Post by: Euclidean on November 01, 2007, 03:04:03 PM
Anyway I'm currently considering the idea of "An American Jerk". I wanted to call it "Lincoln was a Bastard" but I don't think that would fly.
Abraham Lincoln is I feel wrongly venerated. He did a lot of terrible things, such as shutting down newspapers that were critical of the war, jailing his critics, suspending habeas corpus, and really that's just the start. The trouble is that the firm documentation and research which points out that Lincoln was anything but a legend and the great emancipator or anything else we think of as positive is hard to find, because people don't want to hear that the man on the five dollar bill was anything but great. He's one of our most admired presidents for no good reason whatsoever.
I was just wondering if there were any other Lincoln critics who could point me to anything good you happen to know off the top of your head.
Post by: Len Budney on November 01, 2007, 03:26:41 PM
Then there's Lincoln's decision to write a warrant for the arrest of Chief Justice Taney for his decision in Ex Parte Merriman. More here, although Charles Adams divides the blame between Lincoln and Secretary of State William Seward.
Tom DiLorenzo has a lot to say, but his books are second-rate. I'd only use Tom as a starting point to leap into more thoroughly-documented literature.
--Len.
Post by: Euclidean on November 01, 2007, 03:39:59 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2007, 03:43:10 PM
El Tejon may also stop by to damn your Rebel sympathies. Don't mind him, he's a dyed-in-the-wool Yankee tight-pants.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 01, 2007, 04:03:39 PM
or the time he sent the fed troops into md to vote and jailed the town officials to makle sure md stayed on his side of the line
Post by: AntiqueCollector on November 01, 2007, 04:05:17 PM
Post by: Nick1911 on November 01, 2007, 04:33:12 PM
Post by: charby on November 01, 2007, 04:50:37 PM
Post by: Fjolnirsson on November 01, 2007, 07:50:06 PM
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black racesthat I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
-Abraham Lincoln, during his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 01, 2007, 07:52:14 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 01, 2007, 08:06:52 PM
Post by: DustinD on November 01, 2007, 08:17:28 PM
Lincoln is well known for ending slavery in the United States. In 1861 1862, however, he made it clear that the North was fighting the war to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery. Freeing the slaves became, in late 1862, a war measure to weaken the rebellion by destroying the economic base of its leadership class. Abolitionists criticized Lincoln for his sluggishness over slavery per ses, but on August 22, 1862, Lincoln explained:
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." - source http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
You could also mention his misuse of presidential pardons. I heard about it on the History Channel so I do not have a source.
Both sides had absolutely horrible POW camps that lead to many deaths, disfigurements, and other permanent injuries. Lincoln knew about the conditions and was partially responsible for them. In many ways prisoner mistreatment was used as retribution for alleged wrong doings by the other side.
If you have not already read wikipedia's article it may give you some ideas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln
Post by: De Selby on November 01, 2007, 08:50:22 PM
another one is to point out how Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarized on his dissertation
How does that fit in?
Lincoln is famous and revered because he won a big war. That is how American politics work-you win a big war, you are a hero.
This also happened to be the war that flatly ended institutional slavery in the entire United States; I believe that would be another reason why Lincoln is so revered.
You can make a lot of policy and character flaws, and still be revered, if you won a big war and ended slavery.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 01, 2007, 08:56:28 PM
You can make a lot of policy and character flaws, and still be revered, if you won a big war and ended slavery.
So you revere Comrade Stalin as well? After all, he won a big war and ended Nazi slavery.
Post by: De Selby on November 01, 2007, 09:11:48 PM
You can make a lot of policy and character flaws, and still be revered, if you won a big war and ended slavery.
So you revere Comrade Stalin as well? After all, he won a big war and ended Nazi slavery.
I sure don't-but then again he wouldn't fit a theory as to how American politicians become legendary, being that he wasn't American.
Don't expect anyone to buy parallels, no matter how sensible, between Lincoln and Stalin.
Post by: Euclidean on November 01, 2007, 10:20:43 PM
Post by: Soybomb on November 01, 2007, 10:23:43 PM
Post by: Jamisjockey on November 02, 2007, 03:16:17 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 02, 2007, 04:13:19 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 02, 2007, 04:34:49 AM
Ever wonder where Arlington Cemetery came from? It was originally the estate of General Robert E. Lee. Lincoln seized it and filled it with corpses so that whichever way the war went, Lee wouldn't be getting his property back.
--Len.
Post by: Werewolf on November 02, 2007, 04:43:37 AM
That said by contemporary standards Lincoln is not the hero many would make him out to be. But how can he be judged fairly without being judged by the standards of the times in which he lived. The founders of the greatest nation on earth would be judged as terrorists, evil slave owning land barons, tax cheats etc by contemporary standards.
Lucky for us all that the founders and Lincoln behaved as they did.
Post by: Euclidean on November 02, 2007, 04:56:08 AM
Villify Lincoln and prepare to be called a racist. Libs find that to be thier easiest defense against reason or truth.
Really I'm not out to villify the man (I do think he wasn't a very good person but I'll try to leave my judgments out of it) or play character assassination, just to tell the truth. But yeah, someone's going to be thinking that. Oh well screw 'em, I'm telling the truth as best as I know it and that's nothing to apologize for.
I sometimes wish I were anything but a white person, and this is one of those times. If I were black and delivered this same message, people would have a much harder time ignoring it. Que sera sera (spelling).
