Thurmond's Times' Obit
Adam "Asshole" Clymer has a thorough, interesting, and generally fair obit of Strom "Sperm" Thurmond in today's New York Times.
Despite the role of civil rights in his political evolution and his record-breaking filibuster of 24 hours and 18 minutes against the civil rights bill of 1957, Mr. Thurmond always insisted he had never been a racist, but was merely opposed to excessive federal authority.
Despite Thurmond's later switch on integration, the idea that his--and other segregationists'--dedication to states' rights was unrelated to race is laughable, especially when one recalls statements such as this one cited by Clymer:
Running for president in 1948 as what the press called a Dixiecrat, he said that "on the question of social intermingling of the races, our people draw the line." And, he went on, "all the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, into our schools, our churches and our places of recreation and amusement."
In 2001, Reason Contributing Editor Charles Oliver reviewed Manisha Sinha's provocative book, The Counterrevolution of Slavery: Politics and Ideology in Antebellum South Carolina which convincingly argues, as Oliver summarizes,:
…that Southern "states' rights" ideology was formed with the express purpose of defending slavery. Indeed, antebellum Southerners were quick to use national power, at the expense of states' rights, to defend slavery. From 1789 to 1860, the South dominated the national government, and the "Slave Power," as critics called it, readily used the federal government to protect and advance its interests.
Oliver's review, which also treats When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession, by Confederate apologist Charles Adams, is online here and worth reading.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If I ever visit Thurmond's grave, I will be sure to spit on it.
If I ever visit Thurmond's grave, I will forgive him.
If I ever visit Thurmond's grave, I'll think "Huh. I had a singing lesson with a nephew of his."
Charles Oliver in his review of Charles Adam's book arguing the case for Southern secession never does own up-does he believe the Southern states had no such right?
If I ever visit Thurmond's grave, I'll think "How the hell did I end up here, at Thurmond's grave?"
Does Oliver mean to say that the South had a particular way that they pushed states' rights in the defense of slavery or is he trying to say that the entire concept of states' rights is due to their slavery defense? I'm not trying to complicate a simple statement but there seems to be a problem if he is asserting that the entire philosophy of states' rights was born of slavery defense.
Nick is basically right about Sinha's argument. I'd add only that states rights was just a part of a larger "Southern ideology" that was decidely anti-capitalist and anti-individualist. States rights meant just that. Only the states had any real meaningful rights.
The ante-bellum South was not anti-capitalist; in fact, numerous studies of the letters, journals, etc. of planters and people who wanted to be planters demonstrate that Southerners had the same sorts of ideas about self-enrichment and individualism as their northern counterparts. Going to the frontier to make one's way in the world was as important, if not more so, in the antebellum South as it was to those who travelled from the Northeast to settle say Illinois (there is a great monograph titled _Sugar Country_ on the latter migration). In fact, this was the very reason why the westward expansion of slavery was so important to the Southern body politic; westward expansion meant the expansion of economic oppurtunity.
You will also find that slave owners subscribed to much of the rationalizing spirit of the times as well; agricultural journals in the South published in the South printed innumerable articles on how best to manage the labor of slaves for examples & there was always a keen interest in creating a labor force which was more productive.
Nick,
"States' Rights" rhetoric was fairly common in the 1830s, and while this was the start of a long period of paranoia and anxiety by the slave holding states, it was well before the South lost control of the Federal Government (if it ever really did before seccession). The problem with the Southern reaction to abolitionism and the like is that it far overestimated the power of abolitionist elements in Northern society and the will of Northerners to bring down the Southern slave regime.
This whole "States' rights were a cover for racist ideology" argument is only partially true. Certainly racist individuals and organizations used the argument to maintain white supremecy, but that does not sum up the argument for states' rights. In fact, the argument is a very valid one without bringing the issue of slavery into it. Not only that, but it is obvious that many of the South's greatest individuals did not side with the Confederacy merely to protect slavery. Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson come to mind. Their ideological descendents of the Civil Rights era were resisting forced federal integration, which they thought would destabilize their social institutions. This would be a reasonable conclusion to make in 1960. This is not to say that they were correct, but to reduce the philosophy of states' rights to a mere cover for racism is foolish.
Nick,
And one more thought, it even preceded the 1830s, if we are to take seriously Jefferson's ideas in the Kentucky Resolutions concerning the "Alien & Sedition Acts."
Matt,
"Not only that, but it is obvious that many of the South's greatest individuals did not side with the Confederacy merely to protect slavery. Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson come to mind."
Keep your "moonlight and magnolias" to yourself. Whatever their misgivings, they were defending a regime which not only sanctioned slavery, but protected it. Its a bit like saying that Rommel wasn't such a bad guy because he really wasn't fond of Hitler.
Dear Mr. Gillespie,
Since you posted Mr. Oliver's book review and suggested we read it,perhaps I may ask you-did the Southern states have the right to secede from the Union?
Gywn,
If they had won they would have had such a right; since they dind't win, they lacked such a right. 🙂
No,I meant a legal or moral right-not the sort of "right" that might makes.
