For Bob

Avatar

Patrick

Patrick is a mid-40 year old geek with an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a master's degree in Information Systems. Nothing he says here has anything to do with the official position of his employer or any other institution.

Related Post Roulette

115 Responses

  1. Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

    “It’s not about the North breaking the pact of the Constitution. It’s about the North breaking the pact of the Constitution as it applies to slavery, and slavery only.”
    This is a curious statement. I’m trying to cipher it.
    Let me ask, Did the Southern states have the Constitutional ‘right’ to secede, regardless of the reason (slavery or whatever, or a combination thereof)? What say ye?Report

    • Avatar Patrick Cahalan says:

      > This is a curious statement. I’m
      > trying to cipher it.

      The Constitutionality of the Health Care Mandate is in question. Do states have a legal right of secession over this issue?

      Do states have a legal right of secession if a single incident of a violation of the First Amendment occurs?

      Is absolute adherence to the Constitution a requirement for the contract to be regarded as valid?

      > Did the Southern states have the
      > Constitutional ‘right’ to secede,
      > regardless of the reason (slavery
      > or whatever, or a combination
      > thereof)? What say ye?

      I don’t see anything in the document that would qualify as an exit clause. Admittedly, I’m not a Constitutional purist. One can argue that the 10th includes a right of secession, but I think that’s a dicey claim to make. Is this your position?

      In any event, the letter of the law question is only marginally interesting to me. If I’m pressed, my current thinking (not subject to deep introspection at this point) would say…

      A part of a political body has a moral obligation to exit when the whole is pursuing a morally reprehensible course of action, the ability of the part to affect or change this agency is reasonably unlikely, the consequences of the course of action are dire, and the cost of secession is not greater than the moral reprehensible -ness of the course of action in question.

      The South’s moral right of secession is not defensible under three of the four criteria. Abolition of slavery is a moral good, in my opinion. I think a substantial proportion of both absolutists and relativists would agree.Report

      • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

        Patrick,
        I’m no Constitutional expert but I believe the statist Yankees put a amendment in after the war that illegally prohibited secession, though I’m not sure it was REALLY ratified.
        Yes, as far as I’m concerned secession over Barry’s Commie-Care works for me.
        Pat, the Constitution is a VOLUNTARY compact. You can divorce yourself from VOLUNTARY compacts whenever YOU, not the general gummint, choose.
        The South did not think ill of ACS, hell, a significant portion of the NOrth didn’t either…you might want to read some of the State Laws Bro Lincoln supported when he was in the Illinois legislature, …he didn’t care much for the African.Report

        • Avatar Patrick Cahalan says:

          Lincoln was a politician first and an abolitionist second. I think it’s pretty likely he was always going to get around to the abolitionism. That’s what the secession document above asserts, and I think there is plenty of evidence to indicate that’s where he wanted to go. Eventually.

          But yes, he was definitely a politician first.

          > Pat, the Constitution is a VOLUNTARY
          > compact. You can divorce yourself from
          > VOLUNTARY compacts whenever YOU,
          > not the general gummint, choose.

          Damn the consequences, eh? Well, it’s consistent at least.Report

    • Avatar Plinko says:

      Let’s say they did have said right, Bob. Now here’s my question for you, once the Confederate States of America are an independent nation, why does it surprise you that after they commit an act of war on the United States, that the U.S. declared war on them, won said war, reclaimed the territory and subjected the Confederate States to U.S. laws?Report

      • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

        Plinko, I believe Yankee forces invaded the South. The “act of war” was the Yankee effort, in whatever form, that sought to force the South back into the ‘union.’ The South had every right to confiscate Yankee forts, etc in their territory. Lincoln refused any conference on the matter.Report

        • Avatar Plinko says:

          You must be discussing some alternate U.S. history where the South didn’t attack Ft. Sumter first. And even if they hadn’t, I’m pretty sure James K. Polk acquired about a third of the U.S.’s current land area on less pretense.Report

          • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

            Mr. P, I believe the South wanted to negotiate with the Lincolnites some arrangement re: federal properties in the Confederacy. Lincoln refused to particpate with the CSA gummint, consequently the CSA gave the Yankees a date certain to get out. Lincoln was trying to ship supplies to Ft. Sumter and consequently the shore batteries opened on the fort.
            As I said, why did the North invade the South?Report

            • Avatar Plinko says:

              Why did Lincoln need to treat with an adjoining nation of thieving, slave-owning traitors that attacked US military installations?
              I’ve not known you to disavow any other of the U.S.’s previous wars of conquest, though if you have and I missed it, maybe I’ll rethink my objections to your version of events.Report

            • Avatar Kim says:

              the north invaded the south out of a misguided sense of justice, and the idea that saving lives would help our union.

