Patriots
When I lived in Arlington, Virginia and saw things like the Jefferson Davis Highway, I often wondered why people who consider themselves patriotic would celebrate the Confederacy, which was, after all, an act of mass treason against our nation’s government. Now I have new fodder for this conundrum. From TPM:
A new Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll finds that Rick Perry’s suggestion at the Tea Party last week, that Texas might have to secede from the Union, actually has significant support from his home state’s Republican voters.One question: “Do you think Texas would be better off as an independent nation or as part of the United States of America?” The top-line number is United States 61%, independent nation 35%. Among Republicans, it’s a dead-even tie at 48%-48%.
And then there’s this one: “Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Rick Perry’s suggestion that Texas may need to leave the United States?” The top-line is only 37% approval to 58% disapproval — but among Texas Republicans, it’s 51% approval to 44% disapproval.
President Chuck Norris (of the Texas Republic), here we come!
Obama may get to be more like Lincoln than he ever imagined.
As a Canadian who grew up in the era of the Quebec sovereigntist movement, I have never understood the American notion that your union is indivisible. The complex history of the Confederate secession and the Civil War helps to explain why the US might wish to assert its indivisibility, however this seems to be at odds with a basic democratic principle that peoples have a right to self-determination. Canada and the US have different approaches to what you call “states rights”. It seems to me that if a state is sovereign, then it’s people have the right to self-determination. Some time ago, Canada accepted that a province has the right to secede from our confederation. This has been strengthened by the recognition of the Quebecois as a “nation”. In your context, it seems logical that Republicans who highly value states rights would therefore also imagine that secession is a viable option.
Of course, Texas is not the first to mention the possibility. A few years ago, Hawaii was in the news. And there has been a long simmering discussion about a Pacific Northwest bringing together Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia.
Thanks for the interesting comment, Nick. The appropriate boundary of “peoplehood” is certainly a difficult question in political theory. 2 things, though. (1) I think it’s pretty uncontroversial to assert that Americans’ *primary* political self-identification at this point is with the national government, not with their states (even in Texas). Obviously, this was not always the case, but it is now. And this is certainly the form in which virtually all normal expressions of patriotism in the United States are expressed. (2) Your use of the word “indivisible” reminds me of another irony. You have to admit that it’s at least *a little* funny that the very people who would be mostly likely to freak out about a court getting rid of the “under God” bit in the Pledge of Allegiance would approve of someone who soft-pedals the “indivisible” part of it.
What an interesting discussion! As a general thing, I fear that the ties that bind us at all levels of society are much weaker. For many people, I don’t think it’s self-evident that they should belong to anything larger than themselves and the little world they’ve constructed for themselves.
FWIW, Robert E. Lee was featured on a stamp in 1955, and again in 1995 when 20 commemorative Civil War stamps were issued by the USPS. The series depicted figures on both sides of the conflict, including Jefferson Davis.
My knee-jerk Yankee reaction was outrage.
Which, I suppose shows that there remain deep cultural divides (driven by immigration patterns, history, geography and climate) between North and South–and East, West and Midwest.
I’ve often wondered what the U.S. role on the world stage would be if the nation were allowed to fragment into a kind of commonwealth of nations, each autonomous, but with relaxed travel and trade laws, and perhaps a NATO-like military arrangement..
It would be, I think, much harder for the United States to wield the influence it does around the world, for good or ill.
Within a former United States separated into autonomous regions, I’d probably be living in Upper Rust-Beltia, where the mines have played out and the most viable businesses are livestock and tourism. Which makes moving back to the ancestral home in Wales look pretty good, though I don’t speak the Llan Llingo.
Perhaps their defence of the “under God” clause does not come from a desire to defend the Pledge itself, but rather from an understanding of the US as having a divine mission. Their conception of the nature of a political state is not secular, and thus they perceive the removal of this clause as limiting the Christian character of society.
Re your point 1: while this is certainly true, it is not really one or the other. Even if the national identity is primary for most, the state identity clearly has a strong pull. I imagine that for each person the relative weight will depend on the issue and the circumstances. Ask anyone on July 4th, you will get a different answer than on another day.
