PC Gone Too Far

Did you do either before making your claim? Had those you asked experienced death? And how would asking anyone change the fact that existence is the opposite of non-existence? It could do, and doing so could be misleading. You're the one making up your story of 19th century southerners. Claiming that slavery is similar to genocide is certainly not "straight".

I used something called "empathy" to imagine what it would be like to be a slave and to conclude that it would be comparable in some ways to death. What did you use to conclude that they're completely different? You sound like ICANT. What do existence and non-existence have to do with slavery and death?

ringo misses wide: *facepalm*
maybe there should be a hyperbole font.i thought i was making a dumbed-down analogy.....ah well, SMH

You described a slave having a traumatic experience. Non slaves could have similar experiences, but corpses can't. Logic (the point about existence and its opposite) and reasoning from evidence. You can readily observe that slavery did not have the same or similar effects on the African American population that genocide would have had. Existing as a slave or anything else isn't similar to not existing at all.

probably a big mistake to fight someone who is behaving like a troll, but:First off Bluegenes, your whole argument is off line here in this thread. Yes, we know that, in your mind and in mine, when you're dead, you're dead.But if you for one minute think that the Trail of Tears or being gassed to death or having your family ripped away and murdered in front of your eyes are not very close, then i'm sorry - you have a heart of coal. In all cases there are survivors who WILL NOT FORGET. But wouldn't the corpses HAVE EXPERIENCED traumatic experience? Are you saying that you don't care about the suffering of the Holocaust victims had to endure because they're all dead now? C'mon. get real. As opposed to the native tribes in North America when white man nearly (just like Hitler was trying to do) wiped them out??? Gimme a break. You are arguing something completely adjunct to this discussion - yes - when you die, you feel no more pain. You don't feel anything. So what? Your level of comparison is off-topic. We're talking about empathy, suffering,...yunno, all those things that you apparently cannot express from your own self. Come home! You are a human being? Yes? ?? ?I know you can do it..........

I imagine that he does indeed want that. But if that was the intent of his words in the post I addressed, then he has not done a great job of expressing that position. His thesis was not just that slavery is a distraction from an analysis of the civil war, (and of course it can be somewhat of a distraction,) but that slavery
s importance was somehow peripheral, which is of course just incorrect. If you can squeeze something 'all inclusive' out of that post, I'd welcome your efforts at making peace.Rrhain and I have repeatedly acknowledged that a complete study of the civil war and the antebellum South would include a discussion from the perspectives of slaveholders. At this point, I find such reminders to be a simple dismissal of any possibility that in forming my opinion, I have considered those questions. I suspect that I could do at least as well as Percy in filling in that story. In contrast, Percy cannot seem to cite much about, say Jefferson Davis other than that he was an ineffectual leader. It is enough for him that those folks in the past celebrated Davis. I would not expect most history professors to be familiar with the chemistry or that the method of making the gas would be relevant in a discussion about why the Nazis gassed folks and the historical consequences of the gassing.Perhaps, I am criticizing your example more so than the principle involved. Sure there are better examples of knowledge that we are keeping away from history students than the formula for some poisonous gas. But who is talking about censoring that information?

No, accurately. Anyone can read the posts. Only you and NoNukes are claiming Lincoln was wrong in this thread. Well now you're just confused. My claim that it's just you and NoNukes is the opposite of an "it's true because that's what most people believe is true" type of argument. Of course it doesn't mean you're the only ones. But you can't just claim an army of agreement (which, by the way, *is* the Argumentum ad populum fallacy), you have to show it. I agree, but it was you who cited it when I pointed out that it was just you and NoNukes claiming Lincoln was wrong, as we see here in your Message 317: So either you're supporting your position that Lincoln was wrong, or you didn't realize that's what I was referring to. This is just an elongated version of, "No I didn't, you did," and it makes no sense. You're claiming that good and evil should be included as part of historical analysis. This approach is subjective and appeals to the emotions. I've been arguing for an objective approach. No, this is not "the theist argument about how atheists don't have morality." It's an argument that evil is a subjective and relative concept that is not very useful in historical analysis. You might misunderstand what I mean when I say that evil has no place in historical analysis. It definitely does not mean ignoring the concept's role in history. It would be historically valid to argue that the North opposed slavery because they believed the institution evil, and that the South embraced it because they believed it good and beneficial. But it would not be historically valid to argue that the North was good for rejecting slavery and the South evil for embracing it. The point of monuments for either Northern or Southern war dead would be pretty much the same. We all agree that the Confederacy was defending slavery. Deeming the Confederacy evil is not analysis and does not have any historical value. If this is an argument in favor of removing a 120-year old monument, then yes, you're suggesting the destruction of history. It isn't the passage of time that allows you to see what they couldn't. Northerners clearly saw it. If you're trying to say that evil *is* is a historical assessment that has value, then you should be able to explain why. So far there's been a lot of nothing. Right - this is as good an argument as, "They were evil because they were evil." That's actually the whole point, that you're making value judgments and not being objective. This indicates a misunderstanding of what Lincoln was saying. Before you can rebut it you have to understand it. I think when you understand what Lincoln was really saying that you'll see he wasn't playing politics.--Percy

Plenty of mistakes in your post, but that's not one of them. Well, that's one thing we agree on. Surely you can also agree that when you're a slave you're not dead, and when you're dead, you're not a slave. A terrible experience like having your family murdered in front of you isn't what's normally meant by the phrase "near death experience". No (to the second question). I'm saying that the state of being a slave and the state of being a non-slave are far more similar to each other than they are to not being at all. It's hard to tell whether that was an attempt to make the case for slavery and genocide being similar, or for them being very different.If someone wanted to point to things that are similar to the chattel slavery being discussed on this thread, then convict labour, bonded labour and workhouse labour are examples of reasonable suggestions. Genocide isn't. Have you been drinking?

I'll note that there is not a single argument in your response. Your response consists almost entirely assertions that your opponent is wrong. The closest thing you have to an argument or offering of evidence is a mere pointer to the entire record of this discussion.There is at least some historical evidence that Lincoln would in fact have restrained from taking punitive measure against the south because he wanted to reconcile with the Southerners. Beyond that, the idea makes sense logically.[1]So, instead of just telling us that such we are wrong regarding Lincoln, why not present an actual argument.Or is such an argument pointless, because we are not bound by anything Lincoln might have said or did. Perhaps independently of Lincoln, further justification is required.Perhaps it is also appropriate to judge the results that Lincoln's and then Johnson's lenient plans had on the South during reconstruction.

quote:

---

On December 6, 1865, Johnson announced that the southern states had met his conditions for Reconstruction and that in his opinion the Union was now restored. As it became clear that the design of the new southern state governments was remarkably like the old governments, both moderate Republicans and the Radical Republicans grew increasingly angry.

​

The Black Codes

​

When Congress convened in December 1865, the legislative members from the newly reconstituted southern states presented themselves at the Capitol. Among them were Alexander H. Stephens--who was the ex-vice-president of the Confederacy--four Confederate generals, five colonels, and several other rebels. After four bloody years of war, the presence of these Confederates infuriated the Congressional Republicans, who immediately denied seats to all members from the eleven former Confederate states.

​

Adding to the controversy, the new southern legislatures began passing repressive Black Codes. Mississippi passed the first of these laws designed to restrict the freedom of the emancipated blacks in November 1865. The South intended to preserve slavery as nearly as possible in order to guarantee a stable labor supply.

---

ABE:Some support for my statement.

quote:

---

Congress reacted sharply to this proclamation of Lincoln's plan. Most moderate Republicans in Congress supported the president's proposal for Reconstruction because they wanted to bring a swift end to the war, but other Republicans feared that the planter aristocracy would be restored and the blacks would be forced back into slavery. Lincoln's reconstructive policy toward the South was lenient because he wanted to popularize his Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln feared that compelling enforcement of the proclamation could lead to the defeat of the Republican Party in the election of 1864, and that popular Democrats could overturn his proclamation.

