Council of Conservative Citizens seems to be greatly diminished in influence

It used to be that leading politicians spoke before the Council of Conservative Citizens, (www.cofcc.org), such as former U.S. Senator Trent Lott, and many lessor officials such as state representatives and city council members, etc. The Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) would gain prestige and legitimacy from prominent and not so prominent elected officials appearing before them.

However, when there was a big expose in 1998 of elected officials involved with the CofCC, afterwards there was a sudden drop of politicians willing to appear before the CofCC. Then sometime during the 00s decade there would be mention of some elected officials, just a few in Mississippi, and their names wouldn't be mentioned. Now it seems that there aren't any elected officials at all. I might have missed or overlooked one or two, but it seems that the CofCC isn't announcing any elected officials speaking before them, or any candidates in the major two parties.

There might be still some elected officials speaking before the CofCC and the CofCC just not mentioning it. However, the number of elected officials seems to have nearly dropped to zero, if it isn't zero.

The CofCC has lost a major source of prestige of having elected officials speak to them and solicit their support. An elected official now would no more want the CofCC's endorsement than that of the Westboro Baptist Church. Any political effort would be discredited if it was known that the CofCC was part of it.

They are still in existence and seem to be still active, but with little political influence. It seems to be little more than a club where the members can rage about race and the future.

Of course that is how it looks at the present. In the future, things might change.

Daily Show segment on Texas secession. Lincoln compared to Hitler by Texas secessionist

The Daily Show did a segment on Texas secessionists. D Magazine in Dallas had a blog on it.

http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2013/02/22/the-daily-show-tackles-texas-secession/

What is interesting is that it exposed a lot of people to the idea that secessionists consider Lincoln a villain and compare him to Adolph Hitler.

So far secession and secessionists are a subject for laughs.

Emory University President calls 3/5th compromise over slavery honorable UPDATE: Emory president gives a NON-apology apology, greatly expanded media coverage of the story.

David Daley, editor at Salon, seems to have broke the story first, of Emory University president James Wagner's column in the university's magazine in which Wagner praised the 3/5ths compromise regarding slavery as a great example of pragmatism. Daley comments:

So under Wagner’s formulation, one of the basest and demeaning political deals of American history, if not the basest, is an example of working toward a “highest aspiration.” Counting slaves as three-fifths of a person becomes an example of American politicians setting their sights high!

The article is online here: 

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/16/emory_president_holds_up_three_fifths_compromise_as_noble_honorable/

James Wagner's article is here: 

http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_MAGAZINE/issues/2013/winter/register/president.html

Read it quickly, it might be pulled off the web.

The story so far has been picked up by Gawker and Raw Story.

Emory University is where Donald Livingston, former head of the League of the South Institute, and currently head of the Abbeville Institute is a professor. 

Consider this comment by Col. George Mason in the debate over slavery and the constitution at the Constitutional Convention. 

Col. George Mason [VA]. This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British merchants. The British government constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the importing states alone, but the whole Union. The evil of having slaves was experienced during the late war. Had slaves been treated as they might have been by the enemy, they would have proved dangerous instruments in their hands. But their folly dealt by the slaves as it did by the tories. He mentioned the dangerous insurrections of the slaves in Greece and Sicily; and the instructions given by Cromwell, to the commissioners sent to Virginia, to arm the servants and slaves, in case other means of obtaining its submission should fail. Maryland and Virginia, he said, had already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly. North Carolina had done the same in substance. All this would be in vain, if South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to import. The western people are already calling out for slaves for their new lands, and will fill that country with slaves, if they can be got through South Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the emigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a county. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities. He lamented that some of our eastern brethren had, from a lust of gain, embarked in this nefarious traffic. As to the state being in possession of the right to import, this was the case with many other rights, now to be properly given up. He held it essential, in every point of view, that the general government should have power to prevent the increase of slavery.

Emphasis added. 

The coming of the Civil War with its horrific casualties makes Col. George Evans truly prescient. To give an idea of how horrific it was, when the percentage loss of life during the Civil War is applied to the present day population of America the casualties are calculated to be 7,000,000 persons.

The compromise over slavery was, as Col. George Evans feared it might be, a great national calamity. 

