Keepin’ It Down Home, Cuz
A friend of mine forwarded this article to me for Newsweek by a writer named Michael Hirsch. I thought it was an interesting, albeit inflamatory load of a read.
There’s so much there, that I would offer you all go visit.
I love my South. It’s home. No where else would feel quite the same. It’s not perfect, but then again nothing’s perfect. In the South though we are a little different. We hold dear to life. A little bit of magic and time gone by breathes in everything you touch.
If you don’t like it. It really doesn’t make us lose sleep.
In the “World From Washington” Hirsch writes, among other things:
“In the summer of 1863, Robert E. Lee led an ill-advised incursion into Pennsylvania. His army was defeated at Gettysburg, and thence afterward Lee beat a fighting retreat until the South lost the Civil War. One hundred and forty-five years later, the South—or what has become the South-Southwest—has won another kind of Civil War. It has transformed the sensibility of the country. It is setting the agenda for our political, social and religious mores—in Pennsylvania and everywhere else.
This region was heavily settled by Scots-Irish immigrants—the same ethnic mix King James I sent to Northern Ireland to clear out the native Celtic Catholics. After succeeding at that, they then settled the American Frontier, suffering Indian raids and fighting for their lives every step of the way. And the Southern frontiersmen never got over their hatred of the East Coast elites and a belief in the morality and nobility of defying them. Their champion was the Indian-fighter Andrew Jackson. The outcome was that a substantial portion of the new nation developed, over many generations, a rather savage, unsophisticated set of mores. Traditionally, it has been balanced by a more diplomatic, communitarian Yankee sensibility from the Northeast and upper Midwest. But that latter sensibility has been losing ground in population numbers—and cultural weight.”
Why, Ed Bailey….are we cross?
Mass media today has an easy mantra. If things go bad, then blame the highest ranking conservative you can find, then religious people, then Southerners. If you can lump all of them together, then happy birthday to you.
We have been maligned for stereotyping others. We have been maligned for not being willing to understand “broader America.” We have been maligned for being unsophisticated religious zealots. All the while, our greatest critics take the intricate weavings of Southern culture and narrowmindedly stereotype, pigeonhole, and condemn.
“You know, I hate all Southern people. All they do is generalize.”
What are your thoughts on the “Southernization” of America. Is Hirsch right? Are our poor-folk Celtic roots taking over the national landscape riding roughshod over the world? Is the answer to all these problems just sitting back with a dash of that New Jersey charm?
Perhaps if this is indeed the “World From Washington,” is there any doubt why we want none of it?
(Drop on by AnAmericanFrontPorch.com for continued comments)
Well, all you’ve done is say “I love my South”, accuse Mr. Hirsch of stereotyping, and complaign about being maligned.
You are certainly free to express those views, but why not take it to the next level and actually address some of the specific points raised by Mr. Hirsch, providing evidence or reasoning to support your disagreements?
Perhaps sometimes our desire for “reasoning” is unnecessary in light of common baffoonery? Feel free to join the discussion at my site. I’m going home from work. =)
I think a lot of us would accuse Mr. Hirsch of stupidity, not stereotyping.
Calling anyone who wants smaller governments “unsophisticated” is rather ridiculous. Not everyone who votes Republican agrees with 100% of the party platform.
I feel like I’m forced to vote Republican, insofar as finding viable candidates. I want a strong military and a reinforced border. I would like a smaller tax structure and the reduction of entitlements. I would like more freedoms for us all.
I want life to be protected from its inception.
I believe an armed citizenry polices itself well, and needs to be able to defend itself from things the national military and local police departments cannot.
I believe in a free market economy.
I disagree with the Republican Party platform on the occupation of Iraq (and their foreign policy in general), gay marriage, The Patriot Act, The Death Penalty, and the practical application of No Child Left Behind.
However, if I want to cast my vote for one single issue with which I disagree with the modern GOP I must vote for a limp-wristed foreign policy and appeasement attitude toward rising global threats.
It would be a vote for runaway entitlements that have perpetuated an indignant cycle of poverty and dependence on the government as a way of life.
It would be a vote against the right of the unborn.
