Maggie's Farm

This last comment was from me, but accidently sent as Anonymous. And, jeez, Mr. Larsen, we don't think as you seem to think us Yankees do of the South (as you said to mr. Gordie). My beef is with Northeners displaying the Stars and Bars. Richard Brookhiser wrote about this same thing in the 1/29/07 issue of the National Review "Rebels on the Hudson".

Mr. “Hard Ass” Habu just can’t seem to get past the bare fact of this sentence of mine “the Confederates were traitorous, treasonous dogs.”

(I do regret the dog part, because I love dogs, especially mine, but it is, after all, an expression.)

My Webster’s Third new International Dictionary defines, (in part), “Traitor” thus: “One that commits treason against his country; one that violates his allegiance to his nation by levying war against it.”

“Treason”: “The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance.”

Which of these did the C.S.A. NOT do?

We, North and South, were traitors to George III, and our American Revolution was an act of treason. At least our Founding Fathers were honest enough to admit and recognize this, as do I. They were proud of their treason. “If this be treason” and etc.

The Confederates were traitors, and they committed an act of high friggin’ treason against the Union. Mr. Habu may think this treason was justified, as I think we were justified in rebelling against King George III, but at least I admit the truth of the matter, that it was treason. If Mr. Habu were honest, he would say he is proud of this treason, and proud of Johnny Reb being called traitors, one and all.

I am personally sick of Sons of the South, neo-Confederate secessionists, and Lost Causers hiding behind States Rights, and this includes the Maggie’s Farmer who wrote the original post. What you mean to say is Slave State Rights, and I wish you would just come out and say it. Mr. Habu accuses myself and other Yankees of not responding to his question of why secession took place. Here is what I said: “I am uninterested in debating the causes of the Civil War, but I don’t think that it was all about State’s Rights, or all about Slavery, or all about culture, or all about agrarian vs. industrialized lifestyles, but rather a complicated mix of all of these. I do think most Southerners were ill served by their government, by their class system, and by their leaders. I think slavery had to be ended for the moral good of the USA, despite the fact that the South had been allowed to have slaves 80 years previous.”

How is this not responding?

Secession was Treason, anyway you look at it. I hold cowards like Jefferson Davis, the Southern aristocracy, (the top ten percent of the landowners, controlled forty percent of all assessed wealth), and the small group of politicians who led the South into a disastrous war responsible and accountable for this treason, and it is their treason I refer to rather than that of the common soldier (though he was committing treason too – just for different reasons).

Here is Alexander Stephens, Vice president, Confederate States of America, Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861.

“But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo—it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner"—the real "corner-stone"—in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.”

This is, in essence, what the C.S.A. stood for. Not States rights, but Slave States Rights. Mr. Habu is obviously a fanatic on this question, but I was surprised to read the calmer and saner Mr. B.D., in a very disingenuous manner, deny the importance of the slavery question other than to call it a “flashpoint” That, and the preservation of the Union, in his view, are all secondary to Slave State Rights.

OK, let’s do “Hard Ass.” First of all, Mr. Gordie was referring to the pathetic types who drive around with Stars and Bars or swastikas on themselves or their cars, and only mentioned his family’s military service in response to Mr. Larsen self-righteously (knowing nothing about Mr. Gordie or his family) saying to him that it was hard asses who allowed him to be free. Mr. Gordie merely replied, saying he understood the concept, and here are some of my family’s hard asses. Because, I gather, they are (or were) Yankee hard asses, Old Mr. Habu felt the gauntlet was thrown down or something, and told us all about his family’s distinguished military service, as if this were a contest of some sort. (I admire both Mr. Habu’s and his family’s service).

I mentioned a little of my family’s military service, but not in as great detail as Mr. Habu. Both my grandfathers fought in the First World War. One of them was in the Calvary, and fought in all the toughest American engagements – Belleau Woods at Chateau Thierry, Soisons, and St.Mihiel. He was an All-American football player for a big ten university. In the Second World war he was assigned to MacArthur’s HQ, and was on his staff throughout the war. He won a bronze star for capturing three fully armed Japanese soldiers in the Philippines armed with only a .45. He was 47 years old at the time.