Quote
That said by contemporary standards Lincoln is not the hero many would make him out to be. But how can he be judged fairly without being judged by the standards of the times in which he lived. The founders of the greatest nation on earth would be judged as terrorists, evil slave owning land barons, tax cheats etc by contemporary standards.
That is true, but my criticism of the man has mostly to do with the fact that he's so damned inconsistent. The same man who tried to argue that black people have rights even though they might be thought of as inferior is the same man who drafted a provision for slavery for the Florida state consituition. The same man who was once a proud atheist quietly put those beliefs aside when it was to his political advantage.
Lincoln was a shrewd politician, and if you look at his political career, he was always interested in advancing his side or his faction, and little else.
But all that aside, people need to know the truth, that they've been revering a fictional character in American history.
And quite frankly when I look at how out of control the fed gov is now, I am not so sure it's a good thing the North won, but that's all speculation. I think the Civil War is vastly more complicated than Good Guys v. Bad Guys.
Post by: Fjolnirsson on November 02, 2007, 05:06:08 AM
Quote
Villify Lincoln and prepare to be called a racist. Libs find that to be thier easiest defense against reason or truth.
True. Perhaps you could start out with that quote I posted earlier, and ask the class who said it. When you give them the answer, you've put their position on shaky ground, which should silence all but the most self delusional of them.
Post by: Joe Demko on November 02, 2007, 05:07:11 AM
Quote
But all that aside, people need to know the truth, that they've been revering a fictional character in American history.
That is true of virtually every revered figure in the history of any country.
Post by: Glock Glockler on November 02, 2007, 05:09:08 AM
Post by: Euclidean on November 02, 2007, 07:05:24 AM
I think your choice of topics indicates that your true hobby is shitstirring.
Haha. Hey, I went with this and not the gun related topics at least.
Quote
But all that aside, people need to know the truth, that they've been revering a fictional character in American history.
That is true of virtually every revered figure in the history of any country.
That's true, but honestly there is so much undeserved reverence for Lincoln than any other President in the Public's Eye than anyone else, debunking "Honest" Abe is a good place to start.
Post by: Mabs2 on November 02, 2007, 07:05:41 AM
Is this about right?
Post by: Len Budney on November 02, 2007, 07:18:10 AM
Assuming that preserving the Union was a good thing and most would agree that it was...
Count me in the minority. I'm indifferent whether the South should have seceded or not, but it was absolutely their right. Forcing them to remain in the Union against their will destroyed the fundamental concept of the United Nations of America. So much so, that people don't even remember that "state" means "nation." Today, it's a synonym for "province."
--Len.
Post by: Euclidean on November 02, 2007, 07:26:09 AM
However I feel if you look at the prevailing economic differences of the time between the economies of the North and South and some of the actual issues (and political tensions), you can put those remarks into context and realize those people were truly trying to preserve their way of life and political ideology, and thought that the government had no business telling them otherwise. While I cannot condone slavery, the desire to not be subject to tyranny is very sympathetic to me.
And honestly, if you look at it in the context of the times, it's not like the North had anything to be proud of either. Ever see Gangs of New York? They had just as much racial discrimination and a huge underclass of laborers who really didn't have rights either. At least when slaves got too old to work, they were still fed and housed instead of just left on the streets.
Slaves were an economic investment to those people, so the beatings and whatnot that have become our popular conception of slavery in the US were relatively rare (but they did happen!). I'm not saying it was right or okay or that these people weren't abused and exploited, just that the picture we have of the situation is often skewed because people in general, not just black people, lived very poorly back then. There were plenty of white people in similar conditions who were only better off because they couldn't be sold or separated from their families, etc. Granted that's a meaningful improvement to your situation, but their quality of life was comparable.
But I feel import and export policies, economic policies which favored one part of the country over another, and the federal question were what it was really about. The fact slavery ended was only incidental. Lincoln was scum but he was a very shrewd man. He knew the best way to immediately bolster his career and support while squashing his enemies was to free the slaves. He didn't care about doing it because it was right, he did it because it was good for Lincoln.
I honestly feel if it hadn't happened then, it would have happened sooner than later anyway. Just as today, the libertarians of Lincoln's time were a small and derided but vocal minority who persisted in their efforts. The public opinion, the stance of the average person, was slowly shifting more and more that way any how. If nothing else technology would have made slavery pointless at some point in time, and it would have ended then. I do feel however that since it happened that way, it set us well ahead all at once.
Honestly though, if I had to pick a side that I was more sympathetic to, it would be the South, and not because I think they were the "good" guys, but because they were doing something that's as American as you can get. I keep a rebel flag around as a concrete reminder of their devotion to what they believed in, you have to admire that. I also believe they saw the writing on the wall for what the US government would become. But if they had won, there's no guarantee things would be any better and in fact they could even be considerably worse.
Post by: Len Budney on November 02, 2007, 07:34:21 AM
Slavery was just a side issue, from what I can tell. Is this about right?
In the big picture, yes. But it's also worth bearing in mind that there were people in the North and South who thought the war was about slavery. Folks who argue what the war was "really" about are overlooking the reality that war is a mighty confusing business, and ultimately many people don't really know the real reasons for the war. That and the fact that the "real" reasons are themselves complicated.