              From your propagandized responses, it appears that Lincoln should have done more to remove Southern power.

              Because the Germans don’t sound like you — the Japanese don’t sound like you — the Rus don’t sound like you…

              Why is that, again? Why can they shut the fuck up about “past injustices” and Make Something Of Themselves, and you can’t? [bein’ a borderlander don’t cut it here, them’s only part of the south and you know it.]Report

              • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

                Kim, do you kiss your significant other with that mouth? Around here we use the term ‘fish’ for the olde English legalism: “For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.” We know your a tough, kid.

                “the north invaded the south out of a misguided sense of justice, and the idea that saving lives would help our union.”
                This is silly, you gotta be a registered commie-dem, if you’re in jr. high, I apologize.Report

    • Avatar Mike Schilling says:

      Say it was part of the Southern heritage to rape 10-year-old girls. The problem, though, was that raping 10-year-old girls was illegal in the North, and the North also forbid the spreading of 10-year-old-girl rape into the territories. Even worse, a president had just been elected whom the South was afraid would try to abolish the rape of 10-year-old girls in the whole country. Still, as one of their eminent statesman explained:

      Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the 10-year-old girl is not equal to the grown man; that rape, subordination to her superiors, is her natural and normal condition.

      Tell me, do the Southern states have the right to secede to preserve their peculiar institution?Report

      • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

        Many in the South thought of the African in pretty much the same way Lincoln and countless Yankees did, that is as a people who were less human than the white man. I suppose it was a way to justify first, ACS, and second, an excuse to beat, and hang them when they came north to take the white man’s work.
        However, there are also anecdotal evidence of kindnesses shared between the races, even a few Yankees found it in their hearts to be kind, on occasion.Report

        • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

          Er sorry: re your inquiry, yes, as I’ve said, by vote of the eligible citizenry, in 1861 any state had the right to secede, leave, withdraw from the voluntary compact which formed the American ‘union’ of states. There was nothing sacred about said ‘union’, it was merely a general gummint, created by the states with specific, few, and limited powers.
          I believe the consolidators eliminated that ‘right’ following the late unpleasantness, though the act itself may have been illegal.Report

          • Avatar Kim says:

            … the right to secede was quelched during the Whiskey Rebellion, not before nor since.Report

            • Avatar Jason Kuznicki says:

              I’m not sure what quelched means, but the Whiskey Rebellion had nothing to do with secession.Report

              • Avatar Kim says:

                sure it did. It was the folks west of teh Appalachians saying that the Easterners had put an intolerable tax on their corn production (the Whiskey Tax), and that they weren’t gonna be a part of the union no more.

                It makes more sense when you realize that they couldn’t get fresh corn to markets on time, and that whiskey is a good way of preserving a surplus of corn. (What in the East was something done for surplus, was the only cash crop in the West)Report

              • Avatar Jason Kuznicki says:

                and that they weren’t gonna be a part of the union no more.

                [Citation needed.]Report

              • Avatar Kim says:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion
                … jesus, they had conventions and shit? my thanks, sir, I really didn’t remember this as more than a footnote.Report

              • Avatar Jason Kuznicki says:

                Every four years, the major political parties have conventions and shit, too.

                Are they leaving the Union?

                And I repeat. [Citation needed.]Report

              • Avatar Kim says:

                Jason,
                I just cited a reasonably good source. If you’re trying to say that you didn’t see what I was claiming in there, I would appreciate it if you would damn well tell me that.
                As I noted above, I’m not exactly the supermost biggest expert on the damn thing.
                I do expect you to read my sources as cited, though.Report

              • Avatar Chris says:

                Kim, your source doesn’t have the words “secession” or “secede,” or even “union” in it.Report

              • Avatar Jason Kuznicki says:

                Before I even asked you for a cite, I had read the entire Wikipedia page on the Whiskey Rebellion. It says nothing about secession, which squared with my memory (I do have a degree in history, you know). That’s how I knew I’d probably caught you in yet another lie.

                Based on that page and on everything I remember, the rebels do not appear ever to have demanded secession. It’s still possible that some of them did, which is why I still ask for a source. And no, I won’t accept a personal interview from some nameless expert.

