“But with him, as with other liberals I know, tolerance does not always extend to appreciating someone else’s differing political views.”

“. . . but I generally believe that government makes a mess of things and that society is better off when the state only does what’s absolutely necessary.”

Also, another feather in your cap, Daniel. Looks like Jonah Goldberg linked favorably to Kirchick’s attack on the Corner.

You can’t defend Bush then can you?

…because all of the above in reference to Lincoln could be applied to this war criminal…

It is true that Lincoln’s purpose in waging the Civil war was over secession not slavery. But it is also true that the reason the South seceded arose from their belief (a false one most likely) that Lincoln, and the political factions he represented, would attempt to end slavery. The South’s primary reason (there were a variety of others) was to protect the material wealth that they accrued through the systematic and brutal subjugation of African Americans.

In other words, this isn’t an otherwise good culture with a few bad cultural apples but a rotten cultural barrel with a few good apples. Most cultures will have some redeeming aspects to it (and I imagine the Confederate South had many) but you can’t brush aside the fact that slavery was its socio-economic foundation with a “every culture has its flaws because of human nature.” Without slavery the South that you valorized would have never existed.

On a related note, I am unclear of what relevance the beliefs of Confederate soldiers have to this discussion. There are plenty of conflicts in the historical record in which people volunteered to fight for the right reasons but for the wrong side.

Generally speaking, the embrace of a culture that is significantly (though not entirely) defined by the brutal subjugation of a racial minority isn’t the most attractive to a liberal or said minority.

In sum, the valoration of traditional culture may seem fairly attractive to individuals who would be valorized by that culture, but not so much to the minorities that would be screwed over by it.

That is why liberals find your embrace of the Confederate South so objectionable.

Because as a practical matter, the result of the Civil War ought to be, by now a settled issue. Because the American polity is predicated on that being the case. Because there is little or no support for secession anywhere in the country, including the South. And finally because the last time we went through it, this secession business was the cause of much bloodshed.

There was one thing I was curious about regarding your train of thought, but I’ve
never had the chance to ask anyone. Why, as a admirer and supporter of the Confederacy, doesn’t Lee’s surrender at Appomattox speak for you and your political aspirations for the South?

What a ridiculous article by Kirchick! Does anyone really read “Commentary” anymore? All it did was tempt me to join up with the League (something I have heretofore resisted, having an aversion to Civil War reenacters.)

I’ll put my Southern credentials up against anyone’s–direct descendant of 8 Confederate veterans (7 g-g-grandfathers and 1 g-g-g-grandfather). Only my wife’s is better–her people arrived on the 2nd ship to Jamestown. That said, my heart doesn’t go pitty-pat over the old Confederacy. My views are tempered somewhat by the fate of my Unionist sympathizer kin (Southerners, all) who were hanged for being, well, Unionist sympathizers.

But cheap attack articles like Kirchick’s, really get under my skin. The on-going 140-year old debate (whether Slavery or Constitutional issues precipitated the War) is a legitimate historical inquiry. There is little question, however, as to the results of the war. This is the point you have made, Daniel. The ante-bellum principles and assumptions were busted up and cast aside, replaced with a system that might be called more “dynamic” (except in the South, where impoverishment persisted for generations), but also coarser, rougher, unprincipled and decidedly less lovely.

And the irony runs deep with these guys. As you note, we are a country born out of secession. And yet, defending the original Constitutional principle of secession is now considered “noxious.”

I am glad you referenced Keenen as well. His analysis is correct, and his proposed solution wise. Our current borders are the result of aggressive wars, intimidation, diplomacy and bribery. There is nothing particularly inviolate about them, and yet we assume that this will forever be the case. I find it humorous that what we find appropriate for Pristina, we ridicule for Atlanta…or Santa Fe.

End of rant.

It is strange that few see anything the matter in Burke’s condemnation of the evils of the French Revolution, even though that did not mean that he endorsed everything about the French ancien regime, but to condemn the far greater damage that the Red Republicans did here is to make you, at least in the eyes of some people, an apologist for everything that was wrong with the South.

I don’t quite share your view on the South, but I don’t think it’s laughable either. I’ve written on my blog how we’ve gone from a tragic story that emphasizes the “brother against brother” aspects of the Civil War and the military valor of both sides, to a stitled morality play that portrays the South and its forces as a predecessor to the Nazis, both of which are wrongly equated as the epitome of absolute evil.

I’ll continue this here if it’s ok (I didn’t mean to dredge up that other post from three years ago).

First of all, without getting into too much detail over the Confederacy, I’ll concede that I don’t understand the totality of Kirchik’s gripe and suspect that much of it is overwrought.

_My_ gripe is that, apparently, you support a group that is _currently_ secessionist, which I really don’t think is respectable, in contrast to having some affinity for the culture of the Old South, which is ok by me at least.

“I’ll grant you that support for the Confederacy is a more complicated subject than the usual discourse on the subject allows, but if you really do support a “Southern Nationalist organization whose ultimate goal is a free and independent Southern republic” then to some extent Kirchik’s gripe is legit”

When I was Kirchik’s age, I might have coveted a job with an opinion weekly, but I hope I would not have accepted being Marty Peretz’s lap dog.