The Federalist Is Super Mad Virginia Will No Longer Subsidize Racists

from the but-who-will-remember-the-good-things-about-Harry-Byrd dept

The state of Virginia is trying to break with its racist past. It’s not pretending it doesn’t exist. But, better late than never, it’s trying to undo some of the damage still being perpetrated by Virginians and their legislators. Governor Abigail Spanberger signed a bill into law that stripped confederate-friendly organizations of their tax exempt status. (She also signed a bill that ended the production of specialty license plates featuring Robert E. Lee.)

Now, there’s a legitimate argument to be made against this legislation. (And a more nuanced argument to made in favor of it.) And we’ll get to all of that in a moment.

But not yet. That’s why you’re getting the headline I gave you, because I’m not the one making a nuanced argument for or against this bill. And that’s why The Federalist is getting all the bile I can fit into a handful of words because it for goddamn sure isn’t making any valid arguments in support of letting historically racist organizations continue to operate as tax exempt entities.

Hayden Daniel (scope the rest of his output to confirm your suspicions about this Federalist contributor) of The Federalist seems to think that separating confederacy supporters from state tax exemptions is one of the more noxious violation of rights he’s ever had the opportunity to witness.

Spanberger’s signature represents, as The New York Times put it, part of “a yearslong Democrat-led push to shake off the state’s legacy as the capital of the 11 Southern, slaveholding states that seceded from the country in the 1860s.”

And indeed it has been a years-long campaign by the left to erase Virginia’s, and America’s, history. The era that began with the inauguration of President Barack Obama in 2009 and reached its fever pitch during the fiery George Floyd riots of summer 2020 saw the slow but sure disappearance of Confederate history from the public sphere. 

“Erase history.” What a convenient turn of phrase. Making entities like the United Daughters of the Confederacy (whose splash page pic looks about as inclusive as a “Gone With The Wind” cast photo) and the Sons of the Confederacy continue to do the apparently essential work of reminding people that there are still plenty of racists in Virginia without a state-sanctioned leg up is hardly “erasing history.” Everyone will remember the Civil War and the racists who lost the war they started because they were hooked on free, imported labor.

And try as you might, you’re not going to find Daniel arguing against the deliberate erasure of history being perpetrated by the Trump administration, which is steadily stripping parks and national monuments of anything that might portray white Americans as anything but fault-free heroes and saviors. (In fact, a perfunctory search immediately surfaces the opposite: The Federalist’s active participation in this administration’s bigoted erasure of US history.)

That’s the way it always goes with these people. The only history they think needs to be preserved is the stuff when white males were legally considered to be the owners or overseers of every other race and sex. These are people who yearn for simpler times when women and minorities couldn’t vote and people were willing to die to keep white Christian nationalists in power.

Moving on from this complaint about (non)erasure of Hayden Daniel’s favorites parts of US history, he then decides to pretend that white people who love the confederacy have been terrorized by people who don’t.

During a BLM riot in Richmond, Virginia, in May 2020, extremist agitators attacked the headquarters of the United Daughters of the Confederacy with “incendiary devices.” The building, deeded to the organization by the state in 1950, was filled with countless Civil War-era documents and artifacts. The resulting fire and destruction caused $4.1 million in damage to the building and its contents, according to a lawsuit filed by the UDC. The wanton vandalism that night also extended to the multiple Confederate monuments on Monument Avenue, including the famous equestrian statue of Robert E. Lee that was removed in 2021.

Wow, man. That’s rough. It’s almost as though it outweighs the decades of torture and slavery that were followed by more decades of terrorism perpetrated against Blacks by people who just couldn’t accept that non-white humans were actual human beings. A statute goes down and a pro-confederacy HQ gets torched and this nation is nowhere near breaking even in terms of what this state’s “legacy” is when it comes to slavery and the treatment of those who were only allowed their freedom after enough Virginians had died trying to prevent their emancipation.

Summing things up, Daniel veers into the hyperbolic:

[T]his law signed by Spanberger constitutes a new escalation. It is no longer about pieces of paper that need to censored or statues of bronze that need to be ripped down; it is about people who need to silenced and punished for daring to believe that America, and the South in particular, has its own unique identity independent of the left’s racialist and globalist dogma.

Spanberger is sending an unequivocal message — it’s open season on those who would honor American history and the heritage of their ancestors. And the full force of the state will be used to quash them.

I have no idea why you would want to “honor” that particular sliver of American history or celebrate the “heritage” left to you by racist slaveholders and the descendants that love them. You’re not using words like “history” and “heritage” because you don’t want Americans to ever forget the horrors we inflicted on others during our history. You’re just an awful person who wants similarly awful people to continue to be awful without fear of consequence.

A people without a history, or who are ashamed of their history, are easily manipulated by the whims and ambitions of the dystopian, tyrannical left. 

