S.E.C. News & Notes (Les Miles is a Bozo Edition)
by T Kyle King
on Jul 2, 2007 10:55 PM EDT
in Football
July 2 is a day of bittersweet remembrance for us here in the South, as it marks both the 231st anniversary of the day Richard Henry Lee scored a great victory for American independence in a city in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) and the 144th anniversary of the day Robert Edward Lee suffered a great defeat for American independence in another city in Pennsylvania (Gettysburg).
Sometimes, when one Southerner tells another to look to his division, he ain't talking about the S.E.C. East.
As the day reminds us that we must take the good with the bad, I suppose this is as good a time as any to turn your attention to a few items of note around the conference:
Will the Wildcats Wind Up as Roadkill? A Sea of Blue's Truzenzuzex has been tracking Kentucky football's return to glory, good-naturedly picking on me and noting the S.E.C.'s strength as a conference (more about which forthwith) before taking a look at the Wildcats where the rubber meets the road . . . namely, the schedule. An astute U.K. fan noted that the Bulldogs "will be very angry at us for beating them last year and this game could very well be a huge blowout win for the Dawgs if we're not careful."
That is a fair assessment. Last year's loss to Kentucky was Mark Richt's only career loss to an unranked opponent on the road and the setback in Lexington will not soon be forgotten. The Red and Black are 24-3-2 against the Blue and White between the hedges and the 'Cats have not defeated the 'Dawgs in the Classic City since 1977. The last five series meetings in Athens have been settled by margins of 10, 15, 14, 20, and 32 points, respectively, and U.K. has not taken two in a row from Georgia in more than half a century.
I question whether Kentucky will be able to duplicate last year's success because I doubt that the ball will bounce as favorably for the Wildcats as it did in 2006, when U.K. benefited from an exceptional turnover margin. What is particularly unfortunate for the Blue and White is how the schedule sets up for them.
If Kentucky has decided to get really serious about football, the athletic department needs to turn over gridiron promotions to the guy in charge of making the hockey posters.
The Wildcats' games against Louisville, Louisiana State, Florida, and Tennessee all take place in Lexington. While home field advantage certainly counts for something, those games all are likely losses for Kentucky, which may make the margins closer in the Commonwealth but is not likely to score an upset in any of those outings, despite their location.
On the other hand, Kentucky faces Arkansas in Fayetteville, South Carolina in Columbia, Vanderbilt in Nashville, and Georgia in Athens. It is far from inconceivable that the 'Cats could claim victory in any of those games, but the arduous task of having to win on the road in the S.E.C. likely will cost U.K. in more than one of the foregoing contests. Some of Kentucky's most winnable games are away from home, which is apt to cause trouble for the Wildcats.
Will it Get Ugly for Auburn Outside of the Loveliest [sic.] Village? While we're on the subject of road games being played by S.E.C. teams, Auburn is getting out more and this may be because the Plainsmen have turned into a darned fine road team.
As a Georgia fan, I know from playing well away from home, as Mark Richt is 22-3 on opposing teams' home fields and two of his three road losses came against teams that finished the season ranked first and second, respectively, in the final coaches' poll. While playing shameful numbers of home games, the Tigers have compiled an 11-1 ledger in away games in the last three seasons.
That level of success will be tested in 2007, when the War Eagle wings its way to the following locales:
Arkansas at Fayetteville (October 13)
Louisiana State at Baton Rouge (October 20)
Georgia at Athens (November 10)
Regrettably, the 'Dawgs have no home field advantage against their oldest rivals, as Auburn is 6-1 in the Tigers' last seven trips to Sanford Stadium, but, still, that is a murderous road schedule and, if the Plainsmen go 2-2 in those four games, they'll be doing well.
I hate Auburn.
Son of a Gun, We're Sounding Dumb on the Bayou. A month ago, I wrote that, when an S.E.C. coach says something stupid about conference superiority, "S.E.C. fans should be the first to call him out because he made us all look bad by conforming to the popular stereotype of Southern football fans as condescending detractors of teams and leagues from New England, the Midwest, and the West." When Orson Swindle said he would fight the Conference Wars no more, I signed the pledge. Nearly a year ago, I promised "to pay attention to teams from sea to shining sea."
Accordingly, it is time for my "near-weekly slam of Les Miles," who said something stupid, as Carl DuBois reports (with emphasis added):
"I think the SEC provides much stiffer competition." . . .
"The Big 12 is a conference that might have two really pretty good teams, maybe four," said Miles, who coached in the Big 12 while at Oklahoma State. "I think the Pac-10 may have one or two really good ones. The ACC certainly, arguably, has some quality teams.