The Iraq war is a prime example. I supported it, and Bush, until sometime in 2004. I firmly believed that Saddam was a threat, listened daily to right-wingers on the radio like Rush and Jim Quinn, and swallowed the bad intelligence on WMDs. There were other reasons floating around, like the fact that Saddam was just plain a bad man, and that he supported the Palestinians, etc., but none of those would have been enough by themselves without a direct threat to the US, and that was WMDs plus the allegation that Saddam was involved in 9/11. When Bush tried to say, after the fact, that it was never really about WMDs in the first place, it was a kick in the teeth to many conservatives who supported the invasion, but wouldn't have without the WMD and 9/11 arguments. Conservatives who oppose the Iraq war probably wouldn't be so ticked today if Bush hadn't reversed himself so obviously and expected us to be retarded (or Orwellian) enough to swallow it.
So what's the "real" reason for the Iraq invasion? Who the hell knows? It can't be any of the sound-bytes people claim. It wasn't really about WMDs, nor oil, nor terrorism, nor Israel. All of those things probably played a role. We'll probably never know what else was going through Bush's head, though. Does he think he's hastening Armageddon? I thought maybe, back when I thought Bush was in fact an evangelical Christian, but now I have doubts on both points. Is he trying to redeem his father's legacy? I dunno. Is he just overdosed on testosterone? Beats me. His reasons are complex; they aren't the same as Cheney's reasons; and they aren't the same as the reasons they sell publicly.
Same thing with the Civil war, I'd say.
--Len.
Post by: richyoung on November 02, 2007, 10:22:21 AM
another one is to point out how Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarized on his dissertation
How does that fit in?
Lincoln is famous and revered because he won a big war. That is how American politics work-you win a big war, you are a hero.
This also happened to be the war that flatly ended institutional slavery in the entire United States; I believe that would be another reason why Lincoln is so revered.
You can make a lot of policy and character flaws, and still be revered, if you won a big war and ended slavery.
The war neither ended slavery, nor could it. A Constitutional ammendmant, passed and approved at a time the South was without any representation, did that. Read much history?
Post by: Scout26 on November 02, 2007, 11:10:00 AM
Quote
That's true, but honestly there is so much undeserved reverence for Lincoln than any other President in the Public's Eye than anyone else
Don't forget JFK. Getting assassinated is a pretty good move when it comes to earning undesrved reverence.
Post by: De Selby on November 02, 2007, 11:15:05 AM
another one is to point out how Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarized on his dissertation
How does that fit in?
Lincoln is famous and revered because he won a big war. That is how American politics work-you win a big war, you are a hero.
This also happened to be the war that flatly ended institutional slavery in the entire United States; I believe that would be another reason why Lincoln is so revered.
You can make a lot of policy and character flaws, and still be revered, if you won a big war and ended slavery.
The war neither ended slavery, nor could it. A Constitutional ammendmant, passed and approved at a time the South was without any representation, did that. Read much history?
Yes, I have-that constitutional amendment was possible because of the war. You've got both elements right there in your post-if the war hadn't ended effective (it existed in name) southern representation and imposed Federal rule, the amendment would not have been passed. So yes, the war most certainly did bring about the end of slavery.
Maybe it would have happened anyway, maybe not. But there is little serious dispute that the war resulted in the end of slavery (legal slavery, anyway) in the USA.
Post by: richyoung on November 02, 2007, 11:44:18 AM
Post by: De Selby on November 02, 2007, 11:58:23 AM
So you admit that without this unrepresentative representation, the ammendment would not have passed? Shouldn't that make it null and void?
No-it ended slavery. That's part of the reason why people revere the President who won the war.
Post by: Len Budney on November 02, 2007, 12:04:52 PM
No-it ended slavery. That's part of the reason why people revere the President who won the war.
Nuking all the slave states would have ended it too. As would lynching every last slave. If what you say is true, it's an especially retarded example of the end justifying the means.
--Len.
Post by: Euclidean on November 02, 2007, 12:13:41 PM
The fact that the Confederate states had to ratify those amendments in order to repatriate after the war was a sneaky way to make sure that they couldn't be challenged later.
But the 16th Amendment is even more suspect than either of them, and it's still here to stay. It's not right, but as courts have ruled you can't challenge an amendment based on the fact it wasn't legally ratified, there's no recourse until we repeal the amendment in question.
Post by: De Selby on November 02, 2007, 12:16:50 PM
No-it ended slavery. That's part of the reason why people revere the President who won the war.
Nuking all the slave states would have ended it too. As would lynching every last slave. If what you say is true, it's an especially retarded example of the end justifying the means.
--Len.
I sypmathize with your analysis-you're right to point out that ends-to-means is what it is, but it is nonetheless true of American politics that this sort of thinking reigns. Look at all the celebration and memorial threads for the guy who dropped the first atomic weapon in Japan.
What I am saying is that Lincoln doesn't get the war criminal treatment because he won the war, and he ended slavery. Ending slavery is no doubt a good thing-and I support continued observance of the 13th amendment, which is what I was voicing in that last post.
I do not support revering war criminals or using the double standard of "if we do it, it's good, because we're right, and if they do it, it's evil". Unfortunately, this type of thinking is a rule in American politics, and that is why Lincoln has such great historical stature. And if you try to argue that with most people, outside of the places victimized most by the war, you will find yourself talking to a solid wall of denial---"But but, we were fighting for freedom!" (which was true) and "they did x y and z to their people!" (also true).
