Anyone else here a Lincoln critic?

[Perd Hapley]

Right.  Since there were relatively few militant abolitionists, it's impossible for anybody else to have been one.   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. 

[Joe Demko]

See, that's just it fistful...If I had said that I'd have been a Confederate Cavalry Officer, the "yee-haw!'s" would still be echoing.  If I'd said I'd have been one slave-owning emmeffer who'd rather DIE than lose my property, I'd be a hero!  But...no.  The groupthink here is that_somehow_the Confederacy was some proto-Libertaria, Lincoln was evil, abolitionists were evil, blah..blah...blah.  Therefore, it's impossible that I would have been a militant abolitionist even though there were militant abolitionists.

You may all now return to your 5 minute hate.

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah, there is a lot of that in this thread.  But, then, it is aimed critics of Lincoln, so there's that.  If you're interested, there have been earlier threads on this theme, with more of the other side presented.

[CAnnoneer]

All this speculation is rather silly. Worldviews are based on upbringing and life experience. Different conditions, different person. At best, you can say that if you had a time machine to transport you back to that time period, you would choose to do something based on who you are now.

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.

[Thor]

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".

[Len Budney]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

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.

[roo_ster]

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?

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 club smite the serpent with a bough from a fig tree, thus averting all sin for all time. 

Y'all can thank me by sending money or dancing bears via Fedex.[/tongue_in_cheek]

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

[Len Budney]

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.

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.

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.

[DustinD]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

[Paddy]

You guys really do need to stop fighting the Civil War.  It's been over a long, long time, and the CSA lost. 

[CAnnoneer]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

Oh, great a War on False Idols.      Why?  So we can waste more money to surrender more freedoms to the goobermint?  You nanny-state liberals are all the same.   

[Paddy]

Don't get me wrong, I admire a rebellious attitude. I have a huge Confederate Battle Flag ready to run up the flagpole. But it does little good to go back 140 years to demonize Lincoln.

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.