"I don't think there's any conference out there that has as many quality teams as ours."
Stop it. Stop that nonsense right now. If you want to say the S.E.C. is the toughest conference in college football, fine; if you want to say that, this year, the league is tougher at the top than any other, there's a pretty good case to be made for that proposition, although these things change more rapidly than one might expect.
This business about there being one or two or four good teams in other B.C.S. conferences, though, is just dumb.
Except for the A.C.C., of course. The A.C.C. stinks.
To use the most commonly-maligned example of the conferences Coach Miles cited, the Pac-10 is often disparaged as a one-team league . . . "Southern California and the nine dwarves." Similar animadversions were hurled at the S.E.C. during Florida's run of dominance under Steve Spurrier and they held no more water then than they do now.
Does the Pac-10 contain more than one or two good teams? From 2000 to 2006, six different teams won or shared the Pac-10 title in a seven-year span. Eight squads from the Pacific Coast conference have won at least part of a league crown in the last decade and all 10 teams in the West Coast B.C.S. league have captured a conference title in the last 14 seasons.
Meanwhile, six of the last seven Southeastern Conference championships have been won by the league's three dominant teams: Georgia (2002 and 2005), Florida (2000 and 2006), and L.S.U. (2001 and 2003). Nine consecutive S.E.C. championship games have been decided by double-digit margins and half of the league's member institutions have not won a conference title more recently than George Bush's first year in the White House . . . the first George Bush, that is.
I am reminded of the example of Herschel Walker, who didn't spike the ball, do an end zone dance, or otherwise show off whenever he scored a touchdown. He simply handed the ball to the official and trotted off the field like he'd been there before.
That is how S.E.C. head coaches ought to conduct themselves. If they are confident of their abilities (and they should be) and if they truly believe their league contains the best talent and the best teams (a proposition for which there certainly is a credible argument to be made), they need to focus on their jobs and get it done on the football field.
Instead of displaying schoolyard braggadocio, Southeastern Conference coaches need to go about their business. Wins like Tennessee's season-opening victory over Cal and Florida's season-ending victory over Ohio State do far more to cement the league's reputation than petty sniping at other conferences. Coach Miles, who played in the Big Ten and coached in the Big 12, did neither himself nor his newfound conference affiliation any favors by running his mouth and he needs to keep his trap shut until he learns how to sound more intelligent in an interview than he looks in a baseball cap.
Also, get a real headset, you nimrod. You're an S.E.C. football coach, not a Time-Life operator.
Peace in Our Time! Finally, I was pleased to learn that my constructive criticisms of a while back provoked "a long, productive internal conversation" over at The FanHouse. As I hope did not escape my fellow bloggers' notice, I expressed my agreement with the sentiments which were eloquently articulated by Peter Bean and I am glad to know the conversation within the blogosphere remains ongoing, as a rising tide lifts all boats and the success of each of us is of benefit to all of us, whether as fans who write sports weblogs or as fans who read them.
A few paragraphs back, I mentioned the fact that Herschel Walker always acted like he'd been there before. As long as the folks at The FanHouse continue to take the time to remind us what it looked like when Herschel hadn't been there before, all will be well in the blogosphere.
Go 'Dawgs!
0 recs |
23
comments
EmailComments
A quibble
It seems like there must be a better way of phrasing your sentence about the Battle of Gettysburg. The most obvious result of the Union's victory in the Civil War is that four million slaves were eventually freed. As such, an important Union victory should be considered a great day for American independence, no?
I understand that the Civil War implicated serious constitutional questions that are probably still not resolved. I also understand the argument that the federal government has taken a far more involved role in the lives of its citizens than most of the framers or the ratifiers ever intended, and that this development has resulted in less autonomy and less independence. I get all of that. But the importance of freenig the slaves absolutely dwarfs the federalism questions, in my opinion.
I'm troubled that a bright and well-read Southerner like yourself would make a statement like that. As I mentioned, I've been an avid reader of this 'site for months; I know that you are no bigot. I'm sure that you know exponentially more than me about the law and the Civil War. I think that you were trying to make a relatively inoffensive point. You just happened to choose your words poorly, in my view.
I enjoy your 'site. Keep up the good work.
by Anon on Jul 3, 2007 3:06 AM EDT 0 recs
Obviously, the abolition of slavery . . .
However, we must be careful to note certain historical realities. Abraham Lincoln consistently maintained throughout his political career that, although he (like Robert E. Lee) was personally opposed to slavery, his cause was the maintenance of the Union.