Post by: Euclidean on November 02, 2007, 12:20:59 PM
And if you try to argue that with most people, outside of the places victimized most by the war, you will find yourself talking to a solid wall of denial---"But but, we were fighting for freedom!" (which was true) and "they did x y and z to their people!" (also true).
Ah but I can turn right around and use the same argument in support of the other side, FWIW.
Post by: Len Budney on November 02, 2007, 12:25:41 PM
Ah but I can turn right around and use the same argument in support of the other side, FWIW.
Sounds like all three of us are on the same page. Shootinstudent is only pointing out what people will say, without endorsing it. You and I are each pointing out what it's nonsense on stilts.
--Len.
Post by: De Selby on November 02, 2007, 12:26:53 PM
And if you try to argue that with most people, outside of the places victimized most by the war, you will find yourself talking to a solid wall of denial---"But but, we were fighting for freedom!" (which was true) and "they did x y and z to their people!" (also true).
Ah but I can turn right around and use the same argument in support of the other side, FWIW.
That's exactly what I'm agreeing with-the problem is that this obvious fact is worthless in terms of American politics. As long as the we are winning, it doesn't matter what "we" do, because we're right and they're not. Understanding that is the key to understanding why Lincoln is so important, and why any attempt to shoot down his reputation will fall on deaf ears.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 02, 2007, 01:08:42 PM
Lincoln's completely inconsistent and non comittal attitude towards ending slavery and racist beliefs
I don't know how you're going to approach this, but I hope you won't confuse the issues. People had plenty of reasons for opposing slavery that had nothing to do with racial equality or caring about Black people. Even if one is concerned about the welfare of Blacks or slaves, that doesn't imply a belief in racial equality. A racist person might wish the "lower races" to be happy and comfortable, just as he might wish the same for his dog. Indeed, even many Northern Abolitionists were quite racist. This doesn't make them hypocrites; it just means they were nicer than the other racists.
Villify Lincoln and prepare to be called a racist. Libs find that to be thier easiest defense against reason or truth.
I don't think so. Pointing out the skeletons in the closets of our national heroes is a popular past-time on the political left. Lincoln's racism is no secret. If this is being presented in a college course, many will have heard of it in their history courses.
Quote from: mbs357
Slavery was just a side issue, from what I can tell.
Slavery was not the ONLY issue. I won't even say it was the most important issue, although that case could be made. But it was certainly not a side issue, no matter how cynical Lincoln might have been. If you read the primary sources, slavery was one of the most important political issues of the pre-war era. On BOTH sides of the Mason-Dixon Line. Skim through the Lincoln-Douglas debates some time.
Post by: Len Budney on November 02, 2007, 01:18:49 PM
If you read the primary sources, slavery was one of the most important political issues of the pre-war era. On BOTH sides of the Mason-Dixon Line. Skim through the Lincoln-Douglas debates some time.
Absolutely! In fact Lincoln was big in favor of the Missouri compromise, arguing in one speech that slavery takes jobs away from white folks. (Reminiscent of arguments against Mexicans today, but I digress...) He also shared a common Northern complaint about the 3/5ths rule, because it gave slave states extra congressmen.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 02, 2007, 01:57:45 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 02, 2007, 02:14:47 PM
I was brow-beaten for thinking the war was all about slavery... My brow is starting to ache.
Good. You deserved it both then and now.
Post by: Len Budney on November 02, 2007, 02:26:26 PM
I was brow-beaten for thinking the war was all about slavery... My brow is starting to ache.
Good. You deserved it both then and now.
Bah. He didn't say it was all about slavery. It's good to put that myth to bed, but not at the expense of promoting new myths, like one that slavery had nothing to do with it.
--Len.
Post by: Hugh Damright on November 02, 2007, 07:43:02 PM
"all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief."
Once a people have created a false view of government and false religious beliefs, I reckon it only makes sense that they would create a false figure to represent a political leader and a spiritual leader.
Post by: Kyle on November 03, 2007, 11:26:09 PM
The political activism group on campus who I am a leader of has plans to;
Hold an essay contest to give out a John Wilkes Booth Memorial scholarship- only white males will be considered.
And, to make shirts that have the name of our organization on the front and on the back "Don't blame me, I voted for Breckinridge!"
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 04, 2007, 04:13:58 AM
"Don't blame me, I voted for Breckinridge!"
Post by: richyoung on November 05, 2007, 06:58:35 AM
Post by: Joe Demko on November 06, 2007, 03:12:09 AM
Post by: Glock Glockler on November 06, 2007, 05:25:36 AM
Do you find it a bit odd though that slavery was completely legal according to the SCOTUS? So is it specifically slavery at that point or the fact that the Northern states seemed to do what they pleased regardless of the agreement (Constitution)?
Post by: Joe Demko on November 06, 2007, 07:54:20 AM
Was slavery the only reason for the war? No, but I don't care. Was Abe Lincoln a saint? No, but I don't care. What I care about is that an evil institution was eliminated.
Post by: Len Budney on November 06, 2007, 08:28:45 AM
Was slavery the only reason for the war? No, but I don't care. Was Abe Lincoln a saint? No, but I don't care. What I care about is that an evil institution was eliminated.