My uncle S., who was also my godfather, was in Marine intelligence during WWII, stationed in North Africa. He learned to speak fluent Arabic, and was one of the nicest men I have ever met. At his funeral, in Maine, several years ago, the Marine hymn was played, and a Marine color guard played taps and presented us with a flag. (I hope when Mr. Habu is driving around Maine trying to cause Yankee dead to spin in their graves, he doesn’t bother my uncle).

There are numerous other extended family members of mine who served in the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marines. Some didn’t come home. One bomber pilot lies somewhere at the bottom of the English Channel. His younger brother was on a Navy destroyer off of Iwo Jima several months after his older brother was shot down, taking down casualty lists from Iwo Jima over the radio. He was hoping that one of the names he read wasn’t his third brother, a 19-year-old marine who was fighting on Iwo Jima.

My point in telling you about these men is this: Lots of Americans have performed valiantly for their country. It isn’t a hard-ass competition. But I will tell you one thing about my grandfather and my uncle – they would never, not in a million years, have dreamed of bragging about their military exploits on the internet in the wee hours, talking about how hard ass they are, insulting strangers, threatening violence, bragging that people they have never met would be screaming for their mothers. In fact, I’ve never known any combat veteran who has talked much about his service. My father- in -law liberated concentration camps with Patton, but he never talks about it. Perhaps Mr. Habu is merely the exception that proves the rule.

Thanks, by the way, for the words to “Pencil Neck Geek”. Haven’t heard old Fred sing this since college. Figures you’d like an old blowhard fraud like him, though I admit I did too. Thanks also for the treasonous South Carolina Slave State Rights document. Yawn. I agree with you about the flag burning though. I just want to make certain that you understand that, to me, the Stars and Bars represents the same thing that the Nazi Swastika or the North Vietnamese Flag does, and that it represents the same sort of society. The pre-Civil War South was a ghastly place. There is no record that wealthy plantation owners who started the war cared or did much for the poor white farmers who comprised their armies. These men, the common confederate soldier, would have been better off hanging the Southern politicians and planters, freeing the slaves and dividing up the good land that was mostly in the hands of the Southern aristocracy. That would have been a useful rebellion.

Mr. B.D., you talk to Mr. Gordie of Ad Hominem attacks. Have you read Mr. Habu’s entries? Mr. Gordie’s remarks are much gentler and saner sounding, but then that is true of almost everyone else as well. And Patina, have you? I’m slurring American soldiers? What do you call wishing to make dead Yankees spin in their graves until an earthquake is caused? Mr. Habu calls me a son-of-a-bitch. Is this not as much a slur on dogs as my comment about traitorous dogs? Or how about his under the porch licking genitals remark? This seems to be insulting to dogs as well. I think the Maggie’s Farm staff and friends are intimidated by Mr. Habu, and that there is a double standard at play.

And Mr. Habu, as Americans and readers of this blog, we have more in common than we disagree about. Maybe when you take your trip up north to rile dead Yankees you can stop by and have a porch beer or two with us Yankee sons-a-bitches, and we can discuss this into the wee hours. People are usually more reasonable face to face than they are on the Internet.

Patina - No, I don't believe in the banning of Indian mascots. Ridiculous. I don't believe in the banning of the Confederate Flag, either. I don't actually like bans, (which is one of the reasons I visit this blog). I especially dislike the smoking in bars ban, but there are other bans I likewise dislike. Just because I don't like the Confederate flag doesn't mean I think other people don't have the right to display it all they want, just as long as they allow me to think poorly of them for doing so. I dislike Hilary Clinton, and agree she is using this issue divisively.

Mr. McLeod, Mr. Larsen, and Mr. Gordie,

I couldn't agree with you more about the war in Iraq. We HAVE to win it.

And Mr. Larsden, I was referring to the slaves and the poor white farmers who were both exploited by the aristocracy. You are right, though, that it was a sweeping statement, and I retract it. There were terrible aspects to life in both the North and South. By the way, I have relatives in Maryland, Texas, and Florida, and we go at it all the time - all in good fun, of course. I especially love Texas as a state, and not just because most of the best music comes from there (I'm not including the Dixie Chicks).