Shortly before the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation (which specifically protected slavery in areas loyal to the Union), Lincoln proposed Constitutional amendments to allow the U.S. government to buy the slaves over a 35-year period as part of a gradual plan of compensated emancipation. He was perfectly content to preserve slavery until 1900 if it meant the preservation of the Union, confirming his statement that, if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do it.
I chose my words carefully and I stand by them because the Southern secessionists of 1861 were acting on the principles of their forebears in 1776, altering or abolishing their forms of government when they no longer considered them suited to the ends for which they were established. (Please bear in mind that, when the Declaration of Independence was issued in 1776, many Europeans pointed to the language in the Declaration accusing George III of fomenting slave rebellions in the colonies as evidence that the American revolutionaries were fighting a war not for independence, but for slavery. This is not a novel accusation, nor one uniquely applicable to my ancestors.)
Secession was considered a---perhaps the---fundamental American liberty throughout the antebellum period. New England threatened secession on several occasions, over the Louisiana Purchase, over the War of 1812, and over the annexation of Texas. That it was considered a God-given natural political right is attested to by the Declaration itself.
Were my ancestors' motives completely pure when they decided to withdraw from the Union? Of course not; political actions are always pragmatic as well as moral. Slavery was an unmitigated evil for which there is no legitimate defense, but the "peculiar institution" was the catalyst for the War, not the reason the War was fought (in much the same way that an assassination caused the First World War, but the prevention of assassinations was not the purpose of the conflict).
I certainly agree with you that something vitally important was gained when the outcome of the War produced the 13th Amendment. However, something else of vital importance also was lost, and not just a civilization "gone with the wind." Those who fairly criticize the incumbent Republican president for restricting civil liberties, straining the Constitutional bonds, squelching dissent, centralizing power, and waging wars on questionable pretenses need only look to the first Republican president to learn whose example he is following.
I hope that answers your question and I thank you for framing your constructive criticism in a thoughtful manner and a reasonable tone.
by T Kyle King on Jul 3, 2007 8:43 AM EDT 0 recs
I agree with anonymous, sort of...
How about "a great victory for America against an invading military power"? The Pennsylvanians and troops from other Northern states bled on soil of the United States of America, invaded by a foreign army.
But I also don't think it necessary to get into everything Anonymous raises. Personally, I think one can ignore the issue of slavery and still come down on the side that Confederate secession was treason, regardless of the rationales for doing such. Now, treason can be appropriate in certain circumstances. Secession can be a fine political right, God-given indeed. But it's still Anti-American, by its definition itself. Those who secede did not want to be a part of the United States of America (and yes, I believe the term "American" appropriately refers to people and culture of the United States of America, as it has been used in shorthand for years before and since the Civil War - the term "American", in my view, should apply to the Confederacy no more than it should for Canadians and Mexicans, though I'm sure that'll elicit a response...). One can argue that Lincoln was a tyrant, that the states which eventually seceded were/would be oppressed and treason against such was a proper action to take. But that doesn't mean it's not treason.
by LD on Jul 3, 2007 9:45 AM EDT 0 recs
As long as you concede . . .
The South fought in defense of self-government against a tyrannical central power. If that is not fundamentally American in the best tradition of Washington, Jefferson, and Patrick Henry, I don't know what is.
by T Kyle King on Jul 3, 2007 9:59 AM EDT 0 recs
I think there are distinctions that can be drawn..
But, for the sake of argument, I'll impugn no bad motives in the Confederate cause (in this argument, at least). There's the old chestnut of "one man's traitor is another's freedom fighter" and that may be true. But I see a logical disconnect in fighting for freedom from something yet attempting to embrace it as well.
I'll use your analogy to the American Revolution. When the colonies rebelled and separated, they were necessarily going against the British Crown. Their actions were treason (which I'll be celebrating tomorrow), but after the revolution it was necessary to create something fundamentally different from Great Britain. If such a term is appropriate, the actions of the Founding Fathers were "American" as much as they were "Anti-British". Similarly, when the Confederacy broke away from the United States of America, it became something fundamentally different from the USA. It's actions were "anti-American" by definition.
It's why I took a view against the use of the Confederate flag - not necessarily because it was a symbol a racism to many, but because I viewed it as an Anti-American symbol. It was a flag used to raise arms against the USA, a flag that opposed the flag we all pledge allegiance to. And indeed, it was the flag that marched into Pennsylvania 144 years ago and attacked Americans (including my ancestors, whose names are engraved on memorials there).
