One would expect economically unviable approaches to be quickly outcompeted and to disappear on their own.
The question is not whether or not slavery was profitable.
I agree that wasn't your question to me. It was my question to you. How could the statement that "The South clung to slavery long after it was economically viable" possibly be true?
It's whether or not the slavery supporters thought it was worthwhile. It wasn't just about cash. It was about Cavaliers, Gallantry, Knights and their Ladies Fair.
Just how does one do this for decade after decade while losing money?
That "The industrialization of the North was largely what won the war" I doubt many would have a problem with, but that "The South clung to slavery long after it was economically viable" seems doubtful.
My original point, the one you responded to in Message 228, was that slavery was "a lynchpin of the Southern economy whose removal would cause its collapse." It does seem reasonable to hold that at a minimum slavery was "economically viable," but could it be effectively argued that it wasn't a lynchpin?
I suppose. The consensus seems to be that slaves were more profitable than indentured servants, but less and less so over time. Was this a trend the South was aware of at the time, was it significant, and could the South rely upon it continuing? Accepting affirmative answers would form part of an argument for how the North was not significantly responsible for placing the South in an untenable position.
I'm just going by Message 11 where you said that renaming buildings is tantamount to pretending history didn't happen as it did.
You're right, that sounds like it contradicts my later statements (about not having any problem with renaming Cape Kennedy or a school named for Nathan Bedford Forrest). That post was over a month ago and I'm not sure why I said that, though I do have a vague recollection of some absurd building renaming effort, maybe it was an indirect reference to that. In any case, I don't have much problem with renaming individual buildings - happens all the time.
Oh, wait, I remember now, it *was* a reference to something in the news. Last year Georgetown University announced that they would rename a couple buildings named for school presidents who had gone against the school charter when they sold University owned slaves in the 1830's, and the NYT had an analysis article around the time I wrote. The buildings had held the names of McSherry and Mulledy for well over a century, and after all this time the building names themselves have passed into history. I would prefer an approach where they put plaques on the lawn or in the foyer describing the historical context.
The old South of your country wasn't weird, it's our modern non-slave culture that's exceptional.
I didn't say it was weird. I described those practices as despicable and not worthy of celebration.
About that last part, you're stating the obvious. Everyone agrees that slavery isn't worthy of celebration. That wasn't Bluegene's point in talking about his ancestry.
And about "despicable," you're again putting blunt subjective values on something that is worthy of being placed in perspective and understood in the context of history. We get it, you hate slavery and find it despicable. We acknowledge and understand your personal feelings on matters of "enslavings" and "lynchings" and so forth, because we all feel the same way, but to have a worthwhile discussion we must all avoid looking at the past through an emotional lens. We need to put our analytical and objective hats on and get some facts on the table.
So why did the South support slavery so vehemently?
Really? The only worthwhile discussion is an apologists view of slavery?
You are not responding to a suggestion anyone made. The actual suggestion was that you set your emotionalism aside.
So somehow understanding that no one is despicable is more objective?
If you were being objective you wouldn't be ranting.
Substituting the opinions of the slave holders on slavery for our own is more accurate, and beneficial in some way? I don't buy that.
No one cares whether you buy that because no one is suggesting that.
I'm not saying that such a view point is not worthwhile, but surely it is not the only worthwhile discussion.
You haven't described a viewpoint anyone is pushing. The only rebuttals you can seem to muster is against arguments you make up yourself.
The key question is why the South embraced and defended slavery so vehemently. An objective approach should be able to do a little bit better than something like, "Slavery is despicable and Southerners were evil."
The monument in question is to dying in support of slavery.
If the monument in question is still the one from the OP, the one at the University of Louisville, then it's also to all those who served in the Confederate armies. On one side it says, "Our Confederate Dead, 1861-1865," and on the other, "Tribute to the Rank and File of the Armies of the South."
So it's to the ones who risked dying as well as the unlucky ones who actually died.