---

ABE:Pointers to the cited material.Presidential and Congressional Reconstruction Plans - AP U.S. History Topic Outlines - Study Notes
Ten percent plan - WikipediaAdditional, similar materialJust a moment...

quote:

---

When Lyman Trumbull, the moderate chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, framed a bill extending the powers and duration of the Freedmen's Bureau, an agency established during Lincoln's administration to succor freedmen and refugees, he vetoed it and delivered a speech comparing the leaders of the radicals to Jefferson Davis.

---

Surely Lincoln did not intend this comparison to Davis to be a complement.

quote:

---

In operation, the president's [Johnson's] plan revealed that little had changed in the South. Not one of the states enfranchised even literate blacks. Some balked at nullifying the secession ordinances, others hesitated or failed to repudiate the Confederate debt, and Mississippi refused to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment. Former insurgent leaders, including Alexander H. Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, were elected to Congress. Several states passed Black Codes that in effect remanded the freedmen to a condition not far removed from slavery.

---

Note: Mississippi completed their official ratification of the 13th amendment in 2013 after their legislature voted to ratify the amendment 1995. Perhaps for the sake of preserving history for Percy history, and due to the ineffectual nature of their ratification, Mississippi should not have done so. Probably some PC involved here.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Bad footnote placement corrected.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I hope you feel better now. Try something true next time. I didn't say that - you made it up and put quotes around it.--Percy

Well, I guess it makes you feel better to utter untruths like this - I can't think of another reason why you would continue the practice even after its been called to your attention so many times. You've used a couple of the same words I used and plugged them into a sentence of your own composition that doesn't represent what I said, and certainly not anything I believe. You're wasting your time writing long posts in opposition to a chimera of your own mind. I *have* explained this before. I don't understand why you so persistently insist on arguing against things you've made up instead of things I've actually said. Let me explain again, and if you respond then this time try to use my words as more than just launching points for flights of your own fancy.The Civil War was over slavery, but the fundamental causes related to the inability of the North and South to reach agreement about slavery. Why was that? Certainly not because the South was evil. That's a non-answer.The real answers go to the heart of human nature. Why was the South so acutely and paranoidally fearful of any interference with their beloved institution? It involved perceived threats to life, livelihood, family and social order.Why was the North unable to set Southern minds at rest, despite a great desire to do so to preserve the union? Some of Southern paranoia was driven by events (John Brown the most famous example), some by Northern rhetoric (abolitionists the most alarming), some by the threat to property (reluctance of the North to return runaway slaves despite Federal laws), some by fear of economic domination of the North (the South produced little manufactured goods, e.g., the vast majority of it's cotton was spun elsewhere), and some by the threat of the slaves themselves, which were in some sense a "tiger by the tail" type of problem. Southerners paradoxically believed slavery a blessing for both master and slave while at the same time fearing slave uprisings. Do whatever you think you must, but in my view the greatest benefit would come from better accuracy. I can understand needing a cooling off period when after an extended period your arguments seem ignored and having no effect, but I haven't been reticent in pointing out where you've consistently misstated my views and then gone on to rebut those misstated views at length. But once I've called attention to your mistaken views of what I said, nothing more need be addressed - the rebuttal itself isn't pertinent. I'm not arguing that slavery is a distraction to historical analysis in general - I'm arguing that it's a distraction to *you*. It's caught all your attention and you can't seem to get past it to the deeper issues. To you slavery is "evil" and the South was "evil", as if judging institutions, peoples and events of the past along some imagined "good versus evil" axis has any historical value or makes any sense. You could just as nonsensically and uselessly judge ancient Athens or the Roman Empire evil. But I'm not arguing against a historian's view of the causes of the Civil War - I'm arguing against yours. Our discussion has taken us down a particular path among many particular paths, and we have ended up differing over this useless classification of "evil", satisfying your apparent need for casting blame. As I read your quote from the section of Mr. Gallagher's book where he analyzes the Lost Cause myth I see no mention of evil, only a recounting of significant events leading up to the conflict. Thanks for the recommendations. I'd be particularly interested if you came across any passages where these historians judge the South evil. Yes, absolutely true, no disagreement, but not what we were talking about. Why did the South embrace and defend slavery so vehemently? It wasn't because they were evil.I know it must seem strange to you that I keep repeating this because it is obvious to me that you believe you've rebutted this many times, but the truth is that you've spent most of your time rebutting things I've never said. And I seem to have spent most of my time telling you that.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I hope the lessons of history are a bit more profound than "don't keep slaves" and "don't gas Jews", and I think we don't need history to tell us these lessons, anyway. Ah, yes, the "good guys versus bad guys" view of history. There's a lot to agree with in this paragraph, not the very last part, I don't think "clinging to slavery" lost them the war, but I agree with the rest. Uh, okay. I again object to looking at history through a lens of "good versus evil," but I do agree with digging deeper.--Percy

Rrhain was repeating points already answered, very recently, and he's going over the same ground you already did. I've been fairly generous with my time given the repetition. He offered no new arguments himself, so there was little point in repeating my responses. Rrhain's post was very long and all I could do in the available time was touch on what seemed his better points. Distilling his post down to its key points would have been a greater effort - I can't do that for him if he won't do it himself. Despite the brevity you're noting my post was long anyway.Concerning Lincoln's words, I'll put the two quotes from Message 287 and Message 333 together:

quote:

---

"They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up."
Abraham Lincoln in the first Lincoln/Douglas debate, August 21, 1858

​

"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."
Abraham Lincoln, response to a serenade on November 10, 1864, after his reelection

---

It can easily be seen that Rrhain has not grasped what Lincoln was saying. Lincoln's words describe human nature and have not been shown wrong. There was no "[1]" footnote, so I assume you meant the excerpts you provided later. I *have* presented an actual argument. I argued that people are the same everywhere and everywhen, that the people of the South were no different from the people of the North or from us today or from people anytime or anywhere. Viewing the Civil War as a result of the evil of the Southern people makes no sense and has no historical value. Lincoln expressed very similar sentiments that reflected deeply held beliefs, not campaign rhetoric. They cannot be dismissed by rebutting a misconstrual of their meaning.Can you put your excerpts into a more clear context? I couldn't tell what position they were intended to support. That the South was evil? That Lincoln was wrong about human nature? That Davis doesn't deserve a memorial?I think this excerpt from one of your sources, Presidential and Congressional Reconstruction Plans, is another clear indicator of Lincoln's views on Southerners:

quote:

---

Even before the war had ended, Lincoln issued the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction in 1863, his compassionate policy for dealing with the South. The Proclamation stated that all Southerners could be pardoned and reinstated as U.S. citizens if they took an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Union and pledged to abide by emancipation. High Confederate officials, Army and Navy officers, and U.S. judges and congressmen who left their posts to aid the southern rebellion were excluded from this pardon. Lincoln’s Proclamation was called the 10 percent plan: Once 10 percent of the voting population in any state had taken the oath, a state government could be put in place and the state could be reintegrated into the Union.

---

And about this: I think you're confused. This Congress's session began in December, 1865. Lincoln was dead. The president referred to is Andrew Johnson.--Percy

If you read my post, you'll see that I was well aware that Lincoln was dead and that I referred to the lenient plans for the South as the plans of Lincoln and Johnson. The idea was to show the result of Lincoln's non judgmental policy.In re-reading my post, I see that I made that point abundantly clear. So no, I was not confused. You quoted a paragraph from Lincoln, and your claim is that Lincoln's words were not politically motivated by the need to reconcile with the South, which is a point both Rrhain and I made in response to your post quoting Lincoln. Your response was simply that Rrhain got it wrong. I specifically asked you to back up that argument. We know that Lincoln planned to deal leniently with Southerners and we have some indications of politics behind his desire to do so. What remains beyond that is the question of whether Lincoln was correct. I've provided quotes indicating that Lincoln's leniency simply provided opportunity for the South to move as close to re-enslaving Africans as they could possibly come.Lincoln was far from perfect, and his views on many things including race relations are not anything we should emulate. Perhaps this idea of his is yet another loser.

You'll have to dumb it down farther than the argument Percy is making. <-- smilie