PC Gone Too Far

This is an example of the kind of justification that I find morally bankrupt. Nobody was forced to enslave anyone other than via circumstances of their own making. These folks understood that their own lives, families, and economic situations were way more important than was the family of any darky, so they did whatever the $#%$ they wanted to do to maintain their cheap supply of labor. So quite naturally the value of children increased. Dehumanizing Africans made enslaving them more palatable. Can we also say that Southerners were forced to dehumanize Africans as a measure of salvaging their own consciences? I suppose we could...What you are saying when you use the term 'forced' is akin to a person murdering his parents and then asking the court to take mercy on an orphan.Beyond that, what you say here is not even historically accurate. Chattel slavery, under which the children pf slaves were automatically slaves (with some exceptions for cases where the mom was white) was practiced in the colonies well before the ending of the international slave trade. The actual dates I've seen for the start of the practice are all in the sixteenth century. Yes, the practice of separating families did get worse as the slave trade dried up, but that is in part because of the immense profits that folks in those border states could generate by selling the off spring of slaves. Eventually, even the deep South folks (SC and GA) had enough slaves to make profits by selling slaves to folks further west. In addition, selling slaves south and west had the benefit of making escape much more difficult. And God forbid a slave escape, stealing wealth from his former owner.The result of all that was yet another reason for Southern slave holders to want even more new territories for slavery. But "forced"? well, yeah, with some scare quotes that at least hint at the real circumstance.And to nitpick just a bit, the Constitution as adopted included a ban on any US attempts to ban the slave trade prior to 1808, so perhaps you can revise your estimate of when the slave trade ended. It was within months of the date allowed by the constitution.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So the moral wrongness was not conducted by individuals? Sorry, Faith, not buying it. So you can distinguish your call here on the Jesuits from my remarks on slavery and slaveholders? How? That's right. Lincoln was Jesus Christ. I certainly was not being sarcastic about the non repentance of former slave owners, or white supremacists. Did I say anything about condemning all Southerners? Or just those folks who treated other humans extremely poorly. Well, their crimes are not mine to forgive and my impression was that even Jesus spoke of repentance. Those folks don't need my forgiveness what with them being all dead and never having bothered me personally. My arguments are about specific Southerners who appear on some monuments, and not about all Southerners.And surely the treatment I give them here is far better than that which they dealt out to their fellow man while they were alive.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What again is the history behind the adoption of the Maryland State Song? What history is it that you wish to preserve? Do you have any idea of the circumstances behind the adoption of the song in 1939-1940. Nope. You like the fact that it is the Maryland state song because otherwise you would not have heard of the song."Unless the minority folk happen to be in favor of the Maryland state song being what it is. Then let's make sure their preferences are given appropriate weight." You are correct. It is my translation of the words that you did say. Namely that if a majority of folks wanted to change the song, that you would hope that a compromise would be reached with the minority whose claims I presume you are saying have legitimacy. However for a minority requesting to change the song, nothing but opposition as a matter of principle is to be the order of the day. You make no mention of any 'tyranny of the majority' in such a case. Instead you call their position PC. Naturally.I think my translation was apt. I'll note that in the actual post, I did include your words in a quote box above my translation.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

