PC Gone Too Far

One can easily find summaries of Southern defenses of slavery on the web, but here's a fairly concise and informal one from Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson. This paragraph follows one containing Northern critiques of slavery:

quote:

---

Southerners bristled at these attacks on their social system. At one time a good many of them had shared the conviction that slavery was an evil – albeit a "necessary" one for the time being because of the explosive racial consequences of emancipation. But the sense of evil had faded by 1830 as the growing world demand for cotton fastened the tentacles of a booming plantation economy on the South. Abolitionist attacks on slavery placed southerners on the defensive and goaded into angry counterattacks. By 1840 slavery was no longer a necessary evil; it was "a great moral, social, and political blessing – a blessing to the slave, and a blessing to the master." It had civilized African savages and provided them with cradle-to-grave security that contrasted favorably with the miserable poverty of "free" labor in Britain and the North. By releasing whites from menial tasks it elevated white labor and protected it from degrading competition with free Negroes. Slavery eliminated the specter of class conflict that would eventually destroy free-labor societies, for it "promotes equality among the free by dispensing with grades and castes among them, and thereby preserves republican institutions."²⁰ It also established the foundation for an upper class of gentlemen to cultivate the arts, literature, hospitality, and public service. It created a far superior society to that of the "vulgar, contemptible, counter-jumping" Yankees. Indeed, said Senator Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia, "there is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery." "Instead of an evil," said John c. Calhoun in summing up the southern position, slavery was "a positive good...the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world."²¹

​

²⁰Senator Albert Gallatin Brown of Mississippi quoted in David Donald, Charles Sumner and the Coming of the Civil War (New York, 1960), 348; resolution of a Southern Rights convention in Montgomery, March 1852, quoted in J. Mills Thornton III, Politics and Power in a Slave Society: Alabama, 18--=1860 (Baton Rouge, 1978), 206-7.

​

²¹Hunter quoted in Donald, Sumner and the Coming of the Civil War, 349; Calhoun in CG, 25 Cong., 2 Sess., Appendix, 61-62.

---

--Percy

It's not even my argument. As I said, I was startled to learn people didn't think Lincoln believed what he said, but whether he believed it or not, that was not my point. I quoted Lincoln because he said it so well, though I grant it did seem possible that my saying it wasn't being given serious consideration and that it being Lincoln might warrant in people's minds taking a second look, but it didn't, so his clarity of expression will have to suffice.I understand your argument from Message 369 that Lincoln's lenient 1864 reconstruction plan was evidence of political motives and that therefore what he said about human nature was also politically motivated and not what he really believed. That was beside the point, or at least so it seemed to me, and though I didn't agree I felt getting into a discussion with you about whether Lincoln really believed what he said seemed a certain and very distracting rat hole. (If you want to start a Reconstruction thread we could discuss your other point that Lincoln's lenient approach made Reconstruction worse, because we apparently disagree about that, too. (apologies if I misunderstood, in which case, "never mind") )Clarifying one thing: I hope people don't think I've taken the position that Lincoln was non-judgmental in any all-encompassing sense. I cited Lincoln on just one area of thought where he was very specific. He believed in not judging people for being a product of their environment, and he believed human nature the same the world over. Punishing people for being human made no sense to him. Nor to me.--Percy

You have this bad habit of misstating what I say. I never said it was a view held by most Southerners. I never became more specific than saying I felt it was the most common one, and I said that because I thought it was very general and encompassing. That slavery was a blessing to both whites and negroes encompasses most of the reasons on your own list (Message 492), and I add another that is often mentioned at the bottom:

• "...slaves had it it better than folks in Northern factories."
  ​
• "Other slave holders simply found nothing wrong with slavery as institution based on their interpretation of the Bible." (this is as close as you came to the reason of bringing Christianity to the negro)
  ​
• "...some just felt that their need to build a society..." (this is as close as you came to the reason of maintaining one of the greatest societies the world had ever known, in their own opinion, of course)
  ​
• "Some non slave holders realized that the existence of slaves elevated their own social status at least one rung above laborer."
  ​
• Negroes were better off as slaves in America than as tribespeople in Africa.

So when you go on to say: I think I probably said something more like that Southerners (not "most" Southerners) believed it a blessing for both master and slave, but in any case, I didn't need evidence because you provided it yourself. Look down your list that I've reproduced above. Though you've stilted them toward the negative, it's a list of positives for either white or negro. You had a couple other reasons that were completely negative, and I agree they must have been true of some Southerners. And some Northerners, too. Except that I'm not making stuff up - I don't have your imagination. Before I knew you'd posted this reply I posted an excerpt from McPherson's book, see Message 532. Except that it is, as I've shown using your own list.I don't get your problem. You say you understand one can't list all the reasons every time it comes up, one has to summarize, you disagree with my summation (in error, in my opinion), but instead of just saying you disagree and giving your own opinion you blow it up into a big thing implying I've committed a host of logical and moral errors. I could say "The sky is blue" and you'd find problems with it. Ah, well now we get to the root of what your real problem is. This is really all about your belief that the Southerners were doing evil and they knew it.--Percy

