It's the racism, stupid

In the past few days, as we go through our latest wave of questionable personal and professional ties of Ron and Rand Paul, their defenders have increasingly moved toward a "Civil War is over, get over it" line of defense. I find this ironic, given that it's the Pauls' relationship to people still holding on to the Lost Cause that continually brings them problems, but let's grant, for the sake of argument, that fighting over the Civil War is indeed beside the point.

Guess what happens when you google "Ron Paul r" or "Rand Paul r":

If Rand Paul wants to be president, and his supporters want that to become reality, allegations of racism have to be put to bed. Not brushed aside like "Dude, that was like 150 years ago!" or "But his policies aren't racist..." It doesn't matter. I understand that winning politics has never been libertarians' strong suit, but politics is a popularity contest and racism is unpopular. Perception is everything in politics, and right now, the Pauls are perceived to have a long history of race problems.

"Don't look behind the Confederate battle flag curtain" is not a viable political strategy.

Presidents have to delegate massive amounts of authority and heavily rely on their closest advisers. Thus, the people with whom they surround themselves will in all probability influence their decision making as president. If one is known to surround himself with questionable people, the public will be right to question what kind of people will have his ear as president.

The Pauls race problems are not going to go away so long as they continue to flout public sentiment and protect those who cost them politically. Libertarians, by extension, continue to be hurt by defending the asinine decisions by the Pauls to protect their cronies who make a living bashing the outcome of the Civil War...because, you know, it ended that whole race-based slavery thing.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

States' Rights vs. Individual Rights

I have an essay up over at Libertarianism.org in which I argue that the "States' Rights" argument for the Confederate secession is an argument that sides with the prerogatives of the state over the inalienable rights of the individual. This has ruffled some feathers within the libertarian community, despite its veracity. If a state has a right of exit that individuals in that state do not (through no crime of their own) then clearly the state's "rights" are preferred over those of the individual.

This doesn't sit well with people who claim that the South was somehow fighting for liberty. Southern "liberty" was a false one because, within a rights framework, a man does not have the liberty to enslave another man.

You'd think people who define their politics as one of liberty would understand that.

Read it here.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

Take the White Man, Kill the Nigger

So, in honor of my current governor Bob McDonnell's declaration of April as Confederate History Month, I thought I'd note a couple of the more overlooked battles of the "War of Northern Aggression." The first is the Battle of Fort Pillow on April 12, 1864:

A Union report of that day:

All the wounded who had strength enough to speak agreed that after the fort was taken an indiscriminate slaughter of our troops was carried on by the enemy with a furious and vindictive savageness which was never equaled by the most merciless of the Indian tribes. Around on every side horrible testimony to the truth of this statement could be seen. Bodies with gaping wounds, some bayoneted through the eyes, some with skulls beaten through, others with hideous wounds as if their bowels had been ripped open with bowie-knives, plainly told that but little quarter was shown to our troops. Strewn from the fort to the river bank, in the ravines and hollows, behind logs and under the brush where they had crept for protection from the assassins who pursued them, we found bodies bayoneted, beaten, and shot to death, showing how cold-blooded and persistent was the slaughter of our unfortunate troops.

War is hell, obviously. But there was something different about this battle. Most of the "unfortunate troops" that had been slaughtered--many of whom were murdered after surrender--were black. Nathan Bedford Forrest, the Confederate lieutenant general who ordered the attack on Fort Pillow and the future co-founder of the Ku Klux Klan, said:

"It is hoped that these facts will demonstrate to the Northern people that nigra soldiers cannot cope with Southerners."

In his report to his superiors, Forrest wrote:

We captured 164 Federals, 75 negro troops, and about 40 negro women and children, and after removing everything of value as far as able to do so, the warehouses, tents, &c., were destroyed by fire.

And the Union accounts of the forces inside Fort Pillow before the attack:

Our garrison at Fort Pillow, consisting of some 350 colored troops and 200 of the Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, refusing to surrender, the place was carried by assault about 3 p.m. of 12th instant.

Such gentility. Such honor. Such...a remarkable disparity in the race of the dead.

That summer, at a battle known as "The Crater" near Petersburg, Virginia, a trapped regiment of black soldiers--along with many whites--threw down their weapons and surrendered under intense Confederate fire. The Southern response: "Take the white man, kill the nigger."

And so they did.

As I've noted before, there is a strand of libertarianism that defends the South, secession, and the Confederacy--some go so far as to hold the Defenders of the Lost Cause to be beacons of liberty. The federalist rhetoric employed by the Confederacy does not hold up to scrutiny, (ahem, Fugitive Slave Law). Furthermore, it is astonishing to me that federalist principles are held to be more meaningful than the plight of the millions of people in bondage--and, indeed, as they were invoked by the CSA to maintain that bondage--by modern day apologists, and audaciously in the name of "liberty."

Cloaking the murderous racism and slavery of the Confederacy in terms of liberty is offensive to me, and should be to all people who hold the integrity of the individual as something dear to them.  Slavery is anathema to liberty, and the facts clearly show that the Confederacy was founded to preserve chattel slavery. Any good points Confederates may have made about federalism while furthering their crimes can never negate the original evil that undergirded the Confederacy's foundation and existence.