Since the national identity is primary, I suspect that any serious campaign for secession would be doomed, even if there were not political and legal obstacles. It is therefore safer for an American state politician to play this game than it would be for a Canadian, Belgian, or Spaniard. You’re not really fuelling a fire that might get out of control.
To bring the dispute down to my local level, I wonder if Texas knows that Vermont has been threatening secession for years, and the secessionist movement actually publishes a paper (for which I once wrote an article, though it had nothing to do with leaving the union. But even before Texas was a gleam in the American eagle’s eye, Vermont was independent, not joining the Union until 1791 as the 14th state.
A couple of years ago, in fact, a political scientist and a politician created a stir by touring the state, holding a series of public meetings; one was pro-secession, the the anti. Then they’d ask the audience to vote; secession always won. So finally the two debaters switched their positions, the pro becoming anti, and the anti pro. It made no difference: secession always won.
If we seceded, would we join Quebec?
As a Texas (born and bred), allow me to try to tread softly in this discussion (also, one who had great-great grandfathers who fought on both sides – Vicksburg).
One – Governor Perry actually does NOT know his Texas history or constitution. When Texas allowed the United States to join them and keep their name (that is a joke, you guys), the Texas constitution reserved the right of the state to divide into five different states. This provision was inserted during the 19th slavery debates and compromises so that if the US Congress continued to add free states, Texas could offset that by dividing and adding slave states. The Texas consitituion says nothing about seceding from the US. (Minus 50 points to Governor “Big Hair!”)
Two, second wrong fact, we had a governor, Sam Houston, who was kicked out of office in 1860 because he refused to allow the state of Texas to secede. If only Perry was more like Houston. (Minus another 50 points)
Civil War – take a trip to Natchez, Mississippi. Tour the antebellum homes. During that tour and during the spring festivals, you will still hear people today talk about the “War of Northern Aggression” and the South Will Rise Again.
In fact, many US families were divided during the conflict; so, it is not really that easy in hindsight to just say – why would you honor Confederates. A minority of southerns were slave owners; they did (wrongly) believe in states rights and did believe in the right of secession. A lot of this was guided by unequal economics, overbearing union politics, abolitionists, and later after the conflict, the yankee carpetbaggers.
You need to increase your knowledge of US History from Lee’s surrender to 1875 when most southern states met the US requirements and were readmitted with full states rights. One of the best and most balanced books was published two years ago, April, 1865. The author does an excellent job of explaining how men such as Robert E. Lee conducted themselves in the surrender; asking and receiving permission to allow confederate soldiers to return to their homes with a horse/mule and a rifle so that they could farm, obtain food via hunting, etc. Lee himself retired to Richmond and did everything in his power to stop and prevent any type of continued guerilla activity which is largely why the US was able to recover from the Civil War so quickly. He was an honorable, wise, and just man. (yes, fighting for the wrong cause)
(BTW – Perry is positioning himself to run for a third term against the highly respected and popular Texas senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison. His Tea Bag/Secession ploy reached a new low even for him)
I say, let ‘em go! After they lose the US military bases and other US government agencies, and associated income that goes with all of that, they will have to charge top dollar for their oil just to stay afloat.
Good bye, good luck and (as Roy and Dale said) may the good Lord take a likin’ to ya!
Jimmy Mac – couldn’t agree more. We already have our own independent electric grid separate from the rest of the US network. I say, turn off all the pipelines and let you yankees freeze. Don’t forget – Texas is also the largest producer of cotton; right up there for coal; shrimp, fruit, meat, etc.
I live and work in northern Virginia. My office is a half block from the Jefferson Davis Highway. One of my coworkers put a bumper sticker on the bulletin board that said If at First You Don’t Secede…
When he left, I got his baseball cap that says I Helped Save Chancellorsville. He’s originally from Buffalo, but was converted by a woman from Georgia.
Btw, I’m reading a worthwhile book, The Eloquent President, which examines Lincoln’s speeches.