When I suggested that your view left out folks like Northerners and the slaves, your response was that those folks were in the same time but not in the same place. It is difficult to reconcile that response with your current insistence that you say you want to include everyone.Perhaps the difference is just that after looking at all views, we arrive at a different conclusion. If so that is for good reason. That reason being that the South's excuses don't amount to a justification, but simply an explanation of why the embraced slavery. Those justifications amount to a pretext. What I stated was my impression of your view it was not a quote of anything you've said. It is a summary of what your statements convey. I reach that summary based on your failure to include any opinion in your analysis that is not sourced from southern pro-slavery sentiment.ABE: That of course is an opinion we don't share. Those judgments are our conclusions after our analysis of history. But apparently, those judgments reached in opposition to slavery count for naught or something close to that. You've been expressly dismissive of Northern and even Southern abolitionist opinions while silently dismissive of the effects of slavery on the slaves. So I'd like to see your work here. I want to see where you weigh anything other than what slaveholders and their sympathizers expressed. Because I have not seen you mention anything else other than in passing.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Your answer is whatever your answer is. But it was you who said that the lessons from history were something other than a list of "Don'ts". Your answer was just fine, except that it was of exactly the type you dismissed when responding to ringo a bit earlier.Quite frankly, your answer was exactly what I expected. I personally have no problem with your response as one of the answers. "Don'ts" are perfectly fine as lessons and of course what each person gleans from history might be different.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This is not my first rodeo, Cat Sci. I've reviewed the history of the civil war in detail, long before it became a topic here, and I have formed my conclusions and can defend them factually and logically. I've yet to see any new and surprising information posted here. In fact, I have encountered far more sympathetic opinions regarding slavery than are expressed here. So perhaps it is reasonable that this discussion has not changed my mind.If the current discussion is supposed to be a judgment free analysis, the discussion from some folks seems particularly concentrated on only a particular view of slavery. But perhaps you can point to some meaningful discussion provided by yourself or Percy that would provide a balanced view? I don't seem to see much of that. I do see some dismissals where I've raised the issue, but essentially no balanced discussion from you or Percy.Of course, having already formed my impression, I might reasonably be considered biased. So please provide a pointer or two to some balanced discussion.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

When I denied it, I was referring to a general question about the effects of Lincoln's leniency not being relevant because Johnson was involved in continuing the policy. I missed that you were in particular talking about my attribution of the quote from Johnson. I'll note that even after the correction, you don't have any response to my point.And seriously, Percy, you make errors of your own. If you make a correction, at least when I can tell that you've actually dropped some point, I consider that to end the matter. Is that an unreasonable policy on my part? Still no addressing of the argument. I believe that there is definite value to calling Southerners evil, and that the question is not whether that value is objective, but rather on whether there is an objective basis for making that judgment. Of course we could judge slavery solely on whether it was profitable or non-profitable, or on whether it accomplish or did not accomplish goals that Southerners considered essential. But the reality is that slavery should be rejected regardless of the answers to those questions. Is that really the case?It appears to me that no terms having a negative connotation are appropriate in describing the Confederacy. So the difference is not just terminology, but is instead more fundamental. Our differences are in the rendering a current judgment at all and not over the specific terms of that judgment. Or at least that's how it seems to me. That's an excuse for dismissing their opinion? I don't imagine that the southern slaves were offering any compensation in return for their freedom either, so I guess our analysis is over. What is it the slaveholders say again? That slavery is legal and the Old Testament says its okay? Damn. Argument over.

The list was of accusations was intended to be a list of things that people on this web site have accused each other of, and for the most part to include things for which you have admonished and even suspended other posters. They, like you, felt that their insults were justified. The principle involved here is addressing the person rather than the argument.So, no I did not accuse you of making those particular characterizations. It was not necessary to do so to make my point.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This is not the greatest argument available that slavery is better than death. Neither is pointing out that slaves yearned for an after life during which they would be free, because they would necessarily have to die to reach the afterlife.Perhaps the argument scores some points in distinguishing between slavery and genocide, but perhaps while losing points on another important front. Namely comparing the relative undesirability of the two. We will kill you, versus we will make you long for death...