That's the way I interpret it, though I'd add that many were wounded, including wounds that left behind lifelong handicaps.
You were saying that you're drawing a distinction between those who died for slavery and those who merely supported it, which I think would be all supporters of slavery who didn't die, whether combatant or politician or plantation owner or blacksmith or whatever. I understand the distinction but don't see how it fits into your position.
You were also saying that you draw a distinction between monuments to individual people and those to entire groups of people, but there are so many examples of both for both the North and the South that I can't tell where you're going with this.
Words of Lincoln from James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom:
quote:Lincoln denied that there CAN be MORAL RIGHT in the enslaving of one man by another. But he did not want to pass judgment on southern people. When they tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we, I acknowledge the fact. . . . They are just what we would be in their situation. . . . When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, Lincoln acknowledged that fact also. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia. But a moment’s reflection convinced him of the impossibility of that. What then, free them and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? . . . What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? Even if Lincoln’s own feelings would accept this, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. . . . A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded.
If Lincoln would not judge the South, how can we? This is from a debate with Stephen Douglas in 1854 - not the Lincoln/Douglas debates, which didn't take place until 1858.
quote:If Lincoln would not judge the South, how can we?
Because we know better.
Isn't this "we" really just you and NoNukes?
In any case, no matter your numbers, you have to *show* you know better, not just declare it so.
Lincoln was not infallible. He was not god.
No one claimed he was, least of all him. But during the nation's most difficult time neither did his words resonate with hate.
But we still blame those who carried it out (and profited from it) because it is evil.
Yes, I know, so both you and NoNukes say. But when asked for objective analysis there are only sputterings of how horrible slavery was and so also its defenders. As one Civil War webpage says:
quote:Objective historical inquiry is an essential aspect of a free, thinking people. To ask, "was slavery profitable?" is not to say, "slavery was justified," even if the answer you come up with is, "yes, it was." Moral abhorrence does not preclude honest study. ... Dealing with American history on this level requires patience and the ability to get past attitudes unwilling to go further than, "They had slaves, slaves were wrong, the South deserves everything it got."
That outlines precisely the problem we're experiencing here, the unwillingness by one side to go beyond kneejerk emotional judgments. The defense so far offered ("So what's wrong with that?") is dismaying.
And thus, we do not glorify those who would champion it and declare that their entire reason for existence is to perpetuate it.
No one in this thread has argued that we should "glorify" (or "celebrate" in NoNuke-ese) Southerners for embracing, defending and perpetuating slavery. What we're seeking is understanding. Why did Southerners behave the way they did? As Lincoln said, "They are just what we would be in their situation."
Oh, bravo, emotionalism masquerading as objectivity. Good show.
There is nothing particular objective about pretending that slavery was not evil,...
You're mischaracterizing my views again, a choice constantly forced on you by the lack of objective support for your position. Rejection of "NoNuke" terminology does not equate to lack of recognition of slavery's moral wrongness.
...or that the judgment of folks from the time period about slavers is not relevant,...
I never said that, either. Will you ever make it possible for our dialogues not to force me into constant declarations of, "No, I never said that"? When you have no good answer then remain silent - don't invent fantasies.
The key question is why the South embraced and defended slavery so vehemently.
That's not the key question.
For *this* discussion? Most certainly it is a key question.
It is a question, and one on whose answer I doubt any of us would find much reason to debate.
I can see why *you* wouldn't have much reason to discuss this question, given that your views will suffer at the hands of information and analysis.
The difficulty is your insistence that those reasons do not reflect badly on the South...
I never said this, either. What I *would* say is that looking at the Civil War in terms of good and evil is beyond simplistic into the adolescent.
If Lincoln would not judge the South, how can we? This is from a debate with Stephen Douglas in 1854 - not the Lincoln/Douglas debates, which didn't take place until 1858.
We are not politicians who might be seeking a vote or three. Isn't this speech the very definition of politically correct?
Will you never have an objection of substance, or will you always resort to insinuating rhetorical questions?
Since they largely comport with the views I've expressed in this thread, I can understand why you might question Lincoln's words that he echoed so many times, publicly and privately. I quoted Lincoln from 1854, and it's a testament to his rock-solid rational and moral foundation that they evolved so little in the years leading up to the Lincoln/Douglas debates of 1858 and the presidential campaign of 1860, not to mention the war years. He never questioned the honor and valor of Southerners. Lincoln's own words are best, these from 1864:
quote:"Human nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad and as good. Let us therefore study the incidents in this as philosophy to learn wisdom from and none of them as wrongs to be avenged."
That's not what is being asked here or debated here. What is instead being insisted on, and what is instead the subject of this particular thread is whether or not our judgments should affect whether we move monuments or not.
Well now you're just making a procedural motion to abandon this discussion subtopic and return to the original topic. I can't see any reason to seriously entertain this proposal. The inevitable diversion of threads into related subtopics was settled very early in the life of EvC Forum.
Nobody is trying to tell you how to study history or to insist after having made judgments that you do not explore in detail the motivations for what those folk did. Perhaps in the midst of your complaining about being misquoted, you should also consider how you are representing the positions of others.
Oh, good grief, now you're into, "Oh, yeah? Well, same to you!" Good show.
Perhaps you should get on with supporting your claim that Southerners were evil instead of forcing discussion down ratholes. And a little more attention to accurately representing what people say would be nice, too.
I can see why *you* wouldn't have much reason to discuss this question, given that your views will suffer at the hands of information and analysis.
Not really, Percy. I'm not afraid to 'mix it up' with anyone here. I am certainly not afraid of expressing or discussing an unpopular opinion. Why even make these kinds of accusations?
Uh, because you're stonewalling?
Yet I do object to the conclusion that slavery was not evil...
There you go again. My only objection is to your terminology. Assessing history in terms of good and evil is juvenile. We agree that slavery is morally wrong. Please stop saying things like I've reached "the conclusion that slavery was not evil." It is a clear and obvious misrepresentation that ignores the distinction I've brought to your attention time and again. If this were a courtroom then every time this claim began emerging from your lips I would cry, "Objection," the judge would say, "Sustained," and after several episodes the judge would say, "Mr. NoNukes, one more time and I shall find you in contempt."
As I've said before, much of our disagreement is about the proper weighting of things and their applicability to the topic of discussion and not about the facts and details.
How would you know? Concerning the accuracy (not to mention appropriateness) of judgments of evil, you've been running away like a scared rabbit.
We may not disagree on very many facts of history. That lack of disagreement does not result in our agreeing about how to view Jefferson Davis or Nathan Bedford Forrest or any number of others.
Again, how would you know? You're spending all your time inventing reasons not to discuss.
For *this* discussion? Most certainly it is a key question.
Thank you. Not "the" key question, as you expressed before.
This is your reason for not considering the question, the difference between "a" and "the?" This is your level of debate? This is Clintonesque-level "what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
Let me help you get started here. Begin your next post with, "I agree that it is *a* key question, not *the* question, but clearly it is one of the important questions, so let me address it now..." In case you've forgotten the question, in terms of your perspective it would be phrased, "Why did embracing and defending slavery so vehemently make antebellum Southerners evil?" Rephrase to your liking as appropriate as long as the fundamental meaning doesn't change.
I understand the distinction but don't see how it fits into your position.
The only "position" is that it's reasonable to support moving the Louisville monument without also demanding that the Washington Monument be moved.
Right, but I thought the original point was that once one begins removing monuments based upon the reason provided by "the guy in the OP," how is it that that reasoning includes the Louisville monument but not the Washington Memorial? It might be suspected that it's because the South is an easy target while George Washington is not. At least he's not an easy target at the moment, but give it time. You might think you've set your sights on just the Louisville memorial when it's actually both - one's merely "beyond view" at the moment.