The only problem with that position is that other evil things were done in the process. Earlier I gave the example: suppose I "eliminated slavery" by killing every African on the continent? Would you say, "Was Len a mass murderer? Yes, but I don't care. Did he commit genocide? Yes, but I don't care. All I care about is that he eliminated slavery"? Of course you wouldn't.
In Lincoln's case, more than half a million people were slaughtered. Unlike my hypothetical, the ones killed were mostly white. Nevertheless, the elimination of slavery involved mass murder on a scale that would be horrifying even today. In suspending habeas corpus he set a precedent which helped make it possible for Bush to eliminate habeas corpus today--this time, probably forever.
Slavery was evil, needed to be eliminated, and would have been eliminated, eventually, anyway. If we grant for discussion that Lincoln was the "cure," then he was worse than the disease.
--Len.
Post by: Joe Demko on November 06, 2007, 08:31:57 AM
Quote
the elimination of slavery involved mass murder on a scale that would be horrifying even today
The term "mass murder" implies, to me, a systematic and deliberate effort to kill a target group of people. Who were these people that you are saying were murdered?
Post by: Len Budney on November 06, 2007, 08:36:38 AM
Specifically, please, what do you mean by:
The term "mass murder" implies, to me, a systematic and deliberate effort to kill a target group of people. Who were these people that you are saying were murdered?
Quote
the elimination of slavery involved mass murder on a scale that would be horrifying even today
The term "mass murder" implies, to me, a systematic and deliberate effort to kill a target group of people. Who were these people that you are saying were murdered?
I don't really care what it means to you, I'm afraid. Lincoln's war of aggression against the seceding states (which had every right to secede) resulted in over half a million deaths. That included soldiers on both sides, and of course the folks murdered, e.g., on Sherman's "march to the sea" murdering, raping and pillaging. You can't dismiss those dead as "fortunes of war" when you're the war criminal who started it in the first place--nor can you justify it by saying, "Whoops!"
--Len
Post by: Joe Demko on November 06, 2007, 08:39:43 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 06, 2007, 08:41:12 AM
Your definition of mass murder is so broad, then, that basically everybdy who is killed in a war is a victim of mass murder. Thank you.
Sure, I guess you could say that--but be clear: ALL deaths on BOTH sides are the fault of the one who started the war. Not counting specific cases like crimes committed by an individual soldier.
War is just killing on a large scale; the principle is no different than for individual action. If you invade my house and kill my dog, and I kill you, then both deaths are on your head. That's why the man defending himself against aggression is not a murderer.
--Len.
Post by: Joe Demko on November 06, 2007, 08:46:57 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 06, 2007, 08:48:59 AM
Whatever, Len.
Well, it's kind of important. Otherwise when Bush invades Iraq and kills half a million people, you might up and say, "Well, that doesn't count as murder because it was a war." I mean, you personally would never say that I'm sure--but someone might. And that would be terrible, don't you agree? By that standard, the Holocaust wasn't really murder, since Germany was at war.
--Len.
Post by: roo_ster on November 06, 2007, 10:09:27 AM
If I had been around in that era I would have been a radical, militant abolitionist.
Balderdash. The number of militant abolitionists could be counted on my fingers and toes. After John Brown was hanged and his insurrection quashed, you'd need nobody's fingers & toes to count those outside of prison or the grave. If you were such a militant, you would have gone down with them.
The number of radical (but not militant) abolitionists was larger, but still minuscule. Not even Lincoln could be counted in their ranks.
The majority of folks was not particularly incensed by slavery and could not be drawn into war over the issue. Lincoln understood this and framed his rhetoric accordingly. People like my ancestor who volunteered for one of the Iowa infantry regiments did so to preserve the Union, not for strangers of a different race they never met. Later on, the idea that they could socially engineer the South became more popular.
Oh, perhaps you mean, "If I were to somehow transport my early 21st century sensibility to mid-19th century America, I would be...?" Heh, I doubt that anyone with a lick of sense would sign on to John Brown's suicide mission, given foreknowledge of the outcome.
------------
Part Two
Also, I find it interesting how folks can predict that slavery would die out on its own in the South.
Any ideas as to when or what specific event/mechanism? "Economics" is NOT a sufficient answer. The old plantations in the Carolinas were breeding plenty of slaves for sale to slave states west of them, increasing the overall slave population. The slave population in nearly every slave state was self-sustaining even without the Old South slave breeding farms. Given that, the Atlantic slave trade would have lowered the price per slave, but was not necessary for slavery to survive in the South. Also, slaves constituted the largest portion of capital in the South.
I think it unsupportable to predict its immanent demise. Heck, Saudi Arabia only officially ended slavery in the 1960s, though the practice is still widespread in SA and other bass-ackwards dunghole countries.
I'm thinking that the voluntary, non-violent ending of slavery was not going to occur for a good, long time.
Post by: Joe Demko on November 06, 2007, 10:21:28 AM
Quote
Balderdash.
Your ability to know what I would have done is uncanny.
Post by: Glock Glockler on November 06, 2007, 10:31:20 AM
Ok, while we are getting seriously off-topic why do you think the "you" back then would be even remotely similar to who you are today? I think what jfruser might be getting at is not clairvoyance but rather that chances that someone would be a militant abolitionist were extremely small.
Also, why does the goal of ending slavery necessitate bloody conflict? Slavery was eliminated elsewhere without a civil war so perhaps there was a better way of doing it.