                As things stand, this is shaping up to be another fiasco of yours on the same plane as apple-scabs-cause-cancer, Sony-using-tanks, and 48-states-are-bankrupt.Report

              • Avatar Kim says:

                Jason,
                in which case, i shall bow to your superior knowledge on the subject, and thank you for the edification, as it has been most educational.Report

        • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

          Re: child rape. The evidence is clear that there was 38% more pedophiles in the North than in the South. However, I’ll give Lincoln this, back then, when they caught ’em they hung ’em.Report

          • Avatar Kim says:

            … no statistics were kept in the south on how many black children, age ten, were raped by their slaveowners, because it was legal.Report

          • Avatar Mike Schilling says:

            It was only in the South that grown men owned 10-year-old girls and could do whatever they wanted to without any risk of consequences.Report

    • Avatar Kim says:

      No, because a secession was not a popular cause, but one used by the “ruling families” to retain their status. There’s more right for the Whiskey Rebellion than for Southern Slavery or World War One.Report

  2. We could also ask Confederate VP Alexander Stephens why the South seceded:

    Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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.

    Nobody cared about the procedural issue of “states’ rights” (an oxymoron, btw– governments don’t have rights, people do). People cared about the substantive issues the states wanted to pursue. The South cared about states’ rights… to maintain and expand the system of slavery unmolested in perpetuity. They feared they wouldn’t be allowed to, so they seceded in order to preserve slavery.Report

  3. Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

    Oh, and btw, you might find this of interest:

    “The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

    But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded– the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

    Pat, it really looks like these rebels have had enough of the Yankee-statist-Lincolnite monied-interests in Washington City. I’m sure you’ve felt the same way, yourself.Report

    • Avatar Patrick Cahalan says:

      Protectionism is certainly within the purview of the Congress, Bob.

      It might be a bad idea, but that’s one of the powers that Georgia signed off on. As was the creation of the postal service.

      International trade always was under the auspices of Congress.

      And the argument: “You’re subsidizing (industry) with federal tax dollars” argument is only valid upon further analysis. I admit, I don’t have any experience at all in early- to mid-1800s economic policy and tax rates, but spending $2,000,000 on lighthouses is hardly an indefensible act if the merchant fleet is worth more than that.

      From 1850-1859, agricultural exports accounted for 81% of total exports. Seems to me that Georgia is arguing about cutting subsidies for a transportation industry that enables their actual primary product to get to its end market. Cutting their own costs, I’ll note.

      Now again, I know little about mid-19th century American economics, but this seems to be “cut off your nose to spite your face” incident, on first glance.

      This, in any event, is less likely to be the straw that broke the camel’s back than this is:

      “Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. ”

      Yes, replacing $3,000,000,000 worth of slaves was going to have a severe impact on the South’s economy (assuming the number is correct). “The South” engineered themselves that dependency, I have little sympathy.

      Like the Polis of Aristotle, the ability of great men to think great thoughts was carried on the backs of subjugated people. Aristotle was wrong. This is, and was, and always will be, an outrage.Report

      • Avatar Patrick Cahalan says:

        Also: going to war over slavery when the steam tractor is 7 years away seems to be, in retrospect, a doubly-terrible decision.

        They wrote their own doom, Bob. “Their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides.”

        They convinced themselves that the abolition of slavery was going to not just affect their economy, but destroy their actual existence. And desecrate the church, no less!Report

      • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

        Dude, be careful on that pretentious high horse.
        The South was angry because of Eastern monied-interests, bankers, stockjobbers, and other ner-do-wells who were busily corrupting gummint and destroying the virtues of the olde republic. They wanted to establish their own republic and that was a good idea. Slavery days were almost over (see below) and when that happened the Africans would have flooded North seeking work in the mills, foundries, etc. What do you think would have happened then? The same thing that happened in NYC during the Draft Riots….!Report

        • Avatar Patrick Cahalan says:

          How pretentious can I be when I readily admit my knowledge of the time period is incomplete?

          Heck, lay some knowledge on me that counterfactualizes my assumptions.Report

        • Avatar Kolohe says:

          The South was angry because of Eastern monied-interests, bankers, stockjobbers, and other ner-do-wells who were busily corrupting gummint and destroying the virtues of the olde republic.