Tell that to Trump, you mook. You aren’t actually ashamed of this history. You — and the people running the party you love — are secretly proud of their racist past and bigoted present. That doesn’t make you immune from manipulation. It just means the people who subject you to their whims and ambitions not only won’t be members of an opposing political party, but they won’t be any smarter than you think you are.

Now… having said all that, here’s the argument against this law, which does make sense:

The new law strips property tax exemptions from the pro-Confederate groups, while leaving them in place for all the others. That’s pretty obvious discrimination based on political ideology. The Virginia state legislature could end this tax exemption for all the groups in question, or reduce it in various ways. It could eliminate some groups but not others based on nonideological criteria. But it cannot do so based purely on the views of the groups in question.

Such viewpoint discrimination with respect to tax exemptions and government benefits is a potentially very dangerous tool that government can use to penalize opposition (even as it rewards its supporters). If courts were to uphold the Virgina law against First Amendment challenges, it would set a dangerous precedent that state and federal officials of various political stripes could exploit to target their opponents.

That’s the argument Hayden or anyone else from the Federalist could have made. That would have clearly demonstrated the inherent danger of giving the government the legislated power to engage in viewpoint discrimination. But no one at the Federalist is apparently capable of coming up with cogent, nuanced arguments, not when the livelihood of people who resolutely celebrate the racist losers of America’s only Civil War (to date!) is on the line.

Beyond that, there’s the question of whether or not tax exempt status is government speech, which means viewpoint discrimination may actually be lawful if the government prefers not to throw tacit support to groups it doesn’t care for. That doesn’t make it much better than openly violating the First Amendment, but it does give it something to work with if this law is challenged in court.

For now, the sons and daughters of the confederacy will have to try to make do without their tax exempt status. On the hardship continuum that involves the Confederacy, this doesn’t even amount to a rounding error.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: sons of confederate veterans, the federalist

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The Federalist Is Super Mad Virginia Will No Longer Subsidize Racists”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
38 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

It sounds like you’re right there with them.

You understand nuance like a champ, it seems. You’re missing out on what happens when the ruling goes the other way. And possibly oblivious to what happens when precedents get ignored in favor of decisions you prefer.

The ACLU did not challenge the Skokie decision because they liked Nazis.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Yes. Yes, it has.

The government has, through social sanction, the power to imprison people for committing⁠—or being accused of committing⁠—a vast range of criminal acts. The legal system places restraints on that power, such that the government can’t imprison people for an indeterminate amount of time without a damn good reason for doing so. Those restraints curtail such abuses regardless of who they’re aimed at.

One of those restraints is the fact that the Constitution broadly (though not wholly) applies to anyone within the borders of the United States. Its protections are, in large part, afforded to non-citizens regardless of their citizenship status. And there’s a good reason that state of affairs should stay that way: If the government can legally violate the rights of a non-citizen by detaining them forever for even the most bullshit of reasons, you can suffer the same fate so long as the government finds an excuse to declare you a non-citizen.

People fight to protect the rights of criminals, accused or otherwise, because that helps prevents the government from violating everyone else’s rights over…oh, I dunno, let’s say “the president’s pwecious widdle fee-fees got hurt”. The old canard is that it’s better for ten guilty men to go free if it means even one innocent person will not suffer from an undue injustice. That’s why fighting for the rights of people you despise is worth the fight: One day, you may find yourself on the wrong end of an angry politician’s anger, and I’d bet you would prefer not to go to jail only for pissing them off.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

That’s a nice theory.

Trouble is, it hasn’t bourne itself out in practice; it turns out that defending speech is not in fact reliant on defending all speech, and trying to defend the worst speech in fact prompts the reaction of “well, if that’s what free speech means, I don’t want it”.

So what it actually does is make it harder for everyone else, not easier.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

it turns out that defending speech is not in fact reliant on defending all speech

That’s why I don’t defend the content of speech, but the right of someone to speak it. Think about it this way: If the government passed a law to criminalize antisemitism, what would stop the government from claiming that any criticism of the Israeli government is antisemitism and charging someone with a hate crime for criticising the Israeli government? And no, “the courts would clear that up” isn’t a viable answer here because even an arrest on such a charge could still fuck up someone’s life regardless of whether the charges stick or whether the law was later declared unconstitutional. Fighting antisemitism is a noble goal; trampling on people’s free speech rights in service of that fight is a shitty way to achieve that goal.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Hard agree...

Taxing them is legitimizing their existence. Racists deserve to be purged from existence. Nothing will fix the current cancer that is the entrenched racists elements steming from the defeated confederacy and medling with government. They should have been executed but look at the historic results of that leniency of the past. There is no freedom of expresion for people wishi g for the wholesale death of every other race.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Lincoln's fine character -- and his mistake

I’ll begin with a quote:

“Nothing discloses real character like the use of power. It is easy for the weak to be gentle. Most people can bear adversity. But if you wish to know what a man really is, give him power. This is the supreme test. It is the glory of Lincoln that, having almost absolute power, he never abused it, except upon the side of mercy.”
— Robert Ingersoll, jurist, 1884

All the reading I’ve done indicates that Ingersoll was right about this.