Post by: Len Budney on November 06, 2007, 10:32:21 AM
Also, I find it interesting how folks can predict that slavery would die out on its own in the South.
Fair question.
Quote
Any ideas as to when or what specific event/mechanism?
Yes. We have models, because other countries (including England) had already ended slavery without bloodshed. In England, the government "bought" all the slaves and then freed them, before banning the practice. Buying out the existing slave-owners is a non-bloody way of handling their financial objections, and is much, much cheaper than a civil war.
Pressure to end slavery would have come from more than one place, but international trade was a notable one. By the late 19th century, Europe and England would without doubt have imposed trade barriers against goods produced with slave labor. In fact, they did more-or-less that during the war between the states. Foreign sympathy mostly went to the Confederacy, because they saw the primary issue as economic oppression by the North. They didn't send much aid to the South, though, mainly because of their objections to slavery. Were it not for slavery, or even if the South could have spun their cause better, they might well have had enough foreign support to win their independence.
Quote
"Economics" is NOT a sufficient answer.
I agree. Economics is the answer, but just saying that doesn't explain anything.
The biggest economic drawback of slavery is that it fails to take advantage of the division of labor. A slave-owner must provide shelter, food, clothing, medical care, etc., and must deal with all sorts of logistics like the upkeep of children and elderly slaves. In some sense the problem is still there if he frees his slaves and then hires them back; he's still carrying their costs of living. But he no longer has to set aside land for slave shacks, nor to employ guards at night to watch them, etc. He doesn't have to devote manpower to handling the kids or caring for the elderly, which would have been done by a few slaves who therefore weren't picking cotton.
He does better if he frees his slaves and hires them back, even if his labor costs are unchanged. More of his land is growing cotton. All of his manpower is producing his cash crop. When someone is too old or too young to work, he doesn't have to think about them at all. The workers handle their own food, clothing and doctor visits, on their own time. He can let most of his guards and overseers go. He's free to focus on the one thing he does best: sell his crop.
If he clings to his slave-holding ways, as some surely would, the competition will clean his clock. He simply can't compete with someone who focuses exclusively on business. Eventually he'll be driven bankrupt unless he gets out of the slave business.
Quote
I think it unsupportable to predict its immanent demise. Heck, Saudi Arabia only officially ended slavery in the 1960s, though the practice is still widespread in SA and other bass-ackwards dunghole countries.
True. But the main thing that makes slave-owning profitable is precisely that they are bass-ackward dungholes. One African harvesting yams with motorized equipment would out-compete dozens doing it with slave labor. But they mostly don't have mechanical equipment, and the roads suck, and everything is home-made. Their local economy is too primitive, and they're too poor, for an effective division of labor. A solid, free-market economy would change all that.
It's no coincidence that the end of slavery roughly coincided with the industrial revolution.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on November 06, 2007, 10:41:21 AM
Quote
Europe and England would without doubt have imposed trade barriers against goods produced with slave labor.
That's an interesting assertion given that we haven't imposed any trade barriers against the ever increasing goods imported from countries using slave and child labor. All we care about is "Alway Low Prices. Always".
Quote
It's no coincidence that the end of slavery roughly coincided with the industrial revolution.
We may not practice slavery within our borders, but we sure as hell subsidize it overseas.
Post by: Joe Demko on November 06, 2007, 10:44:28 AM
Your ability to know what I would have done is uncanny
Ok, while we are getting seriously off-topic why do you think the "you" back then would be even remotely similar to who you are today? I think what jfruser might be getting at is not clairvoyance but rather that chances that someone would be a militant abolitionist were extremely small.
Also, why does the goal of ending slavery necessitate bloody conflict? Slavery was eliminated elsewhere without a civil war so perhaps there was a better way of doing it.
Ok, while we are getting seriously off-topic why do you think the "you" back then would be even remotely similar to who you are today? I think what jfruser might be getting at is not clairvoyance but rather that chances that someone would be a militant abolitionist were extremely small.
Also, why does the goal of ending slavery necessitate bloody conflict? Slavery was eliminated elsewhere without a civil war so perhaps there was a better way of doing it.
Because I like to think that the "me" back then would have been a slender_almost pixieish_woman from the North East whose strong Quaker upbringing would have resulted in my abolitionist beliefs.
Any more questions about hypothetical iterations of my life force?
Post by: Len Budney on November 06, 2007, 10:52:29 AM
Quote
Europe and England would without doubt have imposed trade barriers against goods produced with slave labor.
That's an interesting assertion given that we haven't imposed any trade barriers against the ever increasing goods imported from countries using slave and child labor. All we care about is "Alway Low Prices. Always".
I'm only saying what England and other nations would most likely do--I'm neither approving nor condemning their hypothetical action.
Arguments can be made either way. The so-called "slave labor" in China is partly real, but partly hype. The fact is that Chinese wages, working and living conditions are improving, mainly due to international trade. Sanctions keeping them poor would also keep slavery profitable, relatively speaking. Nevertheless, if your conscience moves you to boycott Chinese-produced goods, I certainly don't dispute your absolute right to shop accordingly.
--Len.
Post by: mfree on November 07, 2007, 06:19:55 AM
Post by: Thor on November 07, 2007, 06:47:11 AM
Post by: jnojr on November 07, 2007, 02:29:16 PM
Assuming that preserving the Union was a good thing and most would agree that it was
Who would, or could, argue any such thing?