Frequently those in support of Confederate heritage point to the valor and bravery of the Confederate leaders and troops. I don't wish to dishonor their efforts, but rather sidestep that entirely. I believe that honoring those who fought in support of the Union is also important. They fought in support of the Stars and Stripes, in support of representative democracy, in support of our Constitution. And they fought, with horrifying results, in defense of their homes and lands - in bloody fields in Pennsylvania and states that never seceded, such as Maryland.
So when I read that Gettysburg was a defeat for American independence, I take issue with that. It was a defeat for Confederate independence. I'll take the Confederacy at its word that it had created an independent entity, and I'll ascribe to it the responsibility that an independent entity bears when it invades a sovereign nation. Getttysburg was a victory for the defense of America against an invading power, and in a way, that's a victory for American independence.
by LD on
Jul 3, 2007 11:19 AM EDT
up
0 recs
After this, I'm done, I promise
On a recent weekend, my wife, Susan, and I hosted some old friends in our home for the purpose of providing a proper send-off to Jason and Kati Burnette, who since have departed for Washington, D.C., where Jason will spend a year serving as a law clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts.
At this gathering of alumni of the Phi Kappa Literary Society, another old friend, Dr. Jeff Rogers, presented me with a gift; namely, Defending Dixie: Essays in Southern History and Culture by Dr. Rogers's major professor at the University of South Carolina, Dr. Clyde N. Wilson.
In one of his essays, Dr. Wilson demonstrates the lineage, literally as well as philosophically, by which the Confederates are woven inextricably into the fabric of mainstream American political thought. Consider these data, all of which are derived from Dr. Wilson's fine historical exegesis:
- President Jefferson Davis was the son of a Revolutionary War soldier.
- Vice President Alexander H. Stephens was the grandson of a Revolutionary War soldier.
- Secretary of War George W. Randolph was the grandson of Thomas Jefferson.
- General Robert E. Lee was the son of a Revolutionary War general, the nephew of two signers of the Declaration of Independence, and the great-grandson-in-law of Martha Washington.
- General Samuel Cooper, Jr., was the son of a Revolutionary War officer and the grandson-in-law of George Mason. (Mason's grandson, James M. Mason, was the Confederate minister to Great Britain.)
- General Edmund Kirby Smith was the son of a War of 1812 officer from Connecticut.
- General James E. Slaughter was James Madison's grand-nephew.
- Lieutenant General Richard Taylor was the grandson of a Revolutionary War officer and the son of Zachary Taylor.
- Lieutenant General Leonidas Polk was the son and the grandson of Revolutionary War colonels.
- Lieutenant General Richard H. Anderson was the grandson of a Revolutionary War officer.
- Lieutenant General D.H. Hill was the grandson of a Revolutionary War officer.
- Major General John C. Breckinridge and Brigadier General Humphrey Marshall both were the grandsons of early U.S. senators from Kentucky.
- Major General Daniel S. Donelson was Andrew Jackson's nephew.
- Major General Matthew C. Butler was the nephew of Oliver Hazard Perry.
- Major General Benjamin Huger was the grandson of a Revolutionary War officer.
- Major General Joseph B. Kershaw was the grandson of a Revolutionary War officer.
- Major General David E. Twiggs was the son of a Revolutionary War general.
- Brigadier General Hugh W. Mercer was the grandson and namesake of a Revolutionary War general.
- Brigadier General William Nelson Pendleton was descended from a signer of the Declaration of Independence.
- Brigadier General Joseph E. Johnston was the son of a Revolutionary War colonel.
- Brigadier General Hylan B. Lyon was the grandson of Congressman Matthew Lyon of Vermont, a New England Jeffersonian who was prosecuted under the Sedition Act.
- William Henry Chase, the commander of the Florida state forces, was the great-nephew of a signer of the Declaration of Independence, John Hancock of Massachusetts.
- Two of Patrick Henry's grandsons served in the Confederate Army.
- Francis Key Howard, the grandson and namesake of Francis Scott Key, was a Marylander imprisoned by Abraham Lincoln for being a Southern sympathizer. Another of Key's grandsons, Richard Hammond Key, was a Confederate soldier who died in a prison camp during the War.
Obviously, many officers and enlisted men in the Union forces likewise were descended from good Revolutionary War stock, as well, so the South cannot lay sole claim to American ideals; indeed, in many (though not all) respects, it might be said of the War that it was a conflict over which was the more fundamentally American document, the Declaration, with its high-minded ideals of individual liberty, or the Constitution, a charter for self-government through federalism and the separation of powers.
However, the pedigree of so many storied Southerners of the Confederate period demonstrates that the men who led the effort at secession were steeped in the heritage and philosophy of their forefathers. It is inconceivable that they all so thoroughly misunderstood their (relatively recent) history that the lot of them departed entirely from the tradition of which they fairly understood themselves to be a part.