The entire debate over slavery at the Constitutional Convention can be read here. 

http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100:debate-over-slavery-at-the-constitutional-convention-august-21-22-1787-&catid=41:the-gathering-storm

UPDATE: Emory president has given one of those NON-apology apologies. The reporting on it at Salon is here: http://www.salon.com/2013/02/16/emory_president_holds_up_three_fifths_compromise_as_noble_honorable/

The president isn't apologizing for what he said, but is sorry if others were hurt etc. He is reducing criticism of his statement to emotionalism, rather than rational criticisms of what he said.

The full statement of his apology is online here:

http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_MAGAZINE/issues/2013/winter/register/president.html

Wagner still doesn't seem to get the point of the criticism. As stated in the Washington Monthly, by Samuel Knight:

But he did manage to demonstrate —albeit inadvertently — the crude immorality of compromise for compromise’s sake.

Link: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_02/saturday_evening_reads_1043043.php

The media coverage of the article and the apology is getting major media attention locally in Atlanta and in national publications for people in higher education and other media outlets. So far one article overseas. The following are the links.

From The Root, a major national online media source for African Americans:

http://www.theroot.com/buzz/crazy-talk-three-fifths-compromise-was-great-pragmatic-solution

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Atlanta major daily:

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/political-insider/2013/feb/17/emory-university-president-sparks-three-fifths-fur/

From the Chronicles of Higher Education, one of the major national newspapers for people in the higher education profession:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/emorys-president-sparks-a-furor-with-a-comment-on-compromise/55747

Also Inside Higher Education, the other major publication for people in higher education has picked up the story and refers to some blogs covering it:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/18/emory-president-sets-uproar-statements-three-fifths-compromise-and-then-apologizes

Even the British tabloid Daily Mail has picked it up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2280321/Emory-University-president-apologizes-calling-Constitutional-compromise-enabled-slavery-noble-honorable.html

Will keep this posting updated as things develop.

"American Prospect" magazine identifies the Republican Party with the Confederacy.

One the website of the magazine American Prospect is an article claiming that the Republican party is a presidential election away from extinction. Whether this is true or not I am not going to comment and I really don't know. What interests me is the following statement about the Republican party:

It will die not for reasons of “branding” or marketing or electoral cosmetics but because the party is at odds with the inevitable American trajectory in the direction of liberty, and with its own nature; paradoxically the party of Abraham Lincoln, which once saved the Union and which gives such passionate lip service to constitutionality, has come to embody the values of the Confederacy in its hostility to constitutional federalism and the civil bonds that the founding document codifies.

The following are links to the article, which has been picked up by www.salon.com.

http://prospect.org/article/grand-old-jurassic-party

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/15/the_grand_old_jurassic_party_partner/

American Prospect is a Democratic party magazine, so its running an article portraying the Republican party as the party of the Confederacy is significant.

What is interesting is that the Democrats, Liberals, and Left continue to want to characterize the Republicans as being Confederates. It will be interesting if the Republicans respond by embracing the Confederacy. It seems though the Republicans are carefully avoiding the Confederacy.

Texas Tea Party favorite not far right enough since she doesn't support secession.

State Senator Donna Campbell, in an Austin Chronicle article called a Tea Party darling, isn't right enough for some Texans since she doesn't support secession. See this article:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2013-02-15/legelines/

Campbell's support for the United States is very conditional. This is her face book posting. 

I believe America is the land of the free and the home of the brave, and I ask brave Americans to come together to ensure we always cherish that freedom. I believe now is the time for patriots to defend our sovereignty as citizens of the United States, not as a divided people. I believe we can and should honor our Constitution as both Americans and Texans. I do not believe, as some have suggested, that it's time to give up on the United States despite the failed leadership in Washington, D.C. Instead, I believe it's time to work harder. No victory worth fighting for comes easy. I ask you to stand with me and stand for the values that made this Nation great. God Bless Texas and God Bless the United States!

http://www.facebook.com/DonnaCampbellTX/posts/10151752662974778

Supposedly at another time it Campbell might be open to secession, but at this time she isn't. That is patriotic? Is Campbell joking when she makes the Pledge of Allegiance when she says "indivisible"? 

If you go to the posting about 140 plus people are outraged that she doesn't support secession. However, 280 plus people like her posting, so even with Tea Party people secession isn't a majority view. 