The Southern states did exactly the same thing as the Thirteen Colonies in 1776... declared their independence from a distant, foreign government that did not truly represent their interests, and formed their own government.
"Preserving the Union" did nothing more than enslave millions of people then, and countless people from future generations. I am today subject to an overbearing government that has shrugged off most of the chains that were intended to bind it because of Lincoln. I am forced to relinquish approximately half of my income to government or face imprisonment and bankruptcy because of him. I cannot truly own property (property taxes) because of the course he set this nation on.
We were supposed to be a federal republic, not one giant all-inclusive nation where all men bent a knee to Washington D.C. and Lincoln stole that from us. He was a the worst kind of tyrant... the type that committed his tyranny in perfect confidence that he was right, and that any who disagreed with him was a traitor.
Post by: roo_ster on November 07, 2007, 07:14:16 PM
Your ability to know what I would have done is uncanny
Ok, while we are getting seriously off-topic why do you think the "you" back then would be even remotely similar to who you are today? I think what jfruser might be getting at is not clairvoyance but rather that chances that someone would be a militant abolitionist were extremely small.
Bingo.Ok, while we are getting seriously off-topic why do you think the "you" back then would be even remotely similar to who you are today? I think what jfruser might be getting at is not clairvoyance but rather that chances that someone would be a militant abolitionist were extremely small.
John Brown is known because he was exceptional, an actual militant abolitionist. Most went down with him.
Post by: Joe Demko on November 08, 2007, 03:00:01 AM
Sometimes, the groupthink here is appalling.
Post by: Iain on November 08, 2007, 03:49:35 AM
Post by: Glock Glockler on November 08, 2007, 04:20:05 AM
The only thing a hypothetical question tells someone is how the person asked the hypothetical question would answer, not what they'd actually do. That's why I take your assertion that you'd be a militant abolitionist with a grain of salt, who we are is in large part shaped by our experiences, and being born and raised in a very different society with vastly different experiences will make a different person.
The "you" raised in the 1800s might have been a militant abolitionist but Vegas doesn't give it good odds.
Post by: Hugh Damright on November 08, 2007, 05:19:58 AM
I think of it like this ... if I was on an island with 100 people, and one of them was an ignorant slave who had no voice, I would probably feel like he should have a voice, because it wouldn't have any impact on matters, and it would make us all feel good about ourselves ... but if I was on an island with 100 people, and 60 of them were ignorant slaves who had no voice, I would probably feel like treating everyone equally would be idiotic, because I would not want my island controlled by ignorant slaves ... and if the people from the lily white island said that we had to treat everyone equal on our 40% white island, or they would kill us, I would probably see little choice but to defend our island against their jihad.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2007, 12:24:47 PM
Right. Since there were relatively few militant abolitionists, it's impossible for anybody else to have been one. Sometimes, the groupthink here is appalling.
Sometimes, the groupthink here is appalling. What groupthink? Is it groupthink when just a few people in the same thread agree on a minor point? Put down the coffee, Joe.
OK, yes, YOU might well have been a militant abolitionist, Joe. But the point is that you wouldn't be YOU if you grew up in the early nineteenth century. And I wouldn't be ME if I had been born into a wealthy Black family in Philadelphia, in 1991.
Post by: Joe Demko on November 08, 2007, 12:55:42 PM
You may all now return to your 5 minute hate.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2007, 01:06:23 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 08, 2007, 01:07:34 PM
If I had a time machine, I would do so many other things than getting myself killed for something that was bound to happen anyway.
Disclaimer: Joe, I say the above as general discussion, not an attack targeted at you.
Admission: I freely admit I despise Lincoln and enjoy firing a deserved broadside at his bloated image.
Post by: Thor on November 08, 2007, 02:30:34 PM
Post by: Len Budney on November 08, 2007, 05:15:01 PM
Actually, as I understand it, slavery was waning in the South just before the Civil War. Furthermore, many slaves stayed with their "owners" even after they were "freed".
Yep. And it's worth noticing that the north ended slavery while remaining extremely racist (see, for example, "black codes"). They did it because first slavery became uneconomical. What made it uneconomical was the shift to industrialization, which raised the division of labor to a new level. The South was behind the North in this regard, but it was only a matter of time.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2007, 06:06:45 PM
Actually, as I understand it, slavery was waning in the South just before the Civil War.
Well, a lot of people thought that in 1787, too.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2007, 06:43:54 PM
Yep. And it's worth noticing that the north ended slavery while remaining extremely racist (see, for example, "black codes").
Why is that relevant? I oppose rape and domestic violence, yet I'm still a sexist. I believe homosexuality is wrong, yet I don't believe in "gay-bashing." There's nothing hypocritical about ending slavery, while still keeping Blacks at second-class status. I don't agree with it, but it's not hypocritical. But if your point is that it casts doubt on the sincerity of Northerners' concern for Black welfare - well, yeah, you may have a point.
Quote
They did it because first slavery became uneconomical.
According to the scholarship I've read on the subject (Kenneth Stamp, Eric Foner, etc.) the North was keenly aware that a slave system was all too competitive and economical. I think there is also a wealth of primary sources to demonstrate Northern fears that slavery would spread into the West and into the North, robbing free White men of "the American dream," while fattening the Southern slave-ocracy.
Post by: roo_ster on November 08, 2007, 07:29:37 PM
Right. Since there were relatively few militant abolitionists, it's impossible for anybody else to have been one. Sometimes, the groupthink here is appalling.
Which groupthink is that, Joe? That every one who projects their selves back into history would take the right side on controversial issues according to contemporary (21st cent) mores? Sometimes, the groupthink here is appalling.Anyway, my point is that militant abolitionists were rare birds & most were netted at Harper's Ferry. The statistical likelihood of some random guy being a militant does approach zero...as does the likelihood of any of us having their selves and psyches transported to 1860 America.
FWIW, I am not a great fan of Lincoln, but I think the Civil War justified. After the rebel states withdrew from the Union, they no longer had US Constitutional protection and were a foreign state with repugnant practices, much under-utilized agricultural land, and weak political leadership. They were similar to the Indian tribes that way and got/merited similar treatment. I lay awake at night with my heart bleeding for neither.
------
[tongue_in_cheek]As long as we're claiming the credit to fight evils conquered long before any of us had any chance to fight them (and will never bear any inconvenience for our actions), I'd like it to be known that:
1. If I were in Germany in the late 1930s, I would be against Nazism.
2. If I were in Madrid, Spain, in 1492, I would be a philosemite.
3. If I were in the Garden of Eden, I would slap Adam and Eve upside the head before they ate THAT fruit and
Y'all can thank me by sending money or dancing bears via Fedex.[/tongue_in_cheek]
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2007, 07:37:36 PM
Quote
3. If I were in the Garden of Eden, I would slap Adam and Eve upside the head before they ate THAT fruit and club smite the serpent with a bough from a fig tree, thus averting all sin for all time.
I know you were joking, but the really funny thing is that so many people actually think that way. "I wouldn't have eaten the fruit." Riiiight.
Post by: Len Budney on November 08, 2007, 07:39:05 PM
Yep. And it's worth noticing that the north ended slavery while remaining extremely racist (see, for example, "black codes").
Why is that relevant?
It's relevant because their motivation for ending slavery certainly wasn't their heartfelt love of the black man. This doesn't prove, but it does suggest, that they also weren't motivated by a moral opposition to slavery. I.e., only once slavery was unprofitable anyway did they suddenly develop scruples against it.
Quote
But if your point is that it casts doubt on the sincerity of Northerners' concern for Black welfare - well, yeah, you may have a point.
Yeah, that's basically it.
Quote
Quote
They did it because first slavery became uneconomical.
According to the scholarship I've read on the subject (Kenneth Stamp, Eric Foner, etc.) the North was keenly aware that a slave system was all too competitive and economical. I think there is also a wealth of primary sources to demonstrate Northern fears that slavery would spread into the West and into the North, robbing free White men of "the American dream," while fattening the Southern slave-ocracy.
White laborers no doubt feared black competition, in the same ignorant way that laborers today fear competition from Mexicans: they suppose that there's a finite amount of work out there to be done, and there might not be enough left for themselves.
From the point of view of the employers, though, slavery is much less efficient than regular employment. It forces you to divert resources from what you do best--make widgets--into housing, clothing, feeding, overseeing and all the rest. This disparity grows as the economy develops, because specialists always outperform generalists. That's actually provable mathematically. It's known as the "law of comparative advantage" or "Ricardo's law of association."
--Len.
Post by: DustinD on November 09, 2007, 05:13:25 AM
Quote from: Joe Demko
If I had been around in that era I would have been a radical, militant abolitionist.
There is no need to wonder or guess at what we would have done. Slavery still exists today in many parts of the world. There are many known murderers and serial rapists that have been released, are still dangerous, and even openly admit that they will strike again, or have gotten off on technicalities. There are countless civil rights violations occurring here and abroad, as well as enough politicians, police, and other government officials that have literally gotten away with murder, not to mention other serious crimes, to keep any radical militants busy for a long time. If someone is not a radical militant today I doubt they would have been one in the past. Heck if someone is not putting serious effort into solving current problems we can ass-u-me with pretty good certainty that they would not have been a radical militant in the past.If you want to know what someone would have done or thought in the past, why not compare their personality, opinions, and actions from the present. If someone says that they would have fought(either peacefully or violently) against slavery in the past, why not check to see if they have ever fought for a current or recent civil rights topic before it became popular? If you wanted an even more precise answer you would also have to find out every reason why the person in question took the course of action that they did, was it to meet members of the opposite sex, were they raised that way, were all their friends doing it? Then you would pretty much have your answer.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 09, 2007, 12:49:21 PM
Wow, I wish I had written that.
Many of the abolitionists of that time were motivated by religious fervor, often combined with the usual do-gooder guilt of the wealthy.
Post by: Paddy on November 09, 2007, 12:50:53 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 09, 2007, 01:26:44 PM
You guys really do need to stop fighting the Civil War. It's been over a long, long time, and the CSA lost.
That may be, but the War on False Idols should continue, as part of national political health.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 09, 2007, 01:48:46 PM
Why? So we can waste more money to surrender more freedoms to the goobermint? You nanny-state liberals are all the same.
Post by: Paddy on November 09, 2007, 01:55:55 PM
Quote
That may be, but the War on False Idols should continue, as part of national political health.
Indeed. You don't think Bush would do the same, and certainly worse, than Lincoln? Let's direct our War on Current (Living) False Idols, where it can do us all some good.