Tag Archives: Civil War

John Brown

John Brown was an anti-slavery activist born in Connecticut and who went to war with Kansas and South Carolina over slavery. His actions started the Civil War (white supremacists argue). White supremacists also argue that white people died and freed the slaves so there’s no need for reparations. I think the “lionizing” of John Brown as an “antiracist” martyr is part of white liberal racist logic of the latter, erasing the agency of blacks.  When Black and white antiracist thinkers appeal to John Brown, it  sounds good on the surface, but just how effective has it been?  Why does it take Black death for a few whites here and there to declare themselves allies and not white institutions wholesale?


White supremacy and antiBlackness would endure without the presence of White people, as we see with the example of the progressive society in Cuba under Fidel Castro. Black male leaders from the Black Panthers in the 1970’s wrote of the racist reasons why they were denied political asylum there.


“Critics of Cuba have pointed to the paradox of Cuba’s African policy: while Cuba has a progressive foreign policy on race, at home Afro-Cubans have often been at odds with the Communist party’s failure to reflect the full range of Cuba’s racial diversity in its leadership structures or to fully address race politics.

Castro’s regime did achieve more for Afro-Cubans in 50 years than previous administrations had in the last 400 years. But as the Council on Hemispheric Affairs concludes, Castro’s policies “only addressed issues of unequal access without changing structural biases underlying society”. And it added, with the new wave of economic changes affecting the country, “race and racism are once again becoming important issues in Cuba” (The Guardian.)

Racialized capitalism with its multicultural neoliberalism and diverse corporate boardrooms will not do; and neither will racialized democratic socialism with its foundation of xenophobia and its sexist understanding of the division of labor.  Blacks are not in need of  a white Suffering Servant, not John Brown, Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton; all three influential allies lionized by the media for speaking out against the worst elements of blatant white supremacy. Black people need accomplices willing to follow their lead in the struggle against structural racism. Accomplices who do not want a pat on the back, facebook likes or retweets because they are just being decent human beings by opposing things like the KKK.  Accomplices who do not wish to gain votes in an already rigged, white supremacist electoral system built to protect a select class of white citizens who enslaved Black women and men. Accomplices who have no desire to create a platform off of the intellectual and physical labor of generations of Black people. Is this impossible? “Indeed it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Can anyone be saved from the sin of White supremacy and antiBlackness? “What is impossible for mortals is possible for God.” (inspired by Luke 18:25-27)


(Photograph found on facebook and twitter.  It is a picture of a black, red, and green flag with the likeness of a white man with a beard raising a gun with his right hand. The banner reads in white letters, ” John Brown” with LIVES in green letters. There is then underneath those words the red A anarchy symbol with the word “Smash” in white letters,and then underneath that, White Supremacy in green letters.” Photo taken by @brdngresistance) 


Faith, Folktales, and Abraham Lincoln's Panama Plan

Cover of "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter...

Cover of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

The Emancipatory Power of Political Mythologies

Today, I want to talk about religion and how myth drives politics in many instances, and how it can be helpful and freeing rather than oppressive. Now, on the oppressive side, as I blogged about multiple times last month, the myth of “the Northern Aggression” against in the Southern States during the Civil War. On no level in the African American communities is there anyone, perhaps maybe Martin Luther King Jr., who is idolized as much as General Lee and other persons of the Lost Cause. While MLK Jr. impacted history in a positive way, and people use historical facts to make that point (over and over again), the heroes of the Lost Cause have none of the like, and their proponents like Christianity Today’s Douglas Wilson, a so-called Paleo-Confederate, will purposefully look over the facts and lie to spread his racist propaganda.

The inverse of this myth-making took place during the Civil War and after Emancipation. In order to combat racist cultural myths purported by white supremacy, enslaved and freed blacks made their own folktales about Abraham Lincoln before there was ever such thing as Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. Lawrence W. Levine, in his Black Culture and Black Consciousness, noted that the slaves created cultural memories such as Abraham Lincoln preaching to them about the brotherhood/sisterhood of humanity, and that Lincoln would come in disguise to visit the oppressed enslaved Africans (Chapter 2: The Meaning of Slave Tales). Lincoln joined the pantheon of heroes in African American culture, like Daniel, Moses, and Jesus were: “Lincoln died for we, Jesus died for we” (Chapter 3: Freedom Culture, and Religion). Now, of course, the historical Abraham Lincoln believed that the integration of the races meant instability. No need to sugarcoat these facts, but what matters is this, on the issue of being the nation’s moral leader and Commander-In-Chief in the war that meant the freedom of black bodies and souls from human oppression, he was on the right side.