          This was the deal, though, they signed onto in 1787. There was already a split between the financiers, merchants, & proto-industrialists of the North, and the land barons & commodity production economy of the South. That’s why the compromise was to allow the new Federal government to tax imports, but prohibit it from taxing exports.Report

          • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

            Kolohe, you have a good point, but I think the agrarians who knew they’d have to keep an eye on the northern merchantilists/bankers and general gummint bootlicks didn’t think they’d move as efficiently or as quickly as they did. They miscalculated Yankee greed, libido dominandi…it’s a gnostic thing.Report

            • Avatar Kolohe says:

              The Federalist-Whig strain of American politics was never in power for very long in the ante-bellum period – save Daniel Webster – and when they were, they were considerably full of fail. (though some of that is being re-considered now that Jackson is finally being taken down a notch; Adams Jr is starting to get recognized as a good guy in the wrong time – and poor political skills. But nothing’s going to rehabilitate Filmore.)Report

              • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

                You have some good points here but the South was very wary of the North’s progressiveness, its fantastic industrial growth, its intimated expansion of political power, or at least the South thought these things were going on, and I think to some degree they were considering man’s libido dominandi. The South found itself morally limited by ACS, and tied to ACS economically.Report

              • Avatar Kolohe says:

                ACS = American Constitutional System?Report

              • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

                African chattel slaveryReport

            • Avatar Kim says:

              … just because the South was influenced by generations of African Culture, doesn’t mean that they was hoodwinked. Just because Africans didn’t advance much, and didn’t place much influence on economizing, doesn’t mean that they shoudlnt’ have seen what was coming.
              Then again, what do you get when you send 3rd sons of 3rd sons of minor nobility? Propagandists.Report

  4. Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

    Actually Patrick we agree: “Also: going to war over slavery when the steam tractor is 7 years away seems to be, in retrospect, a doubly-terrible decision.”
    And, the old cotton gin was coming on..so no need for ACS. PLus, while there were 5 million slaves, there were 500,000 freedmen in 1861 and the number growing. Slavery was dying.
    The South seceded over slavery, tariffs, the fear of Lincoln and the Republicans as evil men who would install a statist regime.
    So why did the North invade the South?Report

    • Avatar Patrick Cahalan says:

      Over slavery, national property that was co-opted by the South (forts and military equipment), and to preserve the Union. Also, undoubtedly, some of the boys jumped into the fray to teach those rednecks a lesson. Prior to 1862, volunteerism was high on both sides, and I feel okay with saying it’s pretty likely the Northern boys were joining to abolish slavery and the Southern boys were joining to protect it.

      After conscription, both sides probably had their fair share of boys who just wanted to go fishing.

      Note, Bob, I’ll readily agree that this screwed the pooch for everybody and encouraged a changeover to a far-too-centralized federal government.

      All the more reason for the South to have agreed to give up slavery in response for cutting tariffs and getting the North to agree on perhaps another amendment or three.

      But they weren’t going to give up slavery. It was non-negotiable. In fact, the *extension* of slavery into the new territories was non-negotiable. Requiring the citizens of the North to “return their property” was non-negotiable.Report

      • Avatar Katherine says:

        TNC at the Atlantic has written loads on this topic. Abolishing slavery in the south was roughly the economic equivalent of abolishing landownership in the modern US. There was no way the South was going to give it up. Slavery was the entire foundation of its economy, as well as of its society.Report

        • Avatar Mike Schilling says:

          You can’t trust what TNC says about slavery. He’s biased, like Judge Vaughn Walker. For an objective view of slavery, you need to listen to a white neo-confederate.Report

      • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

        Pat, it’s all about establishing another ‘republic’. Slavery, as we’ve discussed was about to expire. The birth of another ‘republic’ gave us a chance to resist the machinations of the Yankee Leviathan.Report

        • Avatar Mike Schilling says:

          Slavery, as we’ve discussed was about to expire.

          Which is why no one really cared if it was going to be expanded into to the territories. And why every single secession document leads with it. And why Alexander Stephens and every other Confederate bigwig can be quoted endlessly about the inferiority if blacks and the necessity of slavery.

          This continuing apologia isn’t cute and it isn’t funny. It’s a disgrace.Report

          • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

            No one is forcing you to participate.Report

          • Avatar Jason Kuznicki says:

            I second Mike here. A new low for the League.Report

            • Avatar North says:

              I’d like to object. How precisely is this public defenestration of Bob’s position using historical quotes and reasoned debate a disgrace to the League? If he was being censored or if his position was one the League itself espoused I could see calling it a disgrace but how is what is happening at the moment disgraceful? Doesn’t the marketplace of ideas also require a corner where bad ideas are publicly butchered as well as a corner were laudable ideas are celebrated?Report

              • Avatar Jason Kuznicki says:

                It’s the apologia for slavery that’s a disgrace to the League.

                If Bob is a work performance art — and I hope I’m right on that — still, I’m afraid a lot of people aren’t getting it.

                If I am right, then there’s a certain commie-Dem librul laughing his ass off about what his pseudonym has managed to accomplish.Report

              • Avatar North says:

                So the League is disgraced because he’s able to present his apologia for dissassembly without being banned or silenced? Maybe it’s too early in the morning here for me but my brain isn’t wrapping around this right. Or maybe I’m being defensive of the League or something.Report

              • Avatar Jason Kuznicki says:

                Suppose someone were to defend child rape on the League. It’s not un-Biblical, after all. And he does so with impunity.

                Would that be a disgrace?Report

              • Avatar North says:

                Hmm I’d say on first blush that it’d be a disgrace to the person defending it personally but not to the League as a whole.
                -If he/she were a League poster and was allowed to continue as a League poster after that it’d be a disgrace to the League I’d think (implicit endorsement).
                -If his/her audience agreed with him or failed to eviscerate his/her argument (as is quite simple for child rape) I’d think it’d be a disgrace to the League.Report

              • Avatar sonmi451 says:

                It would be a disgrace if the commenters and bloggers here keep engaging with that person as if he is arguing in good faith, and as if his argument and opinion is just as valid as any in the marketplace of ideas. Which, in the case of Robert Cheeks and his slavery and Civil War argument, I think the League is sailing periliously close to the wind. For heaven’s sake, you people even call him by a cute nickname, like he’s some kind of cranky, harmless uncle with some harmless antiquated ideas.Report

              • Avatar Jason Kuznicki says:

                He formerly called himself Bob, and it stuck.

                Perhaps to signal our disdain, we could refer to him as The Artist Formerly Known as Bob?Report

              • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

                Jason, dude, I love you to but you’ve been beaten here and the truth is your honesty has led to the exposure of your ideological shortcomings.
                To my League cohorts, I salute almost all of you who engaged me in not just a discussion on African chattel slavery, a very touchy subject, but you engaged me outta the librul/commie box, which I’m sure no other commie website would tolerate, though they say they’re tolerant and inclusive. You also engaged me in a dialogue related to the federal nature of our general gummint and I sensed many of you began to see a little glimmer of truth re: the pernicious nature of the grotesqueries of (gnostic)consolidation, some of you did a fine job citing stuff for me and thank you.
                Our new friend Kim wanted/yearned to talk philosophy, even. Kim, kid, gimme a little time, you’ve immanentized the eschaton and it’s going to be difficult to get through to you as a derailed modern.
                On an earlier comment Jason, you again cursed God. This time, though I tried, I wasn’t pissed about it. Rather, a feeling of sorrow came over me.
                Dude, I think you’re a very bright but very disturbed fellow and I fear for your soul. If there’s anything that I can do for you let me know, if you ever need to talk, privately, I’m here to help and I can send along my email/phone anytime.Report

              • Avatar North says:

                Bob is my fault I fear. I started using it as shorthand for Robert.

                Sonmi, I just don’t agree that a group can disgrace themselves by politely and effectively arguing against people who take reprehensible positions. I’ll be the first to admit that Bob has never changed any of his positions that I can recall through debate (though I think the Kenyan thing comes close) so perhaps engaging that type of person is fruitless but I simply don’t see it as disgraceful.

                Would any rational person who was uninformed or undecided on the subject, on reading these comments or posts, be swayed to take Bob’s position? I’d submit no, that position is pretty much obliterated even if Bob himself doesn’t admit it. Such a person on reading these posts and commentaries would most likely settle on the well argued morally correct side of the argument. This is the outcome of reasoned public debate and engagement and I don’t see that as disgraceful; no I see it as laudable.Report

              • Avatar Jason Kuznicki says:

                A back-end comment search confirms that in his first comments here (September, 2009), he referred to himself as “Bob Cheeks.”Report

              • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

                Northie, I love you dude! You get it. Please keep in mind when I critcize h-sexuality, it ain’t you, as a person, I’m criticizing. Our specie is festered with all sorts of pathologies, and everyone of us has at least one (in my case several).
                I would defend you with my life and with my honor. You and your significant other can hide out on my farm if it should ever come to that.
                I don’t intend to injure your feelings with my critique of the h-sexual, but I intend to speak the truth.
                Martha, sends her best and reminds you she prays for you, daily.Report

              • Avatar sonmi451 says:

                Okay, I change my mind, Jason, you’re most probably right, “Bob” is a performance art. Please, Mr Cheeks, now you’re giving liberals a bad name. Just stop.Report

              • Avatar North says:

                If I wept when homosexuality was criticized on the internet, Bob, then my life would be an unending vale of tears; my skin is thicker than that.
                Thanks for the well wishes, the Husband and I celebrated year two of our (formal Canadian) marriage yesterday.
                My best to the missus as always.Report

              • Avatar Kim says:

                the valley of tears, right beside the valley of death, and two away from the valley of laughter.Report

              • Avatar Rufus F. says:

                Mazel tov! You guys are practically newlyweds. Although, correct me if that’s longer in gay years. I’m kidding. Happy anniversary North.Report

              • Avatar North says:

                Thanks Rufus! We’ve been “together” for twelve years but only availed ourselves of the formality of the marriage recently.
                He’s was my first boyfriend and date too, I met him on the internet when I was 19.Report

              • Avatar mark boggs says:

                And still Canada stands despite your assault on her values and integrity.

