For readers' convenience, I've created an index of the Kevin letters so you can see the full progress of the dialogue
Kevin:
Thanks for dropping in again to comment. It seems that I didn't make my point clear in that post.
I think you read me as implying that the states that went for Bush did so because they were tainted by the evil legacy of slavery, which I agree would have been an arrogant claim. But my post was motivated by me wanting to refute that reading of the maps, which is why it centered around the Mark Kleiman piece that I quoted.
Kleiman observes that when Americans uncomfortable with liberalism assert that liberals are quick to use the government to impose their moral principles on other people, they are right, as demonstrated by how in the 1960s liberals dismantled Jim Crow. Most liberals have a hard time seeing this because they think of conservatives as the only ones who are quick to impose moral principles through government. (Abortion, sodomy laws, drug laws, censorship, et cetera.) I connected that to the maps which show a strong correlation between slave states and states which awarded their electoral votes to Bush, the Republican candidate, in the ’04 election: they are states which experienced a particularly vigorous imposition of liberal moral principles in the aftermath of the Civil War. Thus many folks in those states have a hard time trusting liberals to leave them alone.
But I have to say that if my guess is right that you read me as claiming that the evil taint of slavery remained in the former slave states and territories then I am astonished by your response. There are so many pointed ways that you could have responded to that claim.
Had you said, “you lefties are always trying to blame the South for the sins of the past,” I'd have apologized for having inadvertantly implied that; we should live for the present, first. Had you said “if there's some evil lurking in the soil where I live because of the slavery of 150 years ago, then I'm sure there's evil in the soil where you live because of the endless massacres of Native Americans at that same time,” I'd have admitted that the South has no special monopoly on evil, nor does my beloved lefty town of San Francisco have any special claim to virtue. Had you said, “you lefties are always talking about the racism in the South when you should be cleaning up the racism in your own backyard,” I'd have said amen brother, because the left is and the left should.
But no, you leapt to the defense of slavery!
I think that it is the pinnacle of arrogance to claim moral superiority in the area of slavery. The north used people in their factories to produced goods. Those people were practically owned by the factory owners. They could not leave their jobs, they were in debt.
[emphasis mine]
I'm sorry, Kevin, but I think that in the area of slavery there's a lot of moral superiority to claim. Yes, the factory workers of the 19th century North were often trapped by their debts, as were many of the workers of the West. But they were not considered anyone's private property. They had no "owners" who could beat them, murder them, sell the members of their families away from them at will. Yes, I know that most slaves of the South were not treated nearly so badly as that, but some were, and all slaves lived with the threat that these things were permitted ... even protected ... by law.
It is absurd to say that the wage slavery of the North was indistinguishable from the slavery of the South. In the North there was injustice, there were people deprived of essential liberties, there was racism which was arguably worse in some ways than in the South. But in the area of slavery, as you say, I don't think there's any arrogance at all in saying the South had a unique moral problem.
I dearly hope that I am somehow misreading what seem to be some very strange moral arguments I hear you making. Workers deprived of some important liberties by their debts are not equivalent to slaves deprived of their most basic liberties by the law of the land. Obnoxious Brits writing letters are not equivalent to Al Qaeada terrorists. And terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda Saudis certainly do not justify the torture at Abu Graib in Iraq.
Tell me that you are not a defender of torture and slavery. Tell me that you don't think that writing rude letters marks lefty Brits as terrorists in need of being killed.
Please, Kevin. Please.