Interesting is that the Austin Chronicle is covering this. It isn't a bill, or a position by Campbell. It is a source of humor and an embarrassment for conservatives therefore is reported for laughs. 

Belarus takes stand in favor of Texas secession/ secession in the U.S. is just a topic for laughs.

The brutal dictatorship of Belarus issued a human rights report so it could portray the nations that criticize it for human rights violations of being violators themselves. 

This is one article on it: http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2013/02/05/belorussian-government-report-blasts-u-s-officials-for-not-letting-texas-secede/

And this is another:

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2013/02/belarus_texas_secession.php

The complaint of Belarus was that quoting from the Houston Press article,"Belarus is outraged that the White House has ignored a petition on the issue." Quoting from the Belarus human rights report.

In November, people in seven American federal states collected sufficient numbers of signatures necessary for a secession from the USA. The civil petitions have been posted on a White House website's special section, where people can leave their submissions or join those posted earlier. To begin dealing with a petition, the White House needs to receive at least 25 thousand signatures in 30 days. Once this requirement is met, an official response will be published on the website.

The Texas' petition gathered more than 125 thousand signatures. The petition points out that the US economic travails resulted from the Federal Government's failure to reform fiscal policies. In addition to Texas, Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee have also collected the required numbers. 

So far, the White House has not considered the civilian petitions, which can be regarded as violation of the right to self-determination.

The Houston Press blogger comments, "Secessionists: Ain't it good to know someone's got your back?" (Italics in the original.)

Secession has died out much as a news item except for occasional items where it can be played for laughs. There doesn't seem to be any rising interest in secession. The right wing media doesn't seem to want to pick up the topic. Even www.wnd.com, which usually is open to pandering to any fringe theory has lost interest.

There still may be a reaction to Obama's rejection of the petitions by the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy, but this won't impact politics and I don't think will even make news.

For now it seems the issue has come to an end no matter how much Public Policy Polling (PPP) polls on the issue. I think the Republican party, the conservative movement and the Tea Party faction of the Republican party don't want to be associated with this issue. There doesn't really seem to be a significant faction of conservative voters who are really serious about it regardless of the polls.

For now, it seems that in the end it will just be another amusing footnote in the history of the presidential elections of 2012. On the other hand, having so many people sign these petitions and having the PPP polls create the impression that a significant, and indeed a surprisingly high fraction of Republicans support secession does create a pre-condition for some other unforseen event setting off a secession movement. Some future event, alienating some faction of conservatives might lead them to support secession because some have previously signed a petition in jest but normalized secession for themselves, and the PPP polls giving conservatives the idea that others in their peer group consider it a legitimate political choice again normalizing it as a political choice.

For now it seems secession is going nowhere. However, the future is opaque.

Three Confederate parks renamed in Memphis all at once

Fearing a new Tennessee bill which would have forbade changing names of parks for historical persons, the Memphis City Council renamed Nathan Bedford Forrest Park, Jefferson Davis Park and Confederacy Park yesterday. 

An online ABC News article about it is here:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/memphis-renames-parks-honored-confederacy-18414958

Vote was 9 to 0 in favor of renaming the parks with 3 abstentions.

Evidently when the City Council was faced being stuck with these names forever, they were propelled to act.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) attempted to defend the park names with their usual delusional historical claims. From the article;

The Sons of Confederate Veterans and others in Memphis oppose the name changes, saying that Forrest is a misunderstood figure who was not a racist but a businessman who treated his slaves humanely and resigned from the Klan.

"We should cherish the history that we have, we shouldn't cover it up and try to bury it or hide it," said Becky Muska, who spoke against the name change.

Ms. Muska is obscuring the issues, it isn't an issue of covering up history, it is an issue of honoring someone. There is something different between a memorial to those Forrest victimized and a memorial glorifying him. As for history, shouldn't we objectively study it, and not drool over it and coat it with sugar or misrepresent it. This is what Muska is advocating, a misrepresentation of history under the guise of sentimental statements.

The Memphis City Council was correct in what they did, but somebody needs to let Beck Muska and the SCV know that their arguments are the nonsense of delusional misrepresenting buffoons.

It does show that once a city has motivation, they can move and rid themselves of Confederate and neo-Confederate nonsense.