                Congrats, North. Many more to you and your hubbie.Report

              • Avatar North says:

                The social conservatives tell me that Canada is falling, just in an immesurable subtle slow way; like Russell’s teapot.

                We figured, why not get a nice certificate and have a ceremony for my Mum before the flaming scorpions fell from the heavens and two headed life insurance salesman stomped the country into rubble where the living would envy the dead.Report

            • Avatar Chris says:

              Like I said, I prefer Bob when he wears it on his sleeve. It’s better to know who you’re talking to.Report

          • Avatar Scott says:

            Mike :

            Last time I checked many northern leaders thought blacks were inferior as well, Lincoln and Sherman immediatey come to mind. The idea wasn’t confined to the south, so don’t act like it did. The only difference was that the northerners didn’t like slavery. Given that abolition would have destroyed the South’s economy, of course many secession docs lead with slavery. No one that I know of is apologizing for slavery, just the right of the states to leave the union.Report

            • Avatar Art Deco says:

              Given that abolition would have destroyed the South’s economy,

              A number of European countries abolished hereditary subjection and carried out agrarian reforms during the latter 19th century. Brazil also abolished slavery ca. 1887. Which of these places was economically ‘destroyed’?Report

            • Avatar Mike Schilling says:

              Are you arguing that there’s no moral difference between disliking people and enslaving them?Report

              • Avatar Scott says:

                Mike:

                There is a difference, but let’s not pretend that only southerns didn’t like blacks.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling says:

                Who was pretending that?

                Lots of people didn’t like Jews, and still don’t, but I’m not going to put up with any crap about how what mattered was avenging Versailles.Report

      • Avatar Kim says:

        I’ve got kin from Tennesee. They joined whichever side paid best that week, and it didn’t much matter ideologically speaking.
        Remember, the Borderlanders (half or more of the white population of the south) HATED slavery and slaveowners. They liked a “white society” (wherein everyone were equal).

        If people in the south had loved slavery, St. Louis would have never been a Northern city. (and the south might have stood a chance).Report

        • Avatar Chris says:

          Argh, no. Just no. Seriously, no. Please, stop.Report

          • Avatar Kim says:

            … stop what? I do have cited sources for this shit.
            http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/History/Albions_Seed.html
            Born Fighting, if you fancy Webb, gets into this too.
            Many notable Civil War soldiers on both sides were of Ulster-Scots origin: Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson, the cavalry general J.E.B. Stuart, Jubal Early ,Ulysses Grant, George Brinton McClellan and Philip Sheridan.

            If the ScotchIrish were “happy to be fighting on the Confederate side” why West Virginia?Report

            • Avatar Chris says:

              Stonewall Jackson? His heritage was Irish and English. His grandparents (or greatgranparents, I can’t remember), were sent to the colonies as prisoners. The others, at leasat that I know of, had Scotch anscestry, but so did Jefferson Davis.

              But everything you said in the previous comment was wrong. Tennessee, it is true, almost broke up like Virginia, because of the East, but West Tennessee was pro-slavery and pro-secession, and Middle Tennessee was pro-slavery and mixed on secession. Those who were opposed to slavery were a small minority in most of the South, and even in the places with Unionist majorities, slavery wasn’t opposed for the most part. And Tennessee is weird: the rest of the states that seceded certainly didn’t have majority dissent on slavery or, at least after a while, secession.

              Also, “borderlanders” didn’t make up most of the South. They may have made up much of the mountainous South, but the mountainous South is a strip. running through part of the Eastern portion of the South. And the Scotch-Irish, the Scotch, the Irish, etc., were not obviously anti-slavery outside of the mountains in any real numbers.

              Also, the Confederate and Union armies paid the same. When Confederate currency began to be devalued, it was too late to switch armies for money. Your relatives didn’t do that. Also, most Tennesseeans fought for the Confederacy.

              Finally, if you don’t understand what happened in Missouri, you know nothing about the time of secession.

