From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: A fresh start. Negroes need not apply
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:45:29 GMT

KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes:

>Let me begin by defining two extreme positions that could be taken in the
>debate.

These positions are certainly extremely exclusive of the views of Africans,
that's for sure.:)

>Pro-Union:  The United States is, and always was, "one nation, INDIVISIBLE, 

>Pro-Secessionist:  By 1860 the people of the south had become a separate

Let's add a third position, shall we? Call it, say, the pro-African position.
The United States is a country built on a murderous and exploitative basis.
Slavery is a holocaust-like institution that endured for centuries in a putative
democracy. Both the USA and the CSA were morally bankrupt and discussion of the
legitimacy of the CSA is roughly comparable to discussions of angels dancing
on the head of a pin.

>As a Northerner myself, I feel it's unsafe for me to comment on the extreme
>pro-Secessionist position, but I will point out that there is a paradox in the
>extreme pro-Union position. If indeed North and South are properly one country,
>and Northerners and Southerners are countrymen, then it should be possible for
>a Northerner to share, if not sympathy for, at least an understanding of the
>opinions and motivations of the hundreds of thousand of non-slave-holding
>Southerners who fought for the Confederacy (and their modern-day descendants).
>Failure of pro-Unionists to concede even the plausibility of Southern arguments
>is essentially as divisive as a Southerner waving the Confederate Jack.

That last sentence is classic. I suppose that refusing to concede the
plausibility of Hitler's arguments is also divisive?

Yes,Northern whites do share the motivations and opinions of white Southerners.A
reading of the Autobiography of Malcolm X and his lucid description of his
youth in Nebraska, Boston and NYC is instructive. And I've noted recent New York
Times articles on the fact that housing and economic segregation are
now stronger in the northeast and midwest than the south.

>3) The issues that separated the people of North and South in 1860 were
>inescapably related to the enslavement of black people in the South. This
>institution has been abolished for over 125 years, and the intervening years
>our common experience has bound North and South back together, not just
>legally, but in spirit as well.

Yeah, as the LA riots illustrate. I predict that the US will erupt in a race 
war by the middle of the next century. It is a war that has been incipient in
this country for centuries.

>* Both sides fought for democratic and republican principles ATSI.
>* Both sides fought for rights and liberties ATSI.
>* Both sides fought to preserve the status quo ATSI.
>* Both sides fought to defend their nation ATSI.
>* Both sides fought for the principles of the American founding fathers ATSI.
>* Both sides fought against despotic and illegal actions by governmental 
>officials ATSI.

White southerners sought to annihilate the prospect of economic
competition from newly freed blacks. Simple greed was their motivation, along
with a heavy dose of racist ideology.

>5) With the exception of the blacks themselves and a few whites, both sides can
>be criticised (from a modern perspective) for holding to racist beliefs.

They could also be criticised from a contemporary perspective. They had the
intellectual apparatus to apprehend the viciousness and savagery of their
beliefs. Many whites in fact repudiated slavery. However, most resorted to
ethics of convenience, or none at all.

>6) The Civil War proved to be vastly more violent than anyone expected at the
>time. This has given us a cautionary example of the dangers of immoderate
>actions by government leaders.

One which has been generally ignored, unfortunately. I see nothing to prevent a
Yugoslavia-like scenario in the US in the middle to late 21st century. In fact,
the LA riots may prove to be a harbinger of an even more rapid societal break-
down than I've expected.

>It is entirely possible that this newsgroup will break out in a flame war
>between those who will accept only one of the two extreme positions that were
>outlined above. Such a flame war could easily last as long as the original. 
>If that happens, I for one refuse to enlist for the duration.

Aww, you're no fun. The party's just beginning.:)

>* Discussions and recommendations of books on the war. According to my sources, 
>more books have been written on the Civil War than all other subjects from
>American History combined.

This is curious, considering how ignored the institution of slavery itself is!

>* Discussion of how the American Civil War, and the issues involved, relate to
>current events, like the break-up of the USSR and Yugoslavia, Bush stacking the
>Supreme Court, or anti-abortion/anti-slavery analogies. It seems to me that the
>Civil War has suddenly become more relevant, and at the same time modern events
>have put the Civil War into a new perspective. 

I would add to that discussion of the probability of a yet another civil war
in the US, this time along racial lines.

>* Possibly even some "what if" speculation. "What if Private Bartow hadn't found
>a copy of Lee's marching orders before the battle of Antietam?" "What if Grant
>had been shot at Shiloh instead of Albert Sidney Johnston?"  "What if Douglas
>had been elected?" etc.

You mean Douglass? After all, he *was* the most brilliant mind of his era.

>Those are my ideas. Flame me if you will, but I'm leaving the country for awhile
>so it won't hurt.

You can run but you can't hide!

Actually, I appreciate your efforts to keep discussions on a even keel.
Good luck!:)
Jones
-- 
Jones M Murphy Jr                                        (212) 602-4375
NatWest Investment Bancorp, National Westminster Bank PLC
100 Wall Street, New York, NY10005                   FAX (212) 269-0113
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa