PC Gone Too Far

I think emotionalism is clouding your collective judgments. NoNukes is busy refuting things not said, while you're busy repeating yourself. Aw, shucks, you're such a swell guy. So glad you're happy with yourself. He expressed the same sentiments both before and during the war. If you think Lincoln wasn't saying what he believed then provide some evidence of what he truly believed.But I quoted Lincoln not because he agreed with me, which he did whether you think so or not, but because he said it better than I did. The point remains regardless what you believe were Lincoln's true beliefs. The second quote is from before the end of the war. How is that evidence of anything, whether you cry out loud or not? There were many threats against Lincoln's life, and Lincoln was often made aware of them. On his way to his first inauguration in Washington his train had to sneak through Baltimore in the dead of night because of threats of assassination. This is true, but how is this evidence that Lincoln didn't say what he believed. These are sentiments that he expressed throughout his life. Insincerity is not a quality normally associated with Lincoln. There was almost no slavery in the part of Virginia that eventually became West Virginia. It was a free region that was politically part of a slave state. People of that region were not born and raised in a slave owning culture but in a free culture. They felt strongly about the cultural mores they had grown up with and were familiar and comfortable with. The same was true of people of slave owning regions.The effect of environment can be seen in the progressively deeper feelings in favor of slavery as one looks from North to South. This wasn't because of some change to an increasingly evil nature with decreasing latitude. It was because of the influence of environment. Not in any way apparent to anyone. Now you sound like a creationist arguing that the very existence of something (in their case life) proves their point. I'm not sure what quality of sameness you have in mind here, but it's obvious you've missed the fundamental point. It is human nature that is and has been the same the world over, including on both sides of the Civil War.--Percy

Lincoln agrees with you:

quote:

---

"I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves, it should be first those who desire for themselves, and secondly those who desire it for others. Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."

---

Can I assume that accusations that Lincoln was only speaking politically and actually believed something else are reserved for views you don't yourself share?--Percy

Oh, please. You said, "Having your child SOLD," and it wasn't a reference to all slaves with at least one living parent. It was just one more attempted overdramatization of the evils of slavery. If history is any guide, no you won't. You'll misspeak and then double down on it and refuse to give it up. How much longer will you argue that "slavery == genocide"?--Percy

Now you're inventing spurious rationalizations. We're not talking about taking people to court. We're talking about history. Judging the peoples of history on your own scale running from good to evil has no value. The lessons are not simple do's and don'ts, and they certainly aren't moral lessons. The lessons are not "Don't do slavery" or "Don't write a constitution that leaves the issue of slavery unresolved" or "Don't lock up people for being in debt" or "Don't have capital punishment" or "Don't be Catholic" or whatever else has caused civil unrest or wars. The lessons are certainly not in moral terms of "Do good and not evil." Not only is morality inconstant, imposing our own moral compass on historical peoples greatly hinders understanding.The causes of the Civil War lay in Lincoln's own admonition that the nation could not long continue half free and half slave. Slave and free states existing in a single nation caused unreconcilable conflicts (for example, requiring the North to return escaped slaves to their owners) that eventually brought war. Over a hundred and fifty years later, of what possible relevance could your belief that the South was evil have to analysis of such causes.The important lessons of history are ones that help us move productively forward into the future. Such lessons do not include, "Avoid slavery" (that was already widely accepted among western nations before the Civil War), and they certainly don't include, "Don't be evil." This is saying something different from "The South was evil" and make a lot of sense. We should ask, "Which outcomes of the Civil War do we think positive, and which negative, and what are the lessons for conducting our affairs going forward." There is no lesson in, "The South was evil and look what they got, so don't be evil."There's no need to confuse historical analysis with moral judgments. To take an example from a different realm, just consider how wrong it sounds to you when a group like the Moral Majority or Pat Robertson claims an earthquake or a terrorist attack is punishment for a nation's evil. Basing claims that Southern monuments and memorials should be denigrated because of supposed past evils runs a similarly misguided course.--Percy

No it doesn't. It only requires stupidity, lack of empathy, etc. So you're saying that slavery isn't "necessarily" genocide. What's relevant was that he saw himself as a "slave" to the British. And stepping off a cliff doesn't require you to fall - but it is a fairly predictable consequence.

We agree about capital punishment, self defense is more complicated, I'm surprised if you're unequivocal about deeming it murder if self defense causes death, but in any case I wasn't trying to describe my own positions on these things. I was just stating the law of the land. Are current US citizens evil for living in a country that allows capital punishment and self defense that results in death? Yes! Yes! Precisely! That's it!It was strong feelings in the North that slavery was evil (and Southern belief that it was a blessing for both whites and negroes) that made the differences irreconcilable. Some Northerners very likely believed Southerners evil - John Brown probably felt that way. Your belief that Southerners were evil is irrelevant to the causes of the Civil War. Your modern beliefs had no influence on what happened back then.--Percy

As long as it is.

So once again, what is the point of remembering history if not to adjust our own behaviour accordingly? So, if re-introducing slavery was "more productive" you'd be okay with that? That isn't the same thing at all. The Moral Majority's claims are based on a fictional character judging us. I'm saying that it's appropriate and necessary of us to judge ourselves based on the evil deeds of our peers in the past.