Summary of questions for jurors and judges, Update

I think I have thought of enough questions to effectively map the historical consciousness of potential jurors and their neo-Confederacy. I am going to summarize them here:

1. Are you a member of the League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens, Sons of Confederate Veterans, United Daughters of the Confederacy or any other neo-Confederate organization?

2. Do you identify with the Confederacy or the Union?

3. Do you think it would be appropriate for public officials to praise the Confederacy?

4. Do you think states, counties, cities and other municipalities should adopt Confederate symbols in their logos, flags, seals, or other symbols they might adopt?

5. Do you think it would have been better if the Confederacy had succeeded in seceding?

It is a short list, but I think it would be effective in screening out people who are neo-Confederate or have Lost Cause attitudes from jury pools. I think all the questions can be reasons to exclude the juror with cause, and not merely a detection of bias. The Confederacy was a nation whose creation was attempted to perpetuate slavery and white supremacy.

These questions can also be asked of judges and should be asked of the judge selected to preside over a trial and if the judge asks affirmatively, the judge should be asked to not preside over the trial.

A neo-Confederate or Lost Cause type juror is not going to value the freedom of an African American as they would a white person. They have mythologies of Africans being contented to being slaves and have embraced a national attempt to maintain white supremacy and slavery. They will not take due diligence to make sure that a conviction is without doubt, instead tend to be biased to presume guilt. They will not be that concerned that there is a wrongful conviction.

Now that I have my five questions, I am not sure what my next step is. I will have to think about it.

UPDATE:

I would reword question #4 to say:

Do you think it is appropriate when states, counties, cities and other municipalities adopt Confederate symbols in their logos, flags, seals, or other symbols they might adopt?

Or.

Do you think states, counties, cities and other municipalities should not adopt Confederate symbols in their logos, flags, seals, or other symbols they might adopt?

Secession Poll in Texas identifies secession sentiment

The Public Policy Polling (PPP) organization has conducted a poll and found very high support for secession among Texas Republicans. The Houston Chronicle reports on it with a title, "Texas secession fervor is a heavily Republican phenomenon," the article is here:

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/02/texas-secession-fervor-is-a-heavily-republican-phenomenon/

From the article, these are some of the poll results of who supports secession.

42 percent of those who call themselves very conservative
35 percent of Republicans
25 percent of non-Hispanic whites

Also, the article said that sentiment for secession has gone from 13 to 20% in Texas. This is the link to the PPP poll:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_TX_013113.pdf

The question on secession is:

Would you support or oppose Texas seceding from the union because of Barack Obama’s reelection?

I don't know how seriously this secession sentiment should be taken. It might be that poll respondents are saying yes to secession as a means of strongly expressing their opposition to Obama. 

The League of the South (LOS) will likely see this as a sign that their time has come. It hasn't. 

The PPP is closely affiliated with the Democratic party. A person can't be both patriotic towards the United States of America and in support of secession. I think polling on the question of secession and breaking down the results by party and ideological affiliation in the PPP poll makes the Republicans seem very suspect on the issue of patriotism. The PPPs polling on secession, which has been reviewed in this blog before, identifies Republicans with secession. 

As I have stated before, Republicans have attempted since the 1950s to portray themselves as more patriotic than their opposition, if they are identified with secession, any attempt by the Republicans to portray themselves as patriotic, let alone being more patriotic than their opposition, will have no credibility. The patriotism being mentioned here is patriotism to the U.S.A.

Another impact of these polls is that it will normalize secession among conservatives. The respondents to the poll may have said they supported secession for laughs in rejecting Obama, but other conservatives hearing of the poll results may think that secession is widely supported by persons with similar views and it will be normalized for them and thus something valid to consider. 

Earlier blogs on these secession polls:

In an earlier post I referred to some opinion polls taken about the issues of secession.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2012/12/tagging-republicans-as-secessionists.html

It refers to an opinion poll that were taken on secession in Georgia.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/12/georgia-miscellany.html

I also had an early post on another opinion poll on secession.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2013/01/charles-m-blow-new-york-times-columnist.html

Which referred to the following Pew opinion poll result.
http://www.people-press.org/2011/04/08/civil-war-at-150-still-relevant-still-divisive/