The Confederacy Still Lingers Within The Progressivism That Birthed It

[Chris]

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. Not sure our progressives can stomach any association with Calhoun! lol

I will read the piece before making further comment.

Probably not, they will ignore.

But who inherited the South after the Civil War but racist Democrats, and held onto it into resistance against Civil Rights and past. It was only then the Republican state's rightists won the vote from the old regime.

[Mister D]

Probably not, they will ignore.

But who inherited the South after the Civil War but racist Democrats, and held onto it into resistance against Civil Rights and past. It was only then the Republican state's rightists won the vote from the old regime.

That's true. The so called Southern Strategy has reached mythical proportions among progressives. It sometimes prevents them from understanding political and historical reality.

[Captain Obvious]

The Confederacy spent nearly its entire albeit short existence at war. I don't think it's reasonable to point to the measures it took to ensure its survival as characteristic of how a recognized Confederacy would have functioned.

Agreed, I was thinking the same thing.

Where on the spectrum they would have wound up is really a guess.

[Mister D]

Agreed, I was thinking the same thing.

Where on the spectrum they would have wound up is really a guess.

If anything should demonstrate the fact that the antebellum south was not a "capitalist" society it is the absence of a free labor market or, any any rate, a free labor market of any sequence.

[Chris]

Agreed, I was thinking the same thing.

Where on the spectrum they would have wound up is really a guess.

It's kind of fun, though, to takes a few historical facts, tie them to other facts, and speculate.

[Chris]

The problem with the OP thesis is that the Progressive Era is generally held to have begun in the 1890s. While Calhoun, I think, saw central government as a means to preserve an old order, modern progressives see it as a means to reform the social order.

[Newpublius]

The problem with the OP thesis is that the Progressive Era is generally held to have begun in the 1890s. While Calhoun, I think, saw central government as a means to preserve an old order, modern progressives see it as a means to reform the social order.

Plus the founding era forbears can be gleaned in much more prominent FEDERALISTS, and while Calhoun was at one point a Federalist, he's better known for his states's rights positions.

[Chris]

Plus the founding era forbears can be gleaned in much more prominent FEDERALISTS, and while Calhoun was at one point a Federalist, he's better known for his states's rights positions.

I don't really see the pre-war issue as state's rights though. It was more a majoritarian power struggle between free and slave states.

[Chris]

Here's a reassessment of Calhoun, Misunderstanding John C. Calhoun’s Federalism:

John C. Calhoun’s historical legacy is typically based around his distasteful and repellent view of American slavery as a positive good. And men of good will, no matter their political viewpoints, can agree that such a view is at odds with the historical understanding of the Imago Dei. Calhoun threw off his orthodox Christian upbringing and embraced Unitarianism during his time in New England. There he also began to imbibe the romantic notion of nationalism. He supported a standing army, and internal improvements to assist commerce. But by 1828, Calhoun learned the dangers of majoritarian nationalism, and turned violently towards protecting the voices of the states with his famous Exposition of 1828. Termed Nullification by opponents and supporters alike, Calhoun’s theory was not as radical as later historians and contemporary critics have portrayed.

While some Nullification enthusiasts later supported secession, Calhoun’s exposition never explicitly countenanced disunion. Instead, the document held itself up as a mirror to the American constitutional system. As the federal Congress pilfered powers not granted to it during the aftermath of the War of 1812, twenty-four voices increasingly became subsumed into one federal voice, squeezing out local voices and becoming increasingly less representative. The Exposition argued that a state’s voice should be heard until congressional legislation was definitely proven to be constitutional or not by confirmation in state legislatures. If the legislation was constitutional, the state would abide. If not, a constitutional convention would be required to bring legislation into law. Although a slower process than constantly legislating by congressional fiat, it was more lawful, and consistent with a truly representative federalism. Far from feeding disunion, Calhoun understood that a more perfect Union listened to the representative voices of the states, rather than the despotic voice of the “nation” represented in the federal Congress.