              In short, wrong, wronger, wrongest. I just don’t understand why you do it.Report

    • Avatar Katherine says:

      Short answer: same reason y’all invaded Afghanistan, or fought Japan in WWII. The South attacked ’em.Report

      • Avatar wardsmith says:

        When I visited Monticello, years ago the docent talked about Jefferson attempting to free his slaves. As it turned out he was in debt up to his eyeballs and the slaves alone were his primary asset. IIRC they were worth about $60 each, which in today’s money would be about $100K or more. He couldn’t free them because he couldn’t afford to. He did manage to free a few including perhaps his own illegitimate sons.

        The topic is interesting because we can see how the ultimate culprits then may well have been the bankers (as today). A farmer borrows to purchase the seed etc. and pays off with the coming harvest. The banker loans based on the assets of the farmer (land etc.) Unfortunately for the southerner, the land wasn’t that valuable (they kept adding more land as the gov’t took it from the natives). The old adage, “Buy land because they aren’t making any more of it” hadn’t made it to the 19th century mind since “land” was growing by leaps and bounds.

        The only remaining hard asset? Slaves.

        I had an historian tell me many years ago that all wars are economic as the root cause. Hitler felt that enslaving the untermensch was perfectly reasonable for the “master” race.

        Economics still rules however. Slaves of any kind have to be fed, clothed, cared for, housed etc. Better off to use the kind of feudal system that would force a man to work himself to death and feed- clothe himself and his family. If you’re amoral that is.Report

        • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

          Economics is a very large part of all human interaction. And, while I’d have to review the banking situation circa 1787, I’m not inclined to dump ALL the blame on the bankers or Wall Street for today’s economic collapse. It’s rather obvious that gummint policy, ironically implemented to procure the votes and support of minorities for the commie-dems, blew up in our faces much as the GOP repeatedly told the senate and house banking committees it would.
          There’s no utopia Mr. Wardsmith, the best we can do is a republican gummint and that’s what the South was shooting for, sort of speak.Report

          • Avatar Chris says:

            It’s rather obvious that gummint policy, ironically implemented to procure the votes and support of minorities for the commie-dems, blew up in our faces much as the GOP repeatedly told the senate and house banking committees it would.

            You just can’t help yourself.Report

        • Avatar Kim says:

          … this is solid argumentation. But do remember that most white folks weren’t slaveowners. And only the wealthiest had much money in slaves.

          In Pennsylvania, there were small farms. Not so in the Deep South — they were already using slavery and the economy of scale. That, and they didn’t have good cash crops from the getgo.Report

          • Avatar Katherine says:

            Doesn’t matter. Even those who didn’t own slaves could aspire to owning slaves. (Compare the Joe the Plumber argument of election 2008 – I support low taxes for the rich because I might be rich someday, even if I’m not now.)

            But more than that, slavery provided social benefits to non-slaveholding white southerners. As long as you were white, you were in a socially superior position. That was something you couldn’t lose if you had a bad year and your finances went upside-down. One of the big claims white southerners made about the Republicans was that they wanted to institute “social equality”, and you can read many, many examples of writing by southern whites who were frothing mad when black people actually got elected and served in government during Reconstruction. They even got mad if, during Reconstruction, a well-off black man went driving with his wife in a nice carriage. Slavery meant you always had someone to look down on, that even the poorest white man was elite. They spent 100 years after the Civil War finding ways to re-institute that system.Report

            • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

              Really, and I thought Joe-the-Plumber was merely explaining to our Ivy League president some rudimentary economics, that he apparantly didn’t/doesn’t understand.
              Reconstruction policies, among them, the disenfranchisement of certain CSA officers, the backing of dirtball, Yankee, carpetbaggers and their efforts to force white southerners off their lands resulted in racial hatred for another hundred years, but that’s the gummint for you.Report

              • Avatar Katherine says:

                Yeah. Because enslaving people for 450 years, raping their wives and daughters, separating them from their children, dividing husband from wife, beating them to death, depriving them of their liberty – that’s not cause of racial hatred and doesn’t indicate racial hatred. But 5-10 years of repercussion for a rebellion against the government? That does.