But we have paid and are still paying a terrible price for Lincoln’s mercy. Instead of completely destroying the power and wealth of southern slave owners, he left it intact. What he should have done is order the confiscation of all their property and wealth, and its turnover to their (former) slaves: after all, it was their bondage and suffering over years, decades, centuries that built that property and wealth. They had every right to it.

Such a move would have broken the economic power of the slave owners and simultaneously lifted (former) slaves out of poverty.

He should have also stripped all slave owners and all Confederate soldiers of the franchise — for life — in order to break their political power. (Considering that every Confederate soldier committed treason and could be executed, this is actually quite a mild punishment.)

Imagine how differently things might have played out. Maybe, just maybe, we could have spent the past century-and-a-half-plus building something approximating a just and equal society instead of doing what we’re still doing: dealing with racist traitors who want to enslave, torture, and kill black people. (They may dress it up with flowery language and legalese, but that’s where they want this to go. Of course they do: it’s who they are.)

A Guy says:

Re:

I have George B McClellan, Nixon, and a 1704 family house historic site in Pennsylvania in the family tree. And a native American ancestor found in an orphanage. History is fun sometimes. George B McClellan and Nixon are from the same family. A ton of Quaker abolitionists also.

And one ancestor missed the Titanic. Lucky people.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Azuaron says:

Read the damn bill

Folks, when this stuff comes up, I am begging you to read the actual bill. Read the actual bill.

Because if you read Virginia House Bill 167, what you immediately find completely turns this narrative on its head. Because, it turns out this “new law” doesn’t violate the First Amendment in the slightest, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Here’s the thing: it doesn’t ban Confederate groups from being tax exempt. That’s what the scare stories are saying, right? That suddenly Virginia is banning Confederacy non-profits from being tax exempt?

But that ain’t it. It turns out that the Virginia Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy had been specifically written into law as an organization exempt from real estate taxes. They didn’t fulfill the generic requirements to be a tax exempt organization; the law name-checked them to say that they were tax exempt.

All the “new law” does is remove that name-check. If they fulfill any of the 15 or so actual exemption categories still in the law, they can still be exempt from real estate taxes. There is no First Amendment right for certain organizations to have special legal carve outs that prevent them, specifically, from paying taxes. Honestly, the presence of Daughters of the Confederacy and nothing like, “The Memorial Society for Victims of American Slavery” alone represents a First Amendment threat toward completely invalidating this law’s special carve outs.

As an aside and a matter of general principle, it’s absolutely absurd that any organization–profit or non–gets to independently negotiate their god damn tax rate. Tax rates should be set, for everyone, and if there are categories with different rates that’s fine, but neither Amazon nor The Daughters of the Confederacy nor Mom an’ Pop’s Toilet Emporium should be getting a “special” tax rate that’s just for them.

The real story here? The statement, “When someone is accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression,” is being proven out in real time. These special snowflakes are losing their special snowflake tax exempt status that almost no one else has, and they’re throwing a fit about it.

So let’s all pour one out for all the special snowflakes about to melt in the sun:

  • The Confederate Memorial Literary Society
  • The Stonewall Jackson Memorial, Incorporated
  • The Virginia Division of the United Daughters of the
    Confederacy
  • The General Organization of the United Daughters of the Confederacy

But not, apparently, The Robert E. Lee Memorial Foundation, Incorporated. They’re keeping their special tax exempt status. So, not a complete victory for basic logic and consistency.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Ah yes, if you don’t have statues honoring slave holding and/or defending traitors you’d have no way of remembering that the southern states at the time kept slaves and fought a war to preserve the vile practice, that’s why there are Hitler statues everywhere in europe, so no-one forgets that he existed…

Tell you what, how about a deal: they get to keep the statues in public places if and only if all their plaques are replaced with ‘[Name][How long they lived] Traitor to the US and slave holder and/or defender of slavery’. It’s short and to the point, reminding people that they existed and what they did to earn the statue, allowing the south to ‘preserve’ that ‘history’ and ‘culture’ that they cherish so deeply.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Can't upset the (real) snowflake brigade after all...

Well naturally, those book might have subversive messages that are threats to the children like ‘white people aren’t the pinnacle of humanity and/or have done bad things’ or ‘people that aren’t CIS and hetero are still people that deserve equal rights and treatment under the law and society’.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Pliny says:

Agreed

“And that’s why The Federalist is getting all the bile I can fit into a handful of words because it for goddamn sure isn’t making any valid arguments in support of letting historically racist organizations continue to operate as tax exempt entities.”

Let’s hope you feel the same way about the historically racist Democratic Party too.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...