It would be a vote for strangling and over-regulating free trade and the American economy (i.e- today congress wants to put the hammer to oil companies in a short-sighted attempt to relieve the economic burden of a commodity that is in ultra demand).
I voted for G.W. Bush in 2000. I voted in 2004, but not for Bush or Kerry. I felt as if I had thrown away my vote when casting it for a man that garnered less than 1% of the national ballots.
I’m tired of partisan politics being an all-encompassing platform that pats their members on the back with one hand, and slaps them in the face with the other. How about looking past the demographics into something more pervasive, found in all 50 states, like the Democratic and Republican parties?
I consider myself neither, but found myself eating one brand of manure in past Novembers to avoid the other brand. I find this November to be no different.
The South has its problems, just like the north. I would happily give up our federal monies in Tennessee if we could keep our federal tax dollars to secure a system of government that is governed locally, looking out for the interests of our own people.
Blaming The South’s problems on pure religion or pure racism holds no water at all whatsoever. It’s lazy thinking, not to mention flatly untrue.
As a Southerner, I feel more kinship with the people of the United Kingdom than I do with those from the American northeast. I felt it “hit home” more for me (and many other Southerners) when London was attacked than New York City. So, yes, there are many divides between us, the north and The South. They are not all political, nor are they entirely religious or philosophical, so much as historical and cultural.
However, Mr. Hirsch’s bitter diatribe about The South holds little factual references in and of itself. So, when Nathan essentially said, “I love my South” it was an on-par response to Hirsch’s “I hate the south” article.
Personally, I don’t care if Hirsch thinks we are all a bunch unsophisticated yokels down here, but I can tell you the most arrogant and incorrect thing he said in his article was not his stereotypes or his armchair’s understanding of history; it was his comment on how the savage types, who conquered the American frontier, got and continue to get their jollies from “defying the northeastern elites.”
I don’t think we give a damn about people like Hirsch and northeastern elites to care about defying them in our actions. His insinuation is that our day-to-day lives are subject to change by our inbred obstinance to the whims and words of those from the northeast. Responding to this article might be the only thing I have ever done in my life in response to something a Yankee has said about anything.
Mr. Keats, if you want to point out some problems The South has and how we need to address them, I’m all ears, and will happily have a respectful exchange with you issue by issue.
I’d understand the South a lot better if they’d quit clinging to things like the confederate flag. It’s almost as if there’s this defiance, this refusal to acknowledge that “their side” was ever wrong about anything. It’s a giant chip on the shoulder. And by no means is this “all” southerners. I live in the South now, and I know plenty of native Southerners who roll their eyes at the stars-and-bars wavers and everything that goes with that. But I do think that the fairly widespread willingness among Southerners to defiantly cling to symbols and slogans that are tightly coupled with historic injustices only serves to feed into anti-Southern prejudice. Just my $.02
I think it is a very valid two cents. Romanticizing a way of life not seen since 1862 is no way to face today’s problems. I think there is a chip on the shoulder of many native Southerners, even those of us who roll their eyes at said romanticism, and it comes with being born of a region with its own national identity who has suffered a military defeat on its own soil.
Looking at the movement of history, certainly slavery should have been away with, and if it took the death of 600,000 men to set free an entire race of oppressed people, then so be it.
The Old South, while having many things wrong with the cause, had at least one very big piece of the equation correct….states’ rights.
The 10th amendment was designed to keep local governance strong without being able to undermine national interests. There are times when we are 50 states and times when we are one nation.
I think some ofus Southerners (and many outside The South) like the idea of independence and the choice to make decisions for ourselves without national partisan politics getting in the way.
What else should we continue to work on for our region?
Cameron:
The problem with the confederate flag isn’t so much that it hearkens back to 1862; it’s that it hearkens back to 1950. The symbol regained popularity with those who were upset that the federal government was “meddling” and forcing integration/desegregation. So it’s a symbol of a much more recent racist past than slavery. Georgia, for example, added the confederate flag prominently to its state flag in 1956, in defiance of the civil rights movement — a mistake they wouldn’t correct until 2001. South Carolina started flying a confederate flag atop its statehouse for the same reasons — they removed it from the statehouse in 2000, but simply moved it to the front lawn, where it still prominently flies.