The truth of this is underscored by the sorts of Americans who subsequently descended from these Confederate forebears. Following the War, many fine Americans came from secessionist Southern stock; to wit:
- Harry S Truman's mother belonged to a pro-Confederate family from Missouri. President Truman's mother refused to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom when she visited the White House and Franklin Roosevelt's successor in the Oval Office personally selected a famous portrait of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson to hang in the entrance lobby of his presidential library.
- Congressman Henry D. Clayton, Jr., was the son and namesake of a Confederate general. The Alabama representative wrote the Clayton Antitrust Act.
- The noted humorist Will Rogers was the son of a Confederate soldier.
- William G. McAdoo, who served as a U.S. senator from California and as Woodrow Wilson's secretary of the treasury, and who nearly secured the 1920 Democratic nomination for the presidency, was the son of a Confederate soldier.
- The famous financier Bernard Baruch was the son of a Confederate soldier.
- Michigan football coach Fielding Yost was the son of a Confederate soldier.
- New York Times founder Adolph S. Ochs was the son of a Confederate sympathizer who had a Confederate flag draped across her coffin following her death.
- General Nathan Bedford Forrest, Jr., and General Simon Bolivar Buckner, Jr., both the sons and namesakes of Confederate generals, each were killed in action in the Second World War.
- General George S. Patton was the grandson of a Confederate officer who was killed in action during the War.
The Confederate episode, not uniquely but quite distinctly, is part and parcel of the American political tradition. Its disavowal by any American, be he from New England, the Midwest, the Deep South, or elsewhere, is a mistake and it represents an erroneous reading of history.
I apologize for going on at such length in my efforts to maintain a high level of discourse. I am informed by what I am sure is an unbiased observer that I am so pointlessly verbose that I represent a "perfect example" of a weblogger who "makes a habit of wasting everyone's time."
Fortunately, this non-award-winning weblog is soon to be overtaken by the inevitable market forces:
That observation having been offered for the good of the order, I would like to thank everyone who took part in this detailed and informative comment thread, as well as all of you who contributed to making June the most heavily-trafficked month in the history of this site!
Now . . . are you ready for some football?
by T Kyle King on
Jul 3, 2007 9:27 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Hmmm...
But...
All of that isn't really the issue.
How many of our American Founding Fathers descended from loyal Britons? Most? And had the American Revolution failed and we all were subjects of the Queen now, I'm certain we'd be loyal to the Crown.
The point is that when the Confederacy broke away, it turned its back on the USA to become something different. It turned away from the American flag. It declared war against the USA and raised arms against American citizens. It sought diplomatic relations with foreign governments both friendly and hostile to the USA. These acts were fundamentally anti-American. ASo what's the cogent response to that: how can X turn away from Y, create something different from Y, and actually attack Y, but still be "Y"?
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you're right about the reasons for secession being about individual liberty and opposition of tyrannical central government (I actually disagree with this assertion, but regardless), that still isn't a complete definition of what it means to be an American. Being an American means more than that. And I think part of what "American" means is not fighting against America to create something else. Attributes of the American character might have been motives of the Confederate cause, but those attributes exist separate and independent from the American character. Rugged individualism and opposition to central government are attributes of the Armenian people, Australian outback shepherds, Tibetans, and plenty of other groups. What it means to be American is far greater than that. And to suggest that the Confederate cause was a true American cause degrades the American-ness of those who remained loyal to the USA and what it stood for.
by LD on
Jul 4, 2007 10:40 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Never mind the haters... & Justice Roberts
As for Chief Justice Roberts, a brief story...
A couple of years ago, my mother in law was in town for a visit - she grew up in Bethesda but now resides in Maine. She and my wife took a drive into Chevy Chase to visit one of my mother-in-law's brothers in his new house, and on the way there mother-in-law instructed my wife to pull over. The following conversation occurred:
Mother in Law: that's the house I lived in before we moved to Bethesda
My wife: Oh yes?
Mother-in-law: yes, [series of reminiscences]
My wife: I wonder who lives there now?
Mother-in-law: Oh I know that, it's John Roberts
My wife: Argh!!!! That would explain the black vans across the street - what the hell kind of watch lists did you just get me put on?
by DC Trojan on
Jul 5, 2007 11:41 AM EDT
up
0 recs
The South?
And the Confederacy itself was, from start to finish, an anti-democratic and tyrannical creation violently (literally, not figuratively) opposed to state's rights, local governance, and democratic rule.
by 34hawk on
Jul 6, 2007 12:46 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Kyle, I love your blog...