                The tragedy of Reconstruction was that it didn’t hit hard enough or long enough. The US military should have stayed in the South until southerners stopped attacking black people, should have forced equality on them. It should have been like de-Nazification. But the north grew tired, and weakened, and retreated, and left the south to another hundred years of barbarism and oppression.Report

              • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

                You’re right the North did grow ‘tired and weakened.’ Which makes Lee’s order not to ‘go into the mountains’ as many CSA officers wanted and continue the fight as partisans particularly tragic. OMG, the Balkanization of America. I’m pretty sure the ‘West’ would not have tolerated Yankee consoldiation anymore than the heroic South, so there’s another republic for you, and so forth and so on.
                Actually, its a shame the Africans didn’t revolt en masse and establish their on republic, free to engage neighboring republics economically, etc. I’ve always wondered why that didn’t happen…anyone care to venture an opinion? I’ve always admired Nat Turner as an example of a true African. He had the courage to fight and die for his freedom.
                I believe Barry’s African family/tribe used to capture other blacks and sell them to the white slavers. Which may explain why he’s not ‘down for the struggle.’ He has more in common with ‘Bull’ Connor.Report

              • Avatar Kolohe says:

                “I’m pretty sure the ‘West’ would not have tolerated Yankee consoldiation anymore than the heroic South”

                It depends what you mean by the “West”. Between the Appalachians and the Mississippi? That *was* the Republican stronghold that would politically dominate 2nd half of 20th century America. Between the Mississippi and the Rockies? Yeah, they didn’t cotton too much to Eastern monied elites, but were always outmatched in both the political and legal systems until enough Eastern urban dwellers came into be being to make an unassailable political alliance. (and then it took the singular presence of Teddy R. to get the ball rolling)
                West of the Rockies? San Francisco was Boston with looser morals in Twain’s time. The rest of the West Coast was small enough and far away enough until the Progressive era for the ‘Yankees’ to pay it no nevermind.

                As far as the other part, you said it yourself. Nat Turner failed. (as did John Brown). Though a lot of credible alt-scenarios (i.e. copperheads prevail) do posit the creation of a black-majority state a la either Lesotho or a Bantustan. (Plus, one would have expected plenty of friction between the USA and CSA over some of the former’s citizens – specifically the radical abolitionists who would have perceived to be deeply betrayed by Lincoln or whomever – covertly sending arms and other support south of the border to foment revolution.Report

              • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

                K-dude, your analysis is rather interesting with strong points. I don’t entirely disagree, though I’m inclined to thinks of those combo states-industry/farming- north of the Ohio River (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisc, Minn, Michigan) might make a really nice, semi-progressive alibeit wary of statist sentiments, republic, as might the ‘upper South,’ whose interests tilted North and would certainly following emancipation.
                Basically, I’m looking at five or six new republics, co-joined in terms of providing for a unified defense with no tariffs existing between these ‘republics,’ and all leary of consolidation, centralization, and commie-dems in general.Report

              • Avatar BSK says:

                “The US military should have stayed in the South until southerners stopped attacking black people, should have forced equality on them.”

                Well, then they’d still be there…Report

              • Avatar Art Deco says:

                Yeah. Because enslaving people for 450 years, raping their wives and daughters, separating them from their children, dividing husband from wife, beating them to death, depriving them of their liberty

                The Virginia’s colonial assembly passed a law around 1660 making indentures permanent, so, 200 years, not 450 years.

                Slaves were property and purchased and maintained at considerable expense. Beating them to death generally did their owners very little good. I think it was some of Stanley Engerman’s work, published 30 years ago, that attempted to quantify certain aspects of plantation life. His conclusion based on the available evidence from the plantations he studied was that whippings were not quotidienne affairs (occurring for a typical slave about once every 17 months), albeit far more common than you or I would ever have experienced.

                Here is an interesting piece of guesswork (from a somewhat dubious source) on the commonality of micegenation in this country over the generations.
                (The general conclusion being that it was quite atypical from one generation to the next).

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OneDropRule/message/4992Report

              • Avatar Jaybird says:

                If a slave master was gay and had consensual sex with one of his male slaves, would that have been worth starting a Civil War over?Report

              • Avatar mark boggs says:

                No. But it would have been the downfall of the Confederacy. Oh, wait…Report

              • Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

                How can a slave Master and his slave have ‘consensual’ sex?Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling says:

                When he offers to give her a new jump-rope and she says “yes”.Report

  5. Avatar Jason Kuznicki says:

    Time to formulate my First Axiom of Bob:

    If Bob were not performance art, he would be intolerable. We tolerate him, therefore he is performance art.

    Potentially full of holes, of course. Fire away.Report

  6. Avatar Aaron says:

    If it’s performance art, that’s some Kaufman-level shit going on.Report

  7. Avatar Robert Cheeks says:

    The 14th Amendment seems to be in the news recently. The fact that the Congress via the Reconstruction Acts forced the occupied former states of the Confederacy to pass the 14th Amendment under thereat of retaliation, negate the legality of that Amendment? And, if so, does that negate all of the Supreme Court rulings associated with the ‘illegal’ 14th, that followed?Report