Tuesday, January 18, 2005

All Slifkin, all the time!

For those of you who are wondering, it was requested that I delete certain portions of what I wrote over the weekend. I was lazy and decided to delete all of it.

Barely any of my readers comment on my blog, but once I decided to talk about Nosson, suddenly I'm getting emails, like from Dov Bear.

So, I went to Dov Bear's blog, milding entertained by what he wrote, until I got to this post, wherein he decided that no southern citizen is beyond insult.

Dov Bear probably learned everything he knows about the Civil War from northerners, and thus doesn't know squat about it.

Bigots here, bigots there, we see bigots everywhere. As Wonkette, from whom I lifted this piece suggests, this Mississippi compromise was probably just a way to get the fine, backwards, incest committing people of the South to acknowledge - however backhandedly - MLK and all the good he did to make our country a better, safer place to live.


Dov, I'm from the South. I was raised in the South. I love the South. In my nearly twenty years there, I never encountered these so-called "backwards, incest committing people of the South," but apparently you have far more expertise than I on these matters.

So, perhaps Dov Bear can answer the following sticky questions regarding the South and the Civil War, whose army was led by General Robert E. Lee:

1) If the Civil War was about freeing slaves, weren't the states who seceded from the union enslaved when they were forced to remain part of the Union?

2) Are you aware of the 3500 to 5000 Jews who fought for the Confederacy?

3) Are you aware of Grant's General Order that ordered the expulsion of the Jews from territories the North conquered from the South?

4) Are you aware that slavery had been abolished in the North, but had been replaced with many local laws forbidding the very presence of blacks, under penalty of whipping?

5) Can you point to the article in the Constitution that made secession illegal?
5a) If secession is illegal, why did some states only ratify the Constitution on the condition that they could secede?

Now, if you've answered those questions, let me ask you something about the civil rights movement of the 1960's led by Reverend King:

Which is worse -- not wanting to have anything to do with someone because he's black, or being forced at gunpoint to have to associate with that black person? If you think the former, isn't advocating the latter a form of slavery, and isn't the latter exactly what the Civil Rights Act did?

I would argue that what King did was worse than the evil he claimed to want to rectify.

I can just imagine what you might be thinking right now, that I hate blacks and I want to enslave them. This is rubbish. I want nothing of the sort. I want the blacks to be free. I want the whites to be free. I want all of us to be free.

That's why my moniker is "Libertarian Yid."

All other Western countries got rid of slavery in a civilized manner. There's no reason to believe that it couldn't have been accomplished in the United States had Lincoln not enslaved the South.

So, Dov Bear, stick it.

5 Comments:

At 2:35 PM, Blogger JamesEJ said...

Could you elaborate on, or cite a source for, this:

"2) Are you aware of the 3500 to 5000 Jews who fought for the Confederacy?

3) Are you aware of Grant's General Order that ordered the expulsion of the Jews from territories the North conquered from the South?"

I am particularly interested in #3. I thought you may have gotten it from JPFO.org, but did not find it there.

That said, I appreciate your approach, and support you in opposing tyranny, even when that puts you in a politically incorrect position. It is suprising to me that so many, particularly left liberals, can oppose wars like those in Iraq, but not the Civil War. Whatever the left thinks about Abu Ghraib and air-to-surface bombing, they should consider their views on such things when looking at Sherman's march.

 
At 3:12 PM, Blogger Yid said...

Google is your friend. Search for "Grant's General Order 11" and keep a throw up bag by your seat.

 
At 5:47 PM, Blogger DovBear said...

Man, there are at least 300 posts on my site you would really enjoy. I hope you will keep exploring.

But anyway to your shril and angry questions:

(1) If the Civil War was about freeing slaves, weren't the states who seceded from the union enslaved when they were forced to remain part of the Union?

--- The Civil War was about more than slavery. Succession was illegal. Lincoln's response, though, is the subject of much scholalry debate. We won't settle the States Rights queston today, on this blog, so lets just agree we both are aware of it.

2) Are you aware of the 3500 to 5000 Jews who fought for the Confederacy?

Of course, and I am also aware of Philip Benjamin the Jewish Secretary of State of the confederacy. And therefore...?

3) Are you aware of Grant's General Order that ordered the expulsion of the Jews from territories the North conquered from the South?

Of course. And therefore....?

4) Are you aware that slavery had been abolished in the North, but had been replaced with many local laws forbidding the very presence of blacks, under penalty of whipping?

Of course.... and therefore....?


5) Can you point to the article in the Constitution that made secession illegal?

.... it's not in the Constitution.
In 1833, Congress passed a "force bill" which authorized Jackson to use violence to preserve the Union settled the nullification question.

5a) If secession is illegal, why did some states only ratify the Constitution on the condition that they could secede?

In 2005 it is illegal. This question was argued throughout the early 19th century until the civil war settled the issue.

What the hell is your point???

Which is worse -- not wanting to have anything to do with someone because he's black, or being forced at gunpoint to have to associate with that black person? If you think the former, isn't advocating the latter a form of slavery, and isn't the latter exactly what the Civil Rights Act did?

I would argue that what King did was worse than the evil he claimed to want to rectify.

You could argue that, but you would be wrong. You are making a horrible comparison. Read King's letter from Birmingham jail and get back to me.

And picking fights with other bloggers is my shtick. Get your own.

 
At 10:15 AM, Blogger JamesEJ said...

This "force bill" is probably unconstitutional. Where in the Constitution is the power to pass such a bill? Given that the states had to provide consent to form the union, doesn't that demonstrate that the states also had the power to revoke consent?

Regarding, the King argument, DovBear's argument is either poorly worded or just wrong. Forcing someone at gunpoint to affirmatively do anything is always more wrong than having immoral desires or dissociating from someone for bad reasons. It does not matter what King said on other issues. The Civil Rights Act is good insofar as it stops GOVERNMENT discrimination, but bad insofar as it stops PRIVATE/INDIVIDUAL discrimination. While I support much of what King did and said, I wish he would have been more careful in how he dealt with individual rights as opposed to government power. Protesting a segregation law with a sit-in at a lunch counter is righteous as it relates to the government, but wrongful as it relates to the restaurant owner. It would have been preferable if King had focused on government action, government facilities, and laws focused on such things rather than treating individuals and government so similarly.

That said, I have to congratulate King, on identifying so early a common problem today: When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Dr. King responded: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Quote/king.html

 
At 12:14 PM, Blogger Yid said...

And before I had time to respond, my apparent brother in solidarity took the words out of my mouth.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home