I also find it hard to believe that a society so concerned with limited government and the rights of man would institutionalize the enslavement of another. I realize that cultural and societal differences of the time affect the lens through which we should view this. But ask any black man or woman what he or she thinks about the South's efforts to foster a government that preserves the rights of the individual. I think they would find such a proposition rather disingenous.
Secession, while good political theatre (as noted by the examples you point out), has never been considered a legitimate part of American jurisprudence. I realize that your argument believes that our form of government based upon consent presupposes the ability to consent out of that form of government. But, IMO, the consent to being governed under the Constitution disposes of secession as a legitimate option.
As for Lee's thoughts on slavery:
by SSB Charley on Jul 3, 2007 10:23 AM EDT 0 recs
Much obliged, Charley
I had not seen the U.S. News piece, which seems to shed new light, although I would be more impressed if, instead of providing an interview with a guy who read the letters, it provided us with the primary sources themselves. Obviously, no one in that era had what we would call a "modern" mindset, not even Abraham Lincoln, who was quite content to ship freed slaves off to Liberia and the Caribbean.
You are quite correct that the perpetuation of slavery is inconsistent with the notion of a government that protects the rights of individuals, but that contradiction is a hypocrisy of which the United States and the Confederacy were equally guilty. The U.S. Constitution protected the slave trade through 1808 and counted a slave as three-fifths of a person.
The notion that states' rights was a mere cover for slavery is a harder sell. As Eugene D. Genovese demonstrates, the five principal architects of the states' rights view of the Constitution during the Founding period were all Virginians, of whom four actively opposed slavery and the fifth viewed it as a regrettable inheritance from previous generations which was to be tolerated but not celebrated.
In 1860, 15 states permitted slavery. Of these, seven seceded following the election of Abraham Lincoln. In other words, the majority of slaveholding states did not withdraw from the Union. In March 1861, Alexander H. Stephens gave his infamous "cornerstone" speech in an effort to entice the remaining eight states to secede . . . and not one of them found his arguments persuasive, as none responded to his call for solidarity.
Even after Fort Sumter, only four of the remaining eight states seceded, with the remaining four staying in the Union (and receiving the protection of the Emancipation Proclamation for their loyalty to a government that, as its chief executive repeatedly and clearly stated, was attempting to preserve the Union and was not concerned with abolishing slavery except as a means to that end).
Clearly, there was no solidarity among slaveholding states. The same is true on the opposite side of the Mason-Dixon line, where violent draft riots were held in New York and abolitionists strongly criticized Lincoln for failing to make it a war over slavery.
I also would disagree with your characterization of the Constitution. The 10th Amendment explicitly reserves all powers not delegated to the U.S. government or prohibited to the states. Nowhere in the Constitution is the right to secede forbidden or the right to suppress it given.
When the Constitution was ratified, such states as New York and Virginia expressly reserved the right to withdraw from the Union in their resolutions adopting the Constitution. This seems perfectly consistent with the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence regarding the right to alter or abolish forms of government which no longer serve what the governed consented to when establishing them.
That is why, although I agree with LD that the bravery of soldiers on both sides of the fight is to be praised and celebrated, I believe the South was being faithful to American principles even while it stood in opposition to the state, providing an early example of the notion since summed up in the bumper sticker slogan "I love my country but I fear my government."
LD is quite correct that a sovereign nation has a right to repel an armed invasion, but that right accrues to the large swath of Confederate territory through which Union troops marched as well as it does to the comparatively small portions of Union territory that were attacked. (My great-great-grandfather was held as a prisoner of war and my home town was burned to the ground in Sherman's March to the Sea, so I, too, have a personal investment in this conflict.)
(That the Confederacy was a separate nation is a fact Lincoln effectively admitted, however much his rhetoric protested otherwise; Lincoln ordered a naval blockade to cut off the Confederacy from outside assistance and, as a British critic pointed out, a nation does not blockade its own ports.)
Obviously, the world has turned a few times since 1865, and even since 1965, and these arguments are moot points in the modern world. Whatever the Founding Fathers may have intended when attempting to secure through the Bill of Rights (including the First and Second Amendments, whose location at the top of the list of guaranteed rights was not coincidental) the ability of a citizen to be a good American even while standing in opposition to the national government, that ship has sailed. We are a unitary nation today and secession as a present political right of the states is as untenable as an attempt to exercise it would be unwise.