"The ante-bellum South was not anti-capitalist"
Croesus, i am inclinced to disagree with you on that; i think that slavery is anti-capitalist by definition. to say otherwise is ignoring the fact that the labor market was artificial and had nothing to do with reality in the normal state of things, providing a disincentive to change, hence one of the reasosn the norht was always more industrialised than the south- because it was not really racially segregated. if you want proof that desegregation leads to greater industrialism and capitalism, check out atlanta in 1960 and atlanta today.
"After President Truman announced a broad civil rights program and issued an executive order to integrate the armed services in 1948, Mr. Thurmond was not among the president's most strident early critics. He said nothing comparable to the analogy by Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia that using the Federal Bureau of Investigation on civil rights cases was comparable to Hitler's use of the Gestapo."
Very odd that Russell's quote would be thrown into an obit of Thurmond...
I think what everyone is forgetting is that the north did not invade the south to "liberate" the slaves. Lincoln himself said that if he could preserve the union with slavery he would. Since the south around 1860 provided about 75% of the federal revenue, losing the south meant losing out on a lot of money.
I don't want to speak for Charles Oliver (who may well weigh in himself at some point), but part of Sinha's argument is that the antebellum Southern leaders turned to a states' rights argument *after* it became apparent they would not be able to maintain control of the federal government on the slavery issue. Oliver's review also makes clear, contra Charles Adams, that the Confederacy was explicitly fighting to maintain slavery and the racial caste system upon which it was predicated.
This is not to say that states' rights arguments (or even strong support of real federalism) is necessarily linked to slavery and/or segregation, though historically racists have turned to states' rights when it served their purposes--an unsavory linkage that has made it more difficult for advocates of decentralized government to press their case.
The North was about 2 years ahead of the South in desegregation. We just didn't have as many signs and drinking fountains. Northernors who twit the South's racial attitudes are either blissfully ignorant or profoundly hypocritical.
...and Strom did lead a glider full of infantry into Normandy.
Of course, segregationists are not alone in
switching their principals to suit the political
circumstances of the moment (or the decade).
Both Republicans and Democrats, and all the
various trough-feeding interest groups they
represent, do this as well.
Federalism will sometimes favor liberty as
libertarians define it and sometimes not,
depending on the political forces in play
at the state and federal level. Its value
needs to be judged on its overall performance
and based on the flexibility it allows for
individuals to move to jurisdictions that
match their views (sorting into Utah and
Taxachusetts is not random) and the incentive
it gives states not to adopt really stupid
economic policies, less their industries and
most productive workers move elsewhere.
Jeff Smith
Whether Rommel had a change of heart later on in life isn't really the issue.
Anonymous,
"the south was feudal, not capitalist"
Feudalistic societies don't have slaves, they have serfs and other types of bonded laborers which are directly tied to the land. A slave is not directly tied to the land - they are an asset which can be sold apart from the land, and have no rights to the land (e.g., gleaning harvested fields for example) like a serf does. A serf is not a slave, and a slave is not a serf - somehow you missed my Western Civ. 101 course.
Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of "capital," BTW.
Main Entry: capital
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Italian; French, from Italian capitale, from capitale, adjective, chief, principal, from Latin capitalis
Date: circa 1639
1 a (1) : a stock of accumulated goods especially at a specified time and in contrast to income received during a specified period; also : the value of these accumulated goods (2) : accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods (3) : accumulated possessions calculated to bring in income
Accumulated goods or possessions can easily decribe a slave.
people are not goods
is sumaria capitalist?
Anonymous,
In a slave holding society, people are as much goods as a goat is. Now, you may want to make a moral statement by saying that people are not goods, but that doesn't mean that they haven't been or aren't today (the slave trade is still robust even in the United States today if you believe the Department of Justice).
Sumaria no longer exists.
Since you have as yet to define capitalism, I'll let Merriam-Webster do it for you.
Main Entry: cap?i?tal?ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&l-"iz-&m, 'kap-t&l-, British also k&-'pi-t&l-
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Slaves, by this definition, can clearly be part of a capitalist system, if they are viewed as capital goods.
but people are NOT goods, no matter what people might think. but machines/capital goods are always machines/capital goods, regardless of what people may claim
the confederacy also does not exist. so is sumaria capitalist?
Why aren't people goods? They have traditionally been viewed as goods after all; in fact, the notion of slavery as being immoral or unnatural is a decidedly recent phenomenon. So, why aren't people goods?
You know my answer as to whether the Confederacy was capitalistic; partly because I've stated the answer several times. I am not a scholar of ancient Sumeria, so I cannot tell you if that society was capitalistic or not, though given what I know of the traditional state monopolies of that region, I would say that it was not capitalistic. But that has nothing to do with whether Sumerians had slaves, and more to do with who owns the capital goods, who makes decisions on investment, etc.
well here is a history lesson: slaves were privately held in sumaria. does this mean it was capitalist?
BTW, anonymous, the phrase is "so was Sumeria capitalist," not "so is Sumeria capitalist." I thought you might get a gentle hint from my statement concerning the current non-existance of Sumeria.
The existance of slaves doesn't preclude the existance of capitalism, no. But then again, I've already answered your question regarding Sumeria, so I'm not quite sure why you are asking it again. Now you answer my question - why can't people be goods?
Here is one for the peanut gallery: If slaves were a capital good, did they provide a rate of return greater than labor alone?
The answer is nonsensical, as slaves really only produce labor.
Econ 101,
Slaves also produce more slaves through reproduction; the US was one of the few slave-holding states in the Western Hemisphere which had a positive increase of its slave population based on procreation alone.
But slaves do not improve the productivity of sexual intercourse. A freeman and slave expend the same amount of labor.
CAPITAL: One of the four basic categories of resources, or factors of production. It includes the manufactured (or previously produced) resources used to manufacture or produce other things. Common examples of capital are the factories, buildings, trucks, tools, machinery, and equipment used by businesses in their productive pursuits. Capital's primary role in the economy is to improve the productivity of labor as it transforms the natural resources of land into wants-and-needs-satisfying goods.
http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/gls.pl?fcd=dsp&key=capital
Econ. 101,
"Capital's primary role in the economy is to improve the productivity of labor as it transforms the natural resources of land into wants-and-needs-satisfying goods."
And slaves do improve the productivity of their master's labor; just as an oxen does.
Econ 101, etc.
Thanks for the debate. Have a nice evening. 🙂
states such as indiana were just as racist
It goes both ways. At times Lincoln used the abolition of slavery as an excuse for the invasion of the confederacy.
Whatever else may be said of Thurmond's record, he had two positive traits which should endear him to the libertarian-minded, and for which, I believe, he was so repeatedly re-elected.
1) He never, in all his years in congress, spearheaded major new legislation.
2) He was unquestionably one of the best people in all of Congress in terms of constituent service -- helping people get passports, cut through government red tape, and in general get things done despite the federal bureaucracy.
His attention was always, throughout all his years in office, fundamentally on his individual constituents. And that's something worth lauding. Thurmond did a lot of stupid things, and he did a lot of reprehensible things, but his fundamental attitude towards government, and what he saw as his job, was always in the right place.
"i think that slavery is anti-capitalist by definition. to say otherwise is ignoring the fact that the labor market was artificial"
How was the labor market artificial? Slaves were bought and sold according to what the market would bear; there was very little to no regulation of this market and prices fluctuated with demand. Also, the internal slave trade was highly profitable and intricate in its design for a 19th century commodity market - which is why over a million slaves could be "sold down river" in the 19th century as the plantation system expanded westward.
"had nothing to do with reality in the normal state of things, providing a disincentive to change, hence one of the reasosn the norht was always more industrialised than the south- because it was not really racially segregated."
Actually, the reason that agriculture was more important in the ante-bellum South was because it was so profitable. People rationally opted to go into agriculture because they could make boatloads of money at it. And there was plenty of change in the ante-bellum South; planters and would-planters were always looking for some newer variety of cotton crop, etc. by which to increase production and profits. Now, admittedly this system ignored the desires (for the most part) of the slaves, but you will find that the the North and South mirrored each other as far as attitudes concerning the making of money and the like are concerned, and that Southern planters were just as capitalistic in mind-set as their Northern industrialist cousins.
"Southern planters were just as capitalistic in mind-set as their Northern industrialist cousins."
except they were anti-freetrade, as they knew that the industrial north would run their little utopia into the ground economically
"Southern planters were just as capitalistic in mind-set as their Northern industrialist cousins."
except they were anti-freetrade, as they knew that the industrial north would run their little utopia into the ground economically
"little to no regulation"
except you could beat the shit out of your labor and they had no choice on where they could work
and how is using slave labor to pick shit "capitalistic"? perhaps you should use websters and look up "capital"
"except they were anti-freetrade, as they knew that the industrial north would run their little utopia into the ground economically"
Actually, you've got that wrong. The backers of higher tarriffs were almost invariably the Northern industrialists; in fact, high tarriffs was always a bone of contention between the North and South. Its interesting to note that in the wake of seccession, that one of the first acts of legislation passed by remaining rump of the Congress was to increase tarriffs to the levels that had been desired by Northern states for decades.
"except you could beat the shit out of your labor and they had no choice on where they could work"
Labor "discipline" by the rod was not uncommon North or South.
"and how is using slave labor to pick shit 'capitalistic'? perhaps you should use websters and look up 'capital'"
The same way using "free labor" was; Southern planters were moved by the same profit motives as their Northern counterparts, and moved by similar rationalizing principles as well.
sumaria was capitalist, think about it: they had money, slaves, etc
This may sound pedantic, but Rommel tried to kill Hitler, Croesus.
Not all capitalism is liberal. It is entirely possible to have a capitalist system in which individuals' rights are not respected, or in which different types of people do not have equality before the law. Southern slaveholders were among the strongest advocates of property rights this nation has ever seen.
The close relationship between slaveowning and support for libertarian causes like low taxes, property rights and weak central government should be a cautionary tale for the $=freedom crowd.