Didn’t know about Vermont’s secessionist tendencies, but the Upper Peninsula of Michigan has variously tried to get annexed to Wisconsin or Canada, due to constant imbroglios with Department of Natural Resources enforcement officers (affectionately known as “fish cops”) over hunting and fishing restrictions.
They’re now pretty ticked about reintroduction of wolves into the area. However, hard times in Michigan means the state has had to cut the number of fish cops and other downstate interference in the U.P., and the wolf problem is being solved by the Three S Policy the covers feral dogs and coyotes: shoot, shovel and shut up.
The extent to which some Southerners are carrying that Confederate spirit re Kathy’s testimony and Rick Perry’s comment baffles Yankees, but studies show Southern men can be pretty thin-skinned.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/149263/
Maybe they need more lacerating sleet, sub-zero winters, and more snow to shovel to channel that aggression.
Interesting Eduardo that you speak in terms of treason against the government or identification with the government.
As far as Southerners “considering themselves” patriotic – the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I live in New England and love it here, but I can tell you after spending most of my life in the military I heard 10 times more southern drawls and Texas twangs than New England Yankee or NY accents in the service.
Well, Sean, since the oath of office is to our Constitution, and since our Constitution establishes our national government (there is no “United States” without a national Constitution or a national government), the usage seems obvious, though I’m sure you’re able to read some dark and sinister significance into it.
I also noted that Eduardo expressed it in terms of “identifying with the national or state government”. When I responded, I switched to a comparison of national identity with state identity, by this I meant “identifying with the nation” or with the state. Perhaps these are not the same things, yet it seems problematic to speak of identifying with the government. To give an example, I would presume that, for a staunch Republican during the Bush years, patriotism involved a defence of the US as a national entity, not of the Bush administration itself. It can be the highest level of patriotism to critique one’s government.
Perhaps this reflects a different use of the term “government” in Canada. Here, after an election we speak about a change of government. We continue to have the same laws, constitution, and government agencies. The difference is that different people, and sometimes a different party, are governing. Thus, it would be problematic to frame patriotism as “identifying with the government”. FWIW, we also use the term “nation” differently.
“the Upper Peninsula of Michigan has variously tried to get annexed to Wisconsin or Canada, due to constant imbroglios with Department of Natural Resources enforcement officers ”
My recollection of 7th-grade Michigan History class is that, when the Northwest Territory began to distill into the present five states preparatory to their admission into the Union, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan actually was part of Wisconsin, which makes geographic sense. In addition, Michigan Territory extended a bit farther south, encompassing, in addition to the present-day Lower Peninsula, a strip of land running roughly along the southern coast of Lake Erie due west to the southern tip of Lake Michigan, encompassing approx. the northern strip of counties of present-day Ohio and Indiana. So Toledo was actually part of Michigan at one time. (At least, that’s our side of the story!)
There was a dispute over the land between Michigan and Ohio, which wanted Toledo’s port access to the Great Lakes. The two sides actually mobilized their militias who faced off from opposite sides of the Maumee River (possibly the two sides were led by Generals Bo Schembechler and Woody Hayes). I believe the US government stepped in to settle the dispute; Michigan lost Toledo but was given the UP as compensation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_War
It’s true that a lot of people in the military sound Southern. I met Raber just after he got out of the Navy, and I thought he came from down South. I was stunned to learn he was born and bred in Grand Rapids, Mich. Took him a year to lose the “military accent.”
Not alla them twangs are genu-wine.
Anyhoo, I’m sure that Sean doesn’t mean to suggest that serving in the military is the only “proof” of patriotism. Or that, conversely, serving in the military is necessarily a proof of patriotism.
Raber saw his Navy hitch partly as his duty to national service, but also as a chance to travel (and, as a navigator, he learned keen stuff about astronomy, geometry, using a sextant and cartography).
A lot of kids here in rural Michigan are signing up because it’s the only viable employer right now.
Eduardo says, “There is no United States without a national constitution or national government.”
Some folks I know say “There are no…”
Nick — I’m using the term in its sense of “system of government,” not in the sense that it’s used in a parliamentary system (which is more like “administration”). And the former is obviously the sense in which the Confederacy was disloyal and that Perry’s words imply disloyalty. I’m obviously not talking about dissent from administration policy, but secession from the union. I had thought that was pretty clear from my original post.
As for how Republicans perceived criticism of the last administration, I feel like we must have been observing different worlds during the past 8 years. I don’t have time to cull the internet for examples of criticism of the President being equated with disloyalty to the country. But I don’t remember conservative Republicans being too pleased with the Dixie Chicks.
Have a go, Bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCLz7XQOIOQ
As John McLaughlin says at the end of his show: “Bye bye, now!” I spent 6 months involuntarily seconded to Texas a few years back and wouldn’t miss it if y’all crossed the Rio Grande any time you choose.
Eduardo, I understood the sense that you meant. I simply was drawing attention to the alternatives. I also was aware that some people couldn’t distinguish between the office and the person. The Dixie Chicks became quite popular here as a result. :-)
Now let me pose a question that puzzles me: how are Catholics or other Christians to think about nation? about patriotism? about secession? Is there a distinctively Christian or Catholic perspective on these matters?
Thanks, Jimmy Mac – it is amusing and we do have our share of current embarrassments – Shrub, Rove, Enron, etc.
I grew up in the county next to Loving. Here is a YouTube adventure….just beautiful!
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1644829,00.html
You do realize that Mexico is a Texas colony and Colorado is our state park.
McLaughlin – ex-Jesuit blowhard!
Bill DeHass, thanks for the youtube of Loving. It looks a lot like the part of Texas and I was born and grew up in. I had an ancestor by the name Charles Andrew Miller who fought on the side that lost in the Civil War. I am glad his side lost and I am thankful that Robert E. Lee helped bring peace to the South. I think it is strange when carpetbaggers get nostalgic about the old South. I feel the same was way about young Catholics who miss the Latin Mass. I often go back to Texas to visit my family and friends. I always like going back.
I grew up in West Texas in the 50′s. Our local mission was a few miles from where I went
to school. This mission was founded in 1680. The name of this mission was Corpus Christi de la Isleta del Sur Tigua. In 1829 the Jesuits renamed it Misión de Nuestra Señora del Monte Carmelo or Our Lady of Mount Carmel.
http://ysletamission.org/about/
Now that we have moved a long way from the original blog intent – thanks, Mr. Miller. Beautiful church.
You might enjoy the 18th/19th century history after the church/diocese became Sante Fe rather than Monterry, Mexico. The bishop who renamed your church was Archbishop Lamy.
Two excellent books – Lamy of Sante Fe by Paul Horgan (excellent biography and history of this diocese); Death comes for the Archbishop (Willa Cather – a great read; passionate, and insightful)
Eduardo – off topic, but nice to hear someone say some positive words about Catholics -
At deSmogBlog: “When It Comes to Climate Change, Catholics Get It”
April 22nd posting.
http://www.desmogblog.com/
Reminds me of when many Catholics were out ahead of the rest of the country on issues e.g., race discrimination. I think conservatives feel that Catholics have a natural home in the conservative movement, but I think we defy political labels.
bob kelly
I’d favor the sesession of Texas, but only if they consent to building an 8-foot separation wall around the part that borders on the U.S., patrolled by marshalls, to keep out illegal alien Texans who supposedly have family on our side of the border or who seek to better their economic situation by finding work outside their homeland. Now, I know there are Texans living in other parts of the U.S., but if we demand papers, round them up and send them all back to where they came from, that would leave more high paying (and low paying) jobs for Americans, right?
Seriously, I like Texans. It would be a shame to lose them, well, to lose all of them…
Thanks, Rita….sounds like I don’t need to load my rifle in my pickup when I go get my son at Univ. of Arkansas in May.
Along similar lines, I thought last year that we could have avoided this whole economic world thing if someone had just put up a 20 foot high electric fence around the Financial District of lower Manhattan and declared it a Federal Minimum Security Prison.