But how are you going to reconcile your definition of evil with other people's, for example, those who believe abortion is evil, or that homosexuality is evil? If you believe your claims of evil are a justification for action, how do deny others the same privilege? Your rationale has unintended consequences that I'm guessing you don't like. The editorial was about the urge to wipe out evil, but it was in the context of things like the war in Iraq, that's why he says "violence." The general principle is that efforts to wipe out evil can perpetuate and even increase evil. One must instead focus on doing good. Doing good in this case would mean that instead of aligning yourself with efforts against monuments to war dead, send a donation to Brandenburg.--Percy

Northern attacks and Southern responses were both based upon the truth as they saw it. Your position is absurd and unsound. Just look around at this thread and at every thread in this forum. Everybody can't be right. At least some people must be wrong. Do you really believe they know they're wrong and are just inventing reasons? Nothing new? Really? After accusing me of making up my characterization of Southern views of slavery? That's rich. Cotton created new realities. Both the North and South changed their rationales in the face of the burgeoning Southern slave-based economy. While the South's view changed from necessary evil to undisguised blessing, the North's evolved from necessary evil to unnecessary evil. Slavery was less efficient than free labor and "undermined the dignity of manual work by associating it with servility and thereby degraded white labor." Slavery "mired all southerners except the slaveowning gentry in poverty and repressed the development of a diversified economy." (quotes from Battle Cry of Freedeom). Times had changed. The new Northern critiques motivated new Southern responses. Again, not what I said. What I actually said was more general and encompassing, that the South believed slavery a boon to both white and negro. As I said earlier, that encompasses most of the reasons.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

No one said or implied that Lincoln's words are "non arguable". Lincoln wasn't quoted as if to say, "Lincoln said it, I believe it, that ends it." Lincoln was quoted because he said things very similar to what I've been saying, only better. I wasn't trying to end an argument but begin one, because the points about human nature have been given little consideration. I thought perhaps it might be because I hadn't expressed myself well enough, so I quoted Lincoln. I was also hoping it would lend the view a little greater credibility that might merit it some increased attention, but if people don't think Lincoln actually believed what he said then it isn't worth arguing about because it's even further from the topic.Submitted for consideration: Southern views developed out their unique circumstances. Born and raised in a slave economy, they naturally believed slavery was right and natural. Anyone born into their circumstances would be subject to the same influences and turn out the same.But reading ahead it seems unlikely there will be any sincere discussion of what is in reality self-evident. Your dialogue with Xongsmith ends (as of right now) at Message 553 with you declaring, "Apparently I do get it. I just don't find the argument compelling," followed by rhetorical dismissals and more misstatements of what I've said.I don't understand why the continual misstatements of what other people say. What is the value of rebutting things not said, unless to act as a distraction? The more accurately and powerfully you summarize your opponent's position the greater the value of a successful rebuttal.--Percy

You have a knack for the irrelevant, or maybe it's a "flow of consciousness" kind of thing.The point you made was...well, now with all the inconsistencies I don't think I could state your point clearly, or maybe your goal now is to confuse your own point. As near as I can recall, these are the points you've made:

• "Slavery IS genocide."
  ​
  You made no attempts at equivocation. You've repeated your claims that slavery and genocide are the same thing many times.
  ​
• "Genocide" and "cultural genocide" are the same thing.
  ​
  You've many times repeated your assertions that one need only say "genocide" when one actually means "cultural genocide," presumably as justification for your claim that "Slavery IS genocide," when what you actually mean is that "Slavery IS cultural genocide," which isn't true either.
  ​
• In Canada it is widely understood that what happened to their native aborigines was genocide.
  ​
  This view turns out to be a subject of great interest and discussion in Canada - there's no consensus.

Independent of your assaults on language, slavery and genocide are not the same thing. We all agree slavery is wrong, there's no need to emphasize it through characterizations so overdramatic that they're untrue.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Because evil is the wrong standard for which parts of history to preserve.My beliefs differ somewhat from your characterization. I don't want to commemorate evil people. I want to preserve history. A 120-year old monument is part of history. If you really believe that the most common thoughts brought to mind by that monument are that slavery and Southerners were evil, and you truly don't want that forgotten, then you really want that monument to be displayed prominently for as long as possible.The other point of difference with your characterization, and I know you put "agree" in quotation marks, is that it nonetheless implies I accept modern judgments of evil as historically meaningful. I've said many times that judging historical peoples along some modern scale from evil to good makes no sense. Naturally we disagree about the meaning of the monument, but again, if its meaning truly is that these people committed "crimes against humanity" (which are obviously wrong) and that other people actually built monuments to them (also wrong), don't you want those facts remembered so that such mistakes aren't repeated? The monument isn't a glorification of slavery and of the people who fought for it, but a record and reminder of the mistakes people make. I think your desires oppose your goals. Here I was speaking much more generally than just about the monument. It's the same question I asked NoNukes: How does one demand action based on one's own judgments of evil, say about Southerners, while rejecting others' demands for action based upon their own judgments of evil, say about abortion and homosexuality.The answer is not to argue about what's evil and what's not but to realize that evil is not the right standard. It's moralistic, subjective, inconstant, relative.--Percy