Actually, you have not, and apparently will not respond to my point regarding the results of Lincoln's leniency towards the South. The result was more suffering for Africans. I suppose in the end, African Americans should be grateful for the Southern response because the result was the enactment of the 14th amendment which made them citizens, and the 15th amendment which granted them the right to vote. Absent Southern Recalcitrance, there is no telling how long overt, state enforced racial suppression would have continued.I believe I did raise a substantive issue, and your response, which is essentially, that "Lincoln agrees with Percy's platitude" does not really address my point. You and Lincoln can agree, but history suggests that you and Lincoln were wrong, and that continued leniency towards the South would likely have been disastrous for civil rights and the fate of Africans. Well, there it is again in this message. Let's see if you can find it this time.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I respectfully disagree. You also said this about the meaning of judging Davis in context. The fact of the matter is that I see in your posts absolutely no weighing of contemporary opinion regarding slavery other than to dismiss the opinions of abolitionists and slaves who were adamant about the evils of slavery. For that matter even some slave owners referred to slavery as a "necessary evil". Beyond that, most of the West had figured out that slavery was an abomination even while the South was forming a Confederacy for the express purpose of protecting the institution.We can quibble about whether than means they seceded because they were evil. I would not use that phrasing anyway. However saying that they seceded because they would not stop abusing Africans for profit, and remaining meant that slavery would eventually die out, I'd say that you were getting closer to being correct.So, no I don't think I am confusing your arguments. It does not seem as if you include much of anything other than slave owner justification in your arguments or calculations, so your comments about including everything ring particularly hollow. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Good question, and one that provokes thought. It's one that I imagine that folks reach different conclusions about. I'm not sure I'd involve much energy in debating either characterization. Certainly I believe a family that brings up a child in such a way does the child an immense disservice, probably along the level of not sending their child to school. Whether you are willing to call either of those things evil might be a personal call.On the other hand, teaching your child to do the "right" thing back in 1830 most likely could not been easy, what with society doing the exact opposite right in front of the kids face. Perhaps that truth just means that both good and evil are in some ways self perpetuating. Slavery as practiced in the colonies was no accident. Its origins were deliberate and conscious. Folks engaging in the practice did so either with an absence or complete disregard for the humanity of others. Maybe you have a label that applies better than the word evil, but that word works for me. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Of course. That kind of thinking would have been very attractive back then because it would be conforming thinking. But the fact is that such conformance required was devastating to millions of people. It is difficult to argue on a moral basis that slavery should continue even one second longer than it did.In short, their thinking was wrong, and their society was such that there was little way for those who understood that to even have a voice in expressing that or for even their children to escape being molded into people willing to continue the destruction. Abolitionist voices in the South were generally not welcome.Apparently, there is little, no matter how morally bankrupt, or evil, that you cannot rally a bunch of folks around if it works. Yes, folks might understandably find a cheap labor force an attractive thing to build around. Other folks have found piracy, kidnapping, pimping, robbery etc. similarly attractive, and have even gone so far as to involve their children into their lifestyles. In most cases, we would not excuse such behavior even if we do try to understand societal pressures which "forced" them into such endeavors. Yet slavery in the South gets some kind of pass because we want to understand history better? I just don't see that. If you need to hold your nose in order to peer into details or to examine things academically, I have no objection to you doing so. Right. My phrasing was meant to refer to compare the effect of raising a slavery loving child or a white supremacist to the effect of not schooling children in the present society.But with regard to making the trade-off of education to have people supply income, such trade-offs are being made today in other societies, and it is likely that such choices doom the society and the children to a poor future. In order for a society to advance there must be folks who are free from subsistence level existence, and for a society to be fair, we should not limit those folks to some elite class. I find caste systems to be in general undesirable, but I imagine that's a debate for another time.Generally speaking, folks who are trapped in such places where there are no alternatives for their children other than a farming existence are often best off finding opportunity elsewhere if they value such opportunities, even if that means illegally immigrating.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Folks like Jefferson Davis, for example. I'll note that I've consistently distinguished him from even soldiers like Lee and Stonewall Jackson. That's particularly the case, because for large portions of the civil war, folks who owned 20 or more slaves were exempt from having to fight at all. On the other hand, studies of civil war attitudes suggest that most Southern soldiers were in favor of slavery despite not owning slaves.Beyond that, I'd quibble with you over the numbers. My understanding is that about 1 in four folks owned slaves. I would not advocate blowing up the mountain, I'm just arguing that folks who ask for such things have a legitimate beef, and don't deserve insult or dismissal as mere PC. With respect to the monument in Kentucky, I'm okay with moving it now that folks on campus, who have to live with the thing, have asked for it. No doubt. I hope nothing I've said suggests otherwise.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Fascinating. Did you not claim that when I wished that slavery had not happened that I was being genocidal? Where was the need to establish my intent when you wanted to apply the term genocide to me?