rates, but to dissentin’ Yankees too. Weren’t too terribly egalitarian ‘bout the blacks, neither. Sandefur quotes Lincoln as sayin’ “there is no reason in the world why the Negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man.” Well, he conveenyently omits the fact that Lincoln clearly stated that blacks and white cudn’t live together, and hoped to shuffle all the Negroes back to Africa. (Do I need to quote the pertinent texts on this-un, Ben, or will you concede that point up front?)

Then too is all the copious evidence that America’s Founding Fathers and legal commentators after thim believed in the right of secession, somethin’ that completely undoes Sandefur’s arg’mint that the Southern secession wuz some sort of “criminal conspiracy.” ((I kin quote that stuff too, Ben.) His arg’mint that only the “people” actin’ as the aggregut of individuals could create the Union or secede from it is pure sofistry.   See here and here for commentary as to why it's sofistical.)

But thin agin', Mr. Sandefur 'ppears to have majored in sofistry, as evidenced by his 'stounding argumint that Lincoln was akshually a Jeffersonian.   Yes, and Bill Clinton is akshually a Benedictine.

L’, I’m ‘bout ready to do a face plant here. One of the thangs I did want to mention in this entry is the whole issue of presupposishun and ideology in doin’ history, and how those thangs affect historiography. One of the best features of Hummel’s book is the notes at the end of each chapter summarizing the best of the research, notes which show his “impressive command of the relevant contemporary literature.” In those notes he discusses the var-yus school of interpretation, and he hints how the tenets of each school kin affect how the historical data ‘r sifted. Contrary to the in-sinn-ee-ashuns of ‘em snobby Jaffians, they just as prone to siftin’ as anyone else. In fact, I thank they’ve sifted much.

S. Jones