An individual tombstone that says, "Here lies George, 1845-1863," doesn't say much about why George died. A collective monument commemorates - or at least connotes - an event. The motivation behind a collective monument is much clearer.
I agree that tombstones don't often say a lot, but you originally said "individual monuments," which often say quite a bit. For an example of an individual monument that says a lot, and since it's been mentioned before, we need only look to the Jefferson Davis Monument (the obelisk). It has a plaque with a long Davis quote that sounds quite noble:
And then there's this Jefferson Davis memorial in Richmond, with two plaques that appear to say quite a bit, though what they say can't quite be made out:
So I still don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw between individual and collective monuments.
Because I am not participating in a generating a list of reasons the South had for enslaving folks, and treating them as sub human? Again, I don't consider that to be a matter of dispute. Several reasons have been given in this thread, and I don't have any problems with any of them.
You're so lost you don't even remember what you're stonewalling about. It has to do with why you think viewing Southerners (or any people) as evil makes any sense or has any value.
If your insults are an attempt to goad me into some different behavior, perhaps another tactic might be employed.
Insults? What insults? To echo Truman, I'm just telling the truth and to you it seems like insults. If having your behavior described feels insulting then maybe you should stop doing it. Obviously you've had lots of practice at deflecting criticism and diverting attention from your arguments, but that doesn't change reality.
How would you know? Concerning the accuracy (not to mention appropriateness) of judgments of evil, you've been running away like a scared rabbit.
Yawn. Again, not probably an effective tactic. Maybe the pointless insults can cease now?
Well, okay, I guess you're just going to keep doing what you're doing, but the fact remains that you're still evading the question.
NoNukes writes:
For *this* discussion? Most certainly it is a key question.
Thank you. Not "the" key question, as you expressed before.
This is your reason for not considering the question, the difference between "a" and "the?" This is your level of debate? This is Clintonesque-level "what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
Of course not. My reason for pointing out the difference was made perfectly clear, despite your lampooning of it here.
Well yes, yes it was clear, as my quote (fuller and more honest than what you provided) shows. You said you didn't answer because I called it "the" question instead of "a" question. And then when I called it "a" question just the way you prefer, you still didn't answer the question. What's clear is that you're still just evading and stonewalling.
Where we disagree is in your insistence that your approach is "the" approach. And using "the" here among other things you do and say, conveys exactly that insistence.
Once again, what a surprise, you're once again claiming I said something I never said. It's the old NoNukes standby. Stop contriving excuses and blaming others for your own failures. Answer the question.
Note that I nothing I post here stops you from listing Southern justifications for slavery by quoting any number of sources either of us can locate on the web. Why don't you do that, if you feel like I need to be shown up? Is there some reason why you need me to do that for you?
But that wasn't the question, so why would I do that? If that's what you really want to discuss then it's fine by me, but you haven't introduced that subtopic yet. All you've done is tried to make it seem as if that were my question - it wasn't.
You are right that the study of history does not end with the announcement that slavery was evil, but rightly goes beyond that point. I am simply insisting that it does not go with skipping over the point before continuing.
"Evil" isn't a useful term for historical analysis. Your earlier suggestion that I substitute "morally wrong" wherever you say "evil" doesn't work for too many situations, especially for both slavery and Southerners, as I explained at the time. And it would make no sense for you to insist on your designation of "evil" because its appropriateness is the very thing I've been trying to discuss with you.
Let me help you get started here. Begin your next post with, "I agree that it is *a* key question, not *the* question, but clearly it is one of the important questions, so let me address it now..."
How about if you type your posts, and I type my posts?
How about you answer the question? How does it make any sense or provide any value to view Southerners as evil?
You're so lost you don't even remember what you're stonewalling about. It has to do with why you think viewing Southerners (or any people) as evil makes any sense or has any value.
I understand the point of your argument.
No, you don't understand. You really don't. The reason Lincoln's words have survived to this day and will likely survive beyond the end of this republic is because they represent timeless truths. You dismissed them out of hand as mere campaign rhetoric, and once challenged have been avoiding a defense. The people of the antebellum South were just people like us. They did what we would in their situation.
