Which is a shame because it came at the end of what may very well prove to be one of the most historic weeks of my lifetime. First you had the debate over the Confederate flag in South Carolina, as well as other states that have adopted at least part of that pattern into their flags. Let's see if I can boil down the arguments against removing the flag, the civil war wasn't only about slavery, it was about states rights and the South was better off economically than the North. That would of course, ignore the words of Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy prior to the start of the civil war when he said..."
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
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.. . . look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgement of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws".
Stephens recognizes that the founding fathers struggled with the notion of slavery, but unlike the founders, Stephen believed that blacks were sub-human and therefore not deserving of legal protections and should be subservient to whites. That does not mean that the North went to war to free blacks, Lincoln's overwhelming notion was to preserve the Union and had he found a palpable way to do so and maintain the status quo, there is a good chance he would have taken that offer. But as the nation was adding territory, arguments consumed both sides of the debate as to whether those new territories would be free or slave holding areas. Neither side wanted the other to add more representation in Congress via new states or territories that might be added to the Union at a future date. It was from this nonsense that the whole 3/5ths clause was born, by counting blacks as 3/5ths of a person it kept the slave holding states representation in Congress in check.
This notion of states rights was a determining factor in the war is hogwash, the only right the South was worried about was the right for states to implement slavery. Sure the South was better off economically, it only makes sense when you entire labor force is unpaid laborers kept in shackles. If I could pull that off at work I am sure our bottom line would be much better too.
The other part of this historic week was the Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage. Again I have heard the arguments against it and find them to be foolish. "it's against the word of God" and "the government needs to stay out of our bedrooms". Funny thing that word of God argument, the Bible is not the law of the land. If people wish to live in a purely religious land, I have some fine Middle Eastern countries I can point them in the direction of. I also find it funny that people put a single verse or two from the Bible as their own personal tipping point, while failing to live up to the remaining words in the book. They must have gotten the abridged edition or something. Because I am quite sure I could find words in that book for which they fail to abide and unless they are playing the role of God, I fail to see how they can ascertain which words in that book should be given the most credence and which ones should be ignored altogether.
The government needs to stay out of our bedrooms is a premise I can get behind at least. Because I agree with it, the government should for the most part stay out of our bedrooms, save for cases of rape and what not. But I have always been of the notion that relationships were more than sex for the most part. And people who wish to get married I would imagine it would involve an even deeper commitment. If anything, the status quo was the government in the bedrooms of gay people, suggesting that their relationship was somehow inferior to that of straight couples and letting states put laws on the books that determined what gay couples could and couldn't do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. So the Supreme Court ruling has the effect of taking government out of the bedroom, not inviting it in. If someone feels the value of their marriage is somehow lessened by the ruling, I would suggest that your relationship is what has the problem, no the court's ruling. If your marriage is so paper thin stable that a gay couple getting married has the ability to affect it, then that is your burden to carry.
Okay kids, rant is over. History can take over from here.
No comments:
Post a Comment