Lincoln had racist views, and probably did not believe that racial reconciliation was possible. However, liberation must come before reconciliation, freedom before unity. How can you be reconciled to the person you have put into bondage? As Christians, we are just beginning to realize (tragically and joyfully), the reconciling power of the Cross, the eschatological vision of Revelation and Isaiah, of the nations coming together to worship YHWH, and his Temple, the Christ Crucified. Lincoln was an instrument, according to the folktales of enslaved Africans, of divine providence, and NOT the slave-holders. God is omni-benevolent and God’s goodness cannot be separated from God’s providential plans. Human freedom and sinfulness can try to interfere, but God’s goodness (we see in the Resurrection) overcomes all evil. Believers in the Lost Cause and neo-apologists of slavery, in contrast, continue to believe that the plantation owners were somehow “providential” in the end, but that’s only because of their belief in an evil, tyrannical god.

So, when I see posts like Lincoln’s Panama Plan, his failed proposal to send FREED blacks to Panama, rehashing Lincoln’s segregationist tendencies, I don’t flinch or make excuses. I simply ask, “What’s the point in telling us what we already know?” Also, it’s not like Lincoln didn’t have historical precedent. Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine and Liberia? Lincoln (as a Christian) is guilty of not having enough faith in the reconciling power of the Cross. Tell me what Christian hasn’t done so? Lincoln has no excuses, there were brilliant abolitionist intellectuals who believed in the integration of the races. What did matter, in the mind of the liberating political mythology of the mid-19th century black community, was that Abraham Lincoln’s war to “save the union” meant the redemption of black bodies. I have chosen to respect, in part, this political mythology, to combat racist Lost Cause stories and the politics of the Southern Strategy. That is my personal choice.

Liberation first, reconciliation later.

Also, how come blacks can’t believe “Lincoln freed the slaves” but white conservatives can believe that Ronald Reagan turned diarrhea into gold?

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Economy of Jesus: The Constitution of the Confederacy & the 1990s

Statue of Jefferson Davis

Image by J. Stephen Conn via Flickr

Earlier this week, Joel Watts and I talked via cell phone about the Civil War. I had just watched a curious documentary on Jefferson Davis on PBS and I had a lot of questions.

Let me just say that first off I have had a lot of heated debates on facebook over the legacy of the Confederate States. As an African-American, it’s obvious to me and a lot of persons in the Black community that African enslavement was THE issue in spite of the political rhetoric of the day (the Union claims it was about unity, the CSA claims it was about states rights). But these answers beg the question, what exactly divided the Union in the first place? Did it have something to do with a multitude of compromises that had been made since the Republic’s inception about the destiny of black bodies? And states rights, 10th Amendment, yes, but the state’s right to do what? To protect the “property” aka the idea of a human being owning another human being, no matter the race.

Yes, so Abraham Lincoln was a racist. Question: in those days, who wasn’t? Yes, Abraham Lincoln unconstitutionally took away the writ of habeas corpus. Not going to defend him on that either. But I refuse to examine Lincoln’s presidency in a gaze that prioritizes the injustices done by the North during Reconstruction. As historian point out, Lincoln was far more conciliatory than Andrew Johnson his Vice President or the Radical Republicans in Congress. That government wanted retribution, but just like the retribution in the Treaty of Versaille less than a century later, those efforts would come back to haunt the descendants of enslaved Africans during Jim & Jane Crow.

A quick look at the Constitution of the Confederate States shows the economic priorities of that illegal national entity.



“invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God”

With a few words changed from the U.S. Constitution preamble, this phrase sticks out the most. In the hope of g*d’s grace and providence, the Confederates established a political body they saw as part of the divine will.