As attested to by the right of U.S. Supreme Court justices to dissent from decisions they believe to be ill-considered, though, losing doesn't make you wrong. (The first Justice Harlan's dissent from the 8-1 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which was vindicated 58 years later in Brown v. Board of Education, is an elegant example of a political minority being in the right despite being outvoted.)
The War tipped the balance decisively to one side on numerous points of Constitutional contention and, while the right side certainly won upon the central point (slavery), the same cannot be said for many other important, if less immediate, issues. Critics of the present administration would do well to recall the source of the asserted executive authority with which they find fault.
Beyond that, though, you are right . . . we shall simply have to agree to disagree. I regret that I inadvertently sparked such a discussion on what I have never intended to be a political weblog and I certainly did not mean to stir up controversy over the opening paragraph of a lengthy posting intended to address numerous other subjects.
by T Kyle King on
Jul 3, 2007 12:25 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Fair points about the scope of government...
I just saw that piece on Robert E. Lee last week while sitting in a mediation. My adjuster kept chatting with me, so I couldn't get through the whole issue, but it looks like a pretty interesting read overall.
Either way, Les Miles could probably benefit from spending a little more time reading nuanced blog posts about conference strength and a little less time from chatting on sports talk radio. I have joked about the weakness of the Pac-10 on more than one occasion, but in really breaking it down, other than Stanford, there really aren't any horrible teams in the conference. The Big Ten has IU, Illinois, Northwestern, and in a given year, Minnesota and MSU. The SEC has MSU, Ole Miss, Vandy and UK. The Big 12 has Baylor and just about everybody in the North division. And the ACC just sucks. As you noted. I think the coaching in the Pac-10 improved with the addition of Erickson (though this will also likely result in more business for the Tempe PD), and there are plenty of teams that can be mediocre to pretty good. It doesn't have the multiple MNC contenders like the SEC does, but it doesn't have the easy games like we do either. And, unlike just about everybody else (waving at you Auburn, Alabama and Florida), rather than add patty-cake U to the schedule, they used the 12th game to add another conference game. I respect that. Now if they'd just shift a few of their better athletes to defense, I could fully buy into them as a very good conference. But their defenses are generally pretty bad (though that is at least likely to change at ASU).
One other thing: I love studying and discussing the Civil War. Living in Indiana, it's pretty rare that I get to ever have any conversations about it. Although we disagree, it's very enjoyable reading your well-reasoned and nuanced positions on the conflict. I'd also note (in case it was directed at me) while I try to be conscientious, none of my Southern friends would ever refer to me as a Southerner. Having lived about half my life in the South, I have some very Southern tendencies (an occasional drawl, a love of azaleas, and an affinity for vinegar based barbecue and stone ground grits(not together, mind you)), but given that my father's family has been in central/western Illinois since before the Civil War, I'd be hard pressed to qualify as a Southerner (though interestingly enough, my grandmother, who has lived in central/western Illinois for essentially her entire 87 years, makes sweet tea). Keep up the good work!
by SSB Charley on
Jul 3, 2007 4:41 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I apologize for the misconception . . .
As I indicated earlier, I know how heated these questions (quite justifiably) can be, so I am always appreciative when the conversation can be kept civil and reasonable, even when strongly held views are being aired forcefully.
I hope you have a happy Independence Day, Charley, and I thank you for taking the time to share your views.
by T Kyle King on
Jul 3, 2007 6:39 PM EDT
up
0 recs
No problem, and I took it as such...
And while I can appreciate brevity in some contexts (replying to your latest post up the way), I also appreciate the depth with which you analyze things. Jay Mariotti, Terrence Moore, Bob Kravitz and your personal fave, Bob Ryan, aren't anywhere near as interesting or informative as this blog. This is far better content than what I read in the Atlanta, Indy or Chicago papers.
by SSB Charley on
Jul 4, 2007 8:26 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Can't remove economics from the picture
At the risk of showing my analytical colors, I think of the Civil War as the result of a collision of not just political factors about how the United States should be governed, but also the composition of the economy in the north and south - the two factors were inextricably linked.
As I understand it, the rise of the cotton and tobacco sectors in the early 19th century had actually reinforced the economic value of slave labor, even as the "importation" of slaves was banned. This stood in direct contrast to the growth of manufacturing in the north, starting with the likes of the clock and firearms industries in Connecticut, for instance.
The two types of economy lend themselves to different emphasis on laws and trade - generally speaking, the south was more heavily vested in foreign trade over production than was the north, which along with the midwest was labor-poor and taking in immigrants at a rapid clip to fill in the gaps. This was inherently going to affect:
- trade policy
- the balance of electoral power
- the role of the state in interstate commerce
- etc., etc.