For those ignorant of the history of the mid-20th-century, it’s easy to dismiss all the confederacy/slavery stuff as (relatively) ancient history. But, in fact, it’s not. One of my best friends in the world grew up under segregation in South Carolina (which persisted in practice long after it was officially prohibited), and he’s really not that old. The Orangeburg Massacre was barely 40 years ago.
In any case, it’s not just about 1862.
As for “states’ rights,” the problem with the concept is that it was so badly abused, principally in the South. Again, reference the 1950’s and 1960’s, when “states’ rights” generally meant the state’s right to oppress whoever the hell they wanted to, free of federal interference. It’s hard to find a noble goal that states’ rights has been used to defend.
And, of course, among many modern (principally religious) conservatives, the idea of states’ rights generally goes right out the window when it comes to things they don’t like (cf., Oregon’s euthanasia law, medical marijuana, etc.). Frankly, I’ve found liberals, conservatives, and libertarians to all be wildly inconsistent on states’ rights. They support them where it’s convenient, and ignore them when it’s not.
There is no such thing as states’ rights. People have rights. States have powers.
tgirsch,
as I hold two degrees in the subject of American History and the American South, I thought my responses didn’t need to be dissertation length just so you would think I was likening everything to a mindset in 1862 and there the extent of my knowledge ended. You were even sweet enough to call me ignorant in a polite way by referencing and the lecturing me on the subject of states’ rights.
By the way, you can’t start into the subject of The South in the 1950’s without first understanding the emerging New South, which started with the conquests of The Southland in…..1862, and the period after reconstruction 1877-1900. Slavery, emancipation, the white supremacy movement, and reconstruction is where I would care to start any discussion of The New South, as the eras that followed were all shaped by events of those 38 years.
Again, I acknowledged slavery should have ended by any means necessary, and it did. Yes, the 10th amendment was savagely abused when it was applied to subjugating an entire people. It is America’s original sin, and all we have to do is look at race relations in this country 232 years later to see the consequences of that sin.
However, governing a state’s affairs locally is more effective than federally, and that’s all I was saying. I wasn’t wanting to revert back to the antebellum interpretation of the 10th amendment.
keats: You’re such a pompous little dilettante. “States’ Rights” is the common colloquel used to discuss the subject. I understand powers, the separation thereof, and all that goes with it (implied, expressed, and inherent). Thanks.
There is no “subject”, because there is no such thing as states’ rights. It’s a deliberate myth, or at at best a perversion of language.
Saying it doesn’t exist doesn’t mean it’s not discussed as such in law schools, case law, and history graduate studies everywhere.
Your assertion that it doesn’t exist is beyond absurd.
United States v. Harris (1883)
United States v. Cruikshank (1876)
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Reitman Vs. Mulkey (1967)
United States v. Morrison (2000)
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000)
All of the above cases specifically cite the term “states’ rights” in the case law or opinions themselves. Those are just the notable cases though, as there are another 300 references to it in cases dating back from 1883-present. The very first reference I can recall to “states’ rights” was mentioned by Thomas Jefferson in his letters to Adams. But, whatever, TJ didn’t know jack about the constitution…nor did Adams.
tgirsch is correct in pointing-out that states’ rights has not been used very well in its implementation in the past, but never the less the 10th amendment remains, and its constant references in case law is undeniable….unless your Mr. Keats, at which point you can just refuse.
Look,
I did the best I could to find the letter you’re talking about. I looked at least one case you cited and did not find a specific reference to “states’ rights”. Could you provide a link or something so I can see exactly what you are talking about?
You look,
I understood, from the get go, what you were saying. I’ll get you the links, and I’ll review the letters when I wake up a little more.
As you know the constitution is fairly consistent on granting “powers” to government and “rights” to people, except in the 10th amendment where “powers” are reserved to the states and the people; but for the sake of every day reference they are used almost interchangeably. I suppose we could have the “Bill of Powers” and it really doesn’t make a difference in their weight insofar as the law, it’s just that a “right” seems to be used more to describe something of intrinsic value.