Article I: The Legislative Branch

Basically few differences here, in terms of the election of Congressmen and Senators. Electoral colleges from state legislatures chose the 2 Senators.

Section 7, Line 2:

“The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill.”

In 1996, a Republican Congress gave President Bill Clinton, by law, the line veto through the LINE VETO ACT of 1996. It was seen as a way to curtail Congressional spending power, but the Supreme Court rightfully declared the law unconstitutional in June of 1998 in a 6-3 decision (Clinton v. City of New York). George W. Bush tried to push the power through again in 2006 but it failed to even come up for a vote in both houses.

Section 8, line 4:

“To establish uniform laws of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the Confederate States”

Sorry, Tea Party, but even in the CSA, the national government had the right to determine the process of citizenship.

Section 8, line 7: “To establish post offices and post routes; but the expenses of the Post Office Department, after the 1st day of March in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixty-three, shall be paid out of its own revenues.”

As Joel noted, this was the first national postal service held started in the country’s border. It was first dependent upon the government, but then the plan was to later, in 1863 have it privatized. Pattern sound familiar?

Section 8, line 8: “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

The progress of science? Wow! But it was more about property rights at that time.

Section 9, Line 1:
“The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.”

And there you have it, Exhibit A what states’ rights was about– enslavers could only move Negro slaves within the borders of the country, even those from the North. So it recognizes that the North still had slaves (duh, everyone knows that), but it also officially sees black bodies as the property of others. It does not mention the whites who were slaves or indentured servants.

Section 9, line 2:

“Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.”

Self-explanatory, but the Confederacy again, seeing this part of Article one as “limiting” the national government’s power.

S9, L3:

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Why, what type of rebellion would the CSA be concerned about? Nat Turner still around? At the same time, libertarians who detest Abraham Lincoln cannot have a double standard for the Confederate States, because they were just as willing to take away our civil liberties in the name of an “emergencies”; so you can forget the moral high ground on that argument.


S9, L4:

“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

Negro slaves = property to be protected. First 4 lines of the “limits” of the national government have to do with what? Okay. We see the pattern here.

S9, L7:

“No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another”

Well, this actually is a good idea. To work towards an impartial government in economic affairs, you know, like not giving out waivers for Obamacare? This is not to say that the Confederacy had a free market, for it was far from it; if you have a constitution dedicated to protecting one industry (agriculture ala African enslavement), that is crony capitalism, favoring your friends and suppressing change as well as the work of the “invisible hand.”

Article Two: The Executive Branch:

Section 1, line 1:

” The executive power shall be vested in a President of the Confederate States of America. He and the Vice President shall hold their offices for the term of six years; but the President shall not be reeligible. The President and Vice President shall be elected as follows”

Remember in the 1990s, there were a number of political commentators calling for term limits, like Ross Perot and the Reform party? Well, the CSA had them. At least for the executive.

S1, L3:

“they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice President, and of the number of votes for each”

The President and the Vice President were on separate ballots, like the first decades of the Republic. That way, there could be a President from one party, and the vice president from another, a way of limiting government.

Article 3: The Judiciary

Not much difference from the Union.

Article 4: The States

Article 4 is like an expanded version of the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment, the states’ rights.

Section 2, Line 3:

“No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.”

For the CSA, states’ rights meant preserving the rights of slave owners.

Section 3, Line 3:

“The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”

The CSA had just as much plans at imperial expansion as the Union did, to add more slave states for commerce no doubt.

As a child of the late 80s and early 90s, it is quite easy to see that ideas are passed down through the centuries. The Confederacy, though it was an illegal and illegitimate political body, had almost a proto-Parliamentarian system, since the President was just a figure head. The economy of the Confederacy was founded upon Adam Smith’s notion of private property rights, with the states protecting the producers of commerce only to the detriment of laborers. However, The CSA’s constitution and political structure proves that a multi-party democracy with a weak, non-imperial executive is possible, as I have argued for in The Terrible Two Party System. The fate of the Confederacy also proves that states’ rights is a self-defeating idea in a republic; just ask the city of Atlanta about General Sherman’s easy path through the Carolinas.

Truth and Peace,

Enhanced by Zemanta