What does it take to be evil if doing evil isn't enough for you? So you think slavery managed to be evil all on its own without any humans actually doing evil?

Putting on one's "objectivity" hat does not mean one doesn't have empathy. But insisting that objectivity include "empathy" and "evil" (but somehow not "good") clearly indicates that objectivity (not to mention consistency) has been abandoned. Clearly this isn't apparent to those caught up in the throes of interpreting history in contemporary moral terms, but it should be. For one thing, after all this time no one has yet offered an objective definition of evil. Read your own link. "Exterminate," "destroy," "eliminate", "kill," "systematic murder," "massacre." If you're going to insist on using the word "genocide" then you need a modifier, such as "cultural genocide." Much emigration does that. Many immigrants to America didn't even speak English when they arrived. That's not genocide, not even remotely close. Assuming you're talking about the slave culture in the South, yes, we agree. That doesn't answer the criticism. The culture still exists in Africa. In no way was it destroyed. Still not genocide, not even cultural genocide.You're not the Red Queen. Words don't mean whatever you say they mean. Could we stop arguing about basic vocabulary? You've claimed that slavery is much like death, and that "slavery IS genocide," and that slavery wipes out cultures which is also genocide, and all of it is wrong just from a dictionary perspective, let alone any historical perspecitve.We get the idea. You're trying to dramatize how horrible slavery is, but slavery does have a pretty clear definition, and genocide isn't part of it. Try another tack. Or better, just give up the whole line of argument. We already agree that slavery is horrible.--Percy

How do you decide objectively whether to have slavery or not? If you're going to admit that genocide includes cultural genocide then you can quite pretending that slavery is not a form of genocide. Do I seriously need to point out the difference between emigration and forced emigration? So if anybody survives a genocide it's not genocide? Don't be silly. The culture was lost by the victims of slavery. Their forced loss of their culture was a form of genocide - just as Canadians are coming to understand that trying to beat the aboriginal culture out of aboriginal peoples was a form of genocide.

That must be about the most useless argument for not having an opinion I've seen in this thread. We might well point out that your opinion has the same lack of influence on past events. You over simplify to the point of glossing over the truth. Some Southern folks believed that slavery was a blessing for slaves, but there was nothing universal about that opinion. Plenty of different justifications were offered including the idea that Africans were just an inferior folks who deserved their lot in life. Other Southerners simply argued that the 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. And some just felt that their need to build a society was too important to worry about the feelings of their slaves. Some non slave holders realized that the existence of slaves elevated their own social status at least one rung above laborer. Even after listing all of those things, I think it is a fair to inquire into how many of those "justifications' were sincere and how many of them actually excuse anything if they are sincere. But apparently we won't ask that question if our quest is to avoid making any moral calls. In short, your position leads to cutting off at least as much valid inquiry as it encourages.Perhaps most right thinking South folks did believe that slavery was beneficial to themselves, although even some slavers acknowledged the dehumanizing influence that treating humans badly had on even Southern culture. They also understood that slavery completely discounted Southern labor, and lead to chasms between lower and upper class whites, although of course the slave owners found nothing wrong with that.Based on a sample of one, it appears that even attempts to 'not judge' slavery do not necessarily result in a nuanced look at things. If you are an example, we can say that those attempts might lead to avoiding consideration of the actual negative impact of slavery on slaves in favor of their simplified view that Southerners universally had a benign view on that point. One might think those folks are parroting history from the Lost Cause narrative by picking the most gracious possible excuses they can find.I'll note that nothing that the slaves experienced or expressed has any input into the reasoning you give here. Most slaves would have been happy to denounce their treatment as slaves with great vehemence. But of course that expression would have just been just emotion and of no import in the study of history, right? Those folks would have been just a PC invoking minority trying to avoid their part in building a society. Screw 'em.The fact of the matter is that on balance, being enslaved, and then reduced to a lower societal caste even when freed, and then being deprived of basic human rights and dignity was not beneficial to colored folks regardless of what Southerners managed to convince themselves or what they managed to lie about. And in fact a significant number of folks in the South knew that, but dismissed that truth as unimportant and not sufficient reason to change how white poeple lived their lives. After all, an African had no rights that a white person was bound to respect. That was the law, was it not?What we can also say is that many racist Southerners would not suffer even the smallest inconvenience to themselves in favor of a negro, and that we can see that same behavior on exhibit in society today.Let me add some other reasons why slavery was an intractable problem. Slavery was one means of maintaining a political balance between North and South. Slave cultures, despite their other differences were united over the continuation of slavery among some other things. Yet the Southern population was much smaller than that of the North (excluding slaves). Slavery, and the 3/5 compromise allowed the South to maintain their political balance in the House, while having an equal number of slave/free states provide balance in the Senate. However it was clear that both slavery dying out, and the Northern populations more rapid population growth were going to end both concerns. So there were also political motivations for the South to spread slavery everywhere they could.I think the idea that benefiting