Referencing it as “states’ rights” may be technically incorrect, but I don’t think that’s why you keep harping on little things on a blog that is obviously conversational in nature. This isn’t a courtroom or a thesis, it’s Glenn’s site.
As I said before, “‘States’ Rights’ is the common colloquel used to discuss the subject.” That should have been the end of it, but you’ve got your games to play.
Again, I will get you the links, but from now on, I’m content to let you win these petty semantic games. They seem important to you.
“And the state right that they were most concerned with was…holding slaves. The core of Southern concern from 1828 to 1860 was about slavery and its expansion, the parameters of national debate, the potential revision of the Constitution (under which if slaveholding states continued to vote their economic interests, no general abolition of slavery would have been possible — thus, the turn to extralegal means like war to get the job done). They really didn’t spend a lot of time expounding on the domino theory of rights. After most of the southeastern Indians were dispossessed, the only other thing that really moved white southerners to spill a lot of ink is national economic policy, again keeping in mind the centrality of slavery (slave trading being about 15% of the Southern GDP during that period) and slave-produced goods.”
http://tinycatpants.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/is-a-threat-free-speech-i-dont-believe-so/
States’ rights = slavery and segregation.
and if it took the death of 600,000 men to set free an entire race of oppressed people, then so be it.
So be it? Aaaalrighty then.
Can your mind not come up with anything else a state might need to regulate that the federal government cannot or will not do? The conversation between you and I has officially devolved.
It’s plainly obvious that you want to interpret my words any damn you wish, especially since you’re so much smarter than I.
You have total lack of respect for me and my thoughts, so why not just commence with name calling and check your pseudo-intellectualism at the door?
Referencing another conversation, I actually don’t care if you’re arrogant, Keats. It’s the fact that you put so much stock in your intellectual abilities, and you’re really not very bright. It would be comical if it wasn’t so sad.
Just so you can’t let that last statement stand alone as your truth…my statement was flatly declaring that it took what took to end slavery. It wasn’t ended peacefully, and at the time, it couldn’t be ended peacefully.
You have such a disdain for actual history and what it is. However, you adore revisionism, and that will explain your lack of understanding of the present.
It’s your life, but living it ensconced in a shell of ignorance and claiming it enlightenment will not lead to anything good. Take care.
Cameron:
I wasn’t trying to condescend to you. Believe me, when that happens, it won’t be subtle.
But my point stands that the “antebellum” interpretation of the 10th persisted long after the antebellum era. And again, if there was ever a wide and persistent call for states’ rights in service of what we would today recognize as a noble cause, I’m not aware of it. That was all I was trying to say, no more, no less.
We then stand in agreeance then. And we have no reason to be adversarial with one another, our conversations are pleasant.
The new nobility of states’ rights, or powers, is doing a job the federal government will not or cannot do…whatever that may be. Does the idea of states’ rights headline a national movement today? No, but it is used daily in the mundane, local governances across America.
Some people use the 10th amendment to avoid discussing the gay marriage issue on a national scale. Well, I don’t believe it’s up to the 10th amendment to violate the 1st, so I don’t believe that is a legitimate use either.
As I stated before, just because it has been used in an ill-advised or oppressive way in the past, doesn’t mean it is an obsolete amendment or cause today. Would you agree? The states’ rights to oppress a people was rightly stripped away, and it never should have been one in the first place.
When it comes to the idea of “states’ rights” in big discussions, it tends to stay in a hypothetical. For instance: Though not enumerated, does a state have the implied right or power to succeed for the Union?
Well, each state ratified the U.S. Constitution by 2/3 majority, why can’t it then unratify the same document?
Say Vermont voted by 2/3 majority in their state house to declare their independence from the U.S. Is that a legitimate right of a state?
Does the state have the right and the power to levy taxes in order to provide public health care? If so, where is that enumerated?
Those kinds of questions are where this amendment and cause lives. Obviously the “necessary and proper” proper clause in article I, section 8 trumps many of the states’ powers, but can it trump their intrinsic rights? Secession may just be one of them.
If enough people get priced out of the market of a staple commodity like healthcare, you are going to see clamoring for a change in policy, and that change may have substantial drawbacks. However, allowing for-profit insurance entities to manage the franchise has its share of drawbacks as well.
It is in everyone’s interest to avoid having healthcare become inaccessible as a staple commodity.
I can’t see why the people of any given State don’t have a right to declare independence, but in so doing they would abdicate their Constitutional protections. Also, I wouldn’t expect the United States to deal with the new nation very much differently than it has others that have existed historically on the same continent competing for resources.
I really like Massachusetts method of paying for private premiums with state funds. It’s better for all involved and doesn’t leave people in need of coverage because the companies are contractually obligated to cover certain “high risk” people.
It’s a lot better idea than the current system which is hosing the health care provider, the tax payers, and especially the patient. No one but the insurance company makes out well. The Insurance lobby is pretty powerful though. It will be a nice win for working families in America if that industry can be tamed by tri-lateral talks/commissions. We’ll see what comes of it. It’s an election year.
My point about the example of a state health care system is that the state may do whatever it pleases to address the topic. It’s a de facto function of statehood; but in cases like a border state securing its’ boundaries to protect their local government from financial ruin is also a states’ rights/powers argument, that the state can defend herself if the federal government fails to secure said border, even though securing the national borders are a specifically enumerated federal function.
Am I wording this well? My authorship may be terrible at this point. If so, I apologize.
As far as secession: It’s obviously a pie-in-the-sky idea for almost any state at this point, as very few possess the resources to secure their own nationhood. I just think it’s an interesting discussion topic.
Cameron:
For starters, I think the term “states’ rights” is irreparably poisoned by its history. So from that perspective, I think a different term would better suit the cause — perhaps the good old “federalism” would work.
But I also think we need to revisit where “leaving it to the states” works, and where it doesn’t. It’s great for some things, and not so great for others. The problem with leaving things like minimum wages, worker protections, environmental protection, etc., to the states, is that it invariably results in a race to the bottom, especially when you get away from the really major population centers (NYC, LA, Chicago). From that perspective, I think it makes sense to establish federal minimums, with the states free to raise those minimums on a state-by-state basis.
Say Vermont voted by 2/3 majority in their state house to declare their independence from the U.S. Is that a legitimate right of a state?
The precedent would seem to be “no.”
But then, there’s no explicit provision in the Constitution for leaving the union, so there’s simply no law to follow there. Personally, I think a state should have a means of seceding, but there would have to be some logistics there: you have to allow time for the pull out of federal military bases, civilian personnel, establishing secure borders, etc. And I think any state would be nuts to do it — especially the ones most likely to actually do it. It’d be like the Quebecois secession movement in Canada: if they succeeded, they’d likely be bankrupt as a nation within 5-10 years.
Here in the US, it’s mainly the smaller and southern states that complain about secession, but they don’t realize how far they are into the black side of the federal ledger (they generally receive far more in federal funding than they pay in federal taxes). If they seceded, they’d wind up in an almost immediate financial crisis.
No one but the insurance company makes out well. The Insurance lobby is pretty powerful though.
True dat! Of course, you could always tighten regulation of the health insurance industry…
My point about the example of a state health care system is that the state may do whatever it pleases to address the topic.
See my “race to the bottom” remark above. A few wealthier states (like Massachusetts) could do it, but can you imagine Alabama or Mississippi trying to pull something like that off? And, neat trivia, those latter states are the one where the uninsured/underinsured problem is most profound.
I think “tightening regulation” is against my philosophy on government. I would rather tri-lateral commissions try to do the job, but before we get to bankruptcy we should regulate it.
I’ve said before that pure and unchecked capitalism can trample a person’s rights just as easily as a dictator, so there has be some safe guards. I’m not suggesting corporatism. Just thought I’d preemptively end that discussion before someone else made an assumption about where that was going.
“The precedent would seem to be “no.” regarding secession.
I know you think it should be able to happen, but anyone else who believes secession is not a right and follows the “precedent” set by the civil war is making a “might is right” argument.
Tgirsch, I think you and I agree on most things, we disagree on some major points. I think we agree very much so on the end game of many topics, but it’s the method we use to get there on which we disagree.
That’s where the respectful exchange on politics comes in. I enjoy discussing it with you very much.