When it comes to which items of history to preserve, why should they matter at all? Shouldn't we preserve both the good and the bad of history? A good many members of every generation understand that this is not a good reason for editing history. And that you understand that feelings change over time underscores the importance of letting objective principles like historical preservation override capricious feelings. That you can look upon a statue of Julius Caesar (sold all of Gaul into slavery) and not feel the same things as when you look upon the Louisville monument tells us that something other than objectivity is going on. Not judging the South evil is not ignoring history. It's understanding that inconstant moralistic feelings are not the right standard. It's how people of the period felt that is relevant.--Percy

You argued that we should look at slavery empathically, and I responded that we that approach slavery in the same way we approach all the rest of history, objectively. You're response is about how we might decide which monuments we'd put up today, which is beside the point.People decided to put up a monument 120 years ago, and you object to it because you believe we should look at history that is related to slavery empathically and not objectively. How do you justify looking at the slavery portion of history empathically and all the rest of history objectively? I granted the obvious parallel. I even used that very word, "parallel." If that's what you're going with now then I have no problem with it. Obviously I have not been using "wrong" that sense. I've also said that I have much the same problems with "morally wrong" as I do with "evil". I prefer the term "morally wrong" because it is not as easily confused with religious concepts of "evil".--Percy

This is where we part company. My view is that the adults were the end result of raising children in an environment where slavery is the norm. Their environment as adults was no different from when they were children. The reinforcing messages were all the same, and even stronger as slavery became increasingly essential economically.--Percy

If it were true that you "get it" then it would be apparent in your arguments, but it's not, and you usually preface your rebuttals with obvious misstatements of the position. I don't recall posting anything in 1830 (), but anyway, no, not according to anything Percy posted. Reread the McPherson quote in Message 532. "But the sense of evil had faded by 1830..." It was a gradual change brought on by changing circumstances (increases in both the economic dependence on slavery and the intertwining of slavery into Southern culture) and by the inevitable changing of the guard (the old generation passes away to be replaced by the new with its own ideas and opinions).The North also changed their views. The North looked on in horror as the practice of slavery grew instead of gradually dying out, and in reaction their view changed from a "necessary evil" to an outright evil. "Someone created a society"? Really?No one "created" Southern society. It just happened. You can't blame it on someone or group of someones deliberating setting out to create a society. You really need to go back and read the McPherson quote again, where it says the sense of evil had faded *by* 1830, not after 1830. It was a long and gradual process. The arguments for the benefits to master and slave were largely not new. The South didn't invent them and already believed them before cotton was king, though certainly they elaborated upon them. It was how arguments weighed out in the balance in Southern and Northern minds that changed. You are very strenuously missing the point. Only when you begin rebutting what is actually said can you rightfully claim to have gotten the point.--Percy

The question is rhetorical, which is why I answered it in the remaining portion of my paragraph that didn't quote. If evil is sufficient justification for moving a monument, how do we deny other people their claim that evil is sufficient justification for outlawing abortion or homosexuality? You actually help make this point by characterizing the confusion: So you feel you could argue the evils of abortion on the facts, but not of homosexuality. But isn't what you really need to do is remove evil from the equation and just argue the issues on the facts? Yes, precisely, or people who cut you off in traffic are evil. Evil isn't some precise, objective classification. It is subjective and inconstant. It isn't whether you are self-consistent, but that out in the world there is a plethora of opinion about what is evil and what evil is.Someone stands up at town meeting in Louisville and says, "The monument is to an evil army and should be moved from its prominent location," then someone else stands up and says, "Before you move that monument you better deal with the evils of homosexuality." So now they're going to debate the merits of moving the monument versus outlawing homosexuality? The only connection between them is claims of evil, but in reality there is no connection at because there's no reason to bring evil into it.Basing arguments upon something as (sorry to repeat myself) subjective and inconstant as evil is improper, unjustified, and confuses together issues that have no relationship. Lust or pride or sloth or greed would be just as absurd foundations for arguments.--Percy

Well, it's nice to see I'm not the only victim of your repeated mischaracterizations. This is the second time you've made this incorrect claim. McPherson actually said views of slavery as evil had faded *by* 1830, not after 1830. I've already elaborated on this in another post, no need for a repeat. Get it right, then we can discuss.--Percy

Concerning the latter, you'd be wrong. McPherson said:

quote:

---

Southerners bristled at these attacks on their social system. At one time a good many of them had shared the conviction that slavery was an evil — albeit a "necessary" one for the time being because of the explosive racial consequences of emancipation. But the sense of evil had faded by 1830 as the growing world demand for cotton fastened the tentacles of a booming plantation economy on the South.

---

It sure does. The North also believed this for a long period. The views of both sides changed in response to changing circumstances. McPherson describes a gradual change ("faded") concurrent with the growing influence of the successful cotton economy. Your mind has somehow translated this into a false and impossible picture of a sudden change of views on both sides.--Percy