I don't know how to think about whether southern secession counts as specific treason. It seems to be part of the continuum of centralization, to be honest - it seems to be analogous to the 19th century mayhem in Europe as the old feudal order started to give way to what we would recognize as modern European states. Another way to look at it: The 1715 and 1745 uprisings in Scotland were plainly treason against the English crown, and yet restoration of a foppish Italian prince had a nationalist component all its own. I read about it as treason as a child because of who won (hint, not the Jacobites...) In that regard, I suppose the Confederacy was treasonous because they lost. But absent a normative judgment about the cause of the Confederacy, it's not an unusual historical event.
Anyhoo, in some regards the demise of the Confederacy was inevitable, whether violently in war or through simple economic pressure: primary sector exports, especially in agriculture, always decrease in value over time - the only exception is oil. It's not too hard to make an argument that had the Confederacy succeeded in secession, the long term result would have left them looking more like Argentina than modern Atlanta, for instance.
What all of that had to do with Gettysburg, I don't know.
by DC Trojan on Jul 3, 2007 11:50 AM EDT 0 recs
Football
by fotodog on Jul 3, 2007 12:10 PM EDT 0 recs
As always, DC Trojan . . .
Fotodog, I am so completely right there with you, it ain't even funny. 60 days, my friend, 60 days. . . .
All right, misspent lunch break over . . . back to work. . . .
by T Kyle King on Jul 3, 2007 12:35 PM EDT 0 recs
Last point from me, I promise.
"When the Constitution was ratified, such states as New York and Virginia expressly reserved the right to withdraw from the Union in their resolutions adopting the Constitution."
This is incorrect. I recently completed a fairly in-depth study on the ratification of the Constitution in New York. I'm out of the country (being away on Independence Day must be triggering this desire to talk about our history), so I don't have my work in front of me, but I remember this part fairly well.
After nine (or so) of the states had ratified, Governor Clinton and the anti-federalists realized that the Constitution was going to be adopted with or without them. So, they proposed a deal to Hamilton and the Federalists in which the Constitution would be ratified but with a right to withdraw from the Union if several Amendments were not adopted within 5 (I think) years. In the proposed ratifying document, the words "...upon condition of..." were used.
So, Hamilton wrote to Madison, asking if a conditional ratification would be ok. Madison wrote back, saying that it was not ok, since a conditional ratification was akin to a rejection. Upon hearing this (or before; there is a conflict in the scholarship), a minor anti-federalist whose name escapes me at the moment proposed a new ratification draft, with the words "...in full confidence that..." in place of the conditional language. This was the version of ratification that passed. So there was no condtitional ratification.
Sorry for the "take my word for it" nature of this comment; a couple of cursory web searches didn't turn up the documents I was looking for. Any book about the ratification in New York will back me up on this (I found John Kaminski to be particularly useful).
Happy Fourth of July, everyone. The season can't come soon enough. Clearly, I need the diversion.
by Anon on Jul 3, 2007 2:22 PM EDT 0 recs
I appreciate the correction
John S. Tilley's Facts The Historians Leave Out contains the following passage:
Obviously, that paragraph quotes only an excerpt and I have not researched this particular question in anything like the depth that you have, so I offer this not as a point of dispute, but as a point of clarification.
When you get back in the country, I would be most appreciative if you could leave an additional comment or send me an e-mail directing me to a source. I ask that not in disbelief that you are correct, but out of a desire to clear up my apparent misconception and be able to recite the facts more accurately the next time the issue arises.
I thank you for the correction. The beauty of blogging is its interactive character and, as pleased as I am whenever something I write succeeds in informing one of my readers, I am even more pleased when (as often is the case) they are able to educate me.
Thanks . . . and have a happy Fourth of July!
by T Kyle King on
Jul 3, 2007 6:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Mmmhmm
"civl war!?!? this is a fooball blog so tlak bout fooball"
Anyway, do you have a feeling that sideline headsets are alot like jackup trucks? The bigger it is, the more confidence you have in your ... shall we say ... manlihood?
Miles must be a confident dude to put that headset on his cabeza.
by The Power T on Jul 3, 2007 3:03 PM EDT 0 recs
Yet another item to add to my prayer list . . .
by MaconDawg on Jul 3, 2007 4:52 PM EDT 0 recs
I'm with you, Power T . . .
Still, MaconDawg is correct that anything that takes us into the territory of Les Miles's alleged junk is strictly verboten---I'll take being called anti-American, but let's not go there---so how 'bout if we shift subjects . . . here.
by T Kyle King on Jul 3, 2007 6:47 PM EDT 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
New FanPost