Your insults are gratuitous and not necessary.
They weren't insults, but I do confess frustration and bewilderment that you persist in attributing to me things I haven't said. It's as if the words of my messages flutter off the screen, swirl around in your head, then resettle into new patterns of your own making. Calling this years-long behavior to your attention has been fruitless. You ignore it or deny it or double-down on it or, most recently, call it insults.
I accept that you consider them to be the truth.
The truth of oneself is reflected in other people.
I also accept that when folks accuse people of lying, or being stupid, puerile, or racist, they are only being accurate as they see it.
False accusations while denying false attributions?
The truth is that I never accused you of any of these things. I don't think your constant false attributions are lying and have never said so. I guess a possibility might be that they're more a defense mechanism that kicks in every time you want to be right but can't figure out how, but how could one ever know? Even if not purposeful, it's wrong, it halts discussion while forcing me to restate what I really said, and it's a time waster and rat hole generator.
I also accept that "telling the truth" as you see it is an exception to the desired goal of addressing the argument rather than the person,...
And you *are* very emphatically addressing the person and not the argument every time you accuse someone of saying things they didn't say, which you've done so often in so many threads that I think we should begin referring to it as being "NoNuked." You garb your personal attacks in the language of discussion, and then you compound the offense by blaming the people you've offended for trying to defend themselves. I'm just trying to make you stop, but nothing seems to work. Your implacable mask rejects all feedback.
...so no, I won't be bothering to make a useless complaint if that is your suggestion.
No, that's not my suggestion, and I have no idea why you think I might be making such a suggestion. There's no hidden message here. It's very simple. Stop attributing to me things I didn't say and using it as a means to avoid what I did say.
I will suggest that your methods are not going to be productive, and are likely to be counter productive.
Well, yes, obviously I can see that you're determined that nothing I try bears fruit.
You said you didn't answer because I called it "the" question instead of "a" question.
Not quite correct. I did not give that as a reason for not answering the question. I used it to describe your attitude during the discussion.
Using "the" instead of "a" reveals my "attitude?" Don't be silly. That's the same absurd way that Creationists argue over Genesis, where single words are elevated to maximal significance. Find a real reason.
The reason for not engaging in the discussion is that the question does not involve a matter of dispute between us. The question related to Southern rationale for slavery do not add up to a justification for what they did. Both of us are on record as agreeing to that. Further, as best as I can tell we don't disagree on the rationale Southerners gave or would give for instituting slavery, and for the evils they perpetrated on an entire race of folks during the execution of their policy.
You're wrong about what we agree on, but I'll skip past that and move on to the important point (or is it "an" important point), that the goal of history is not to judge peoples good or evil. Your hang up about good versus evil has you wasting all your time on irrelevant questions. As I noted earlier, it is apparently a common problem when discussing the Civil War.
Your preordained determination to arrive at a conclusion of "evil" drives your logic. It explains why you focus so much effort on grisly characterizations of slavery and not broadly on the historical, cultural and geographical context. For you it's very simple: "They had slaves, they defended slavery, they're evil." It completely ignores the human question: What causes people just like us to feel justified in claiming ownership of another? What explains this? That's the mystery Lincoln was calling to mind.
Not that psychology wasn't interested before, but the mystery of the Reich was a motivator for research into human behavior. Michael Milgram's experiments are legendary, his research summarized in the documentary Obediance available on YouTube, but if you're not familiar with it then here's a short summary:
Subjects followed the instructions of a lab-coated scientist (an authority figure) to administer what they believed were greatly painful electric shocks to someone behind a screen who they believed was just another subject but who was actually an actor. Under the instructions of an authority figure many administered what they believed were potentially lethal shocks.
The study was not about taking random people off the street and determining which of them were evil. It was a study in the behavior of normal, everyday human beings, no different from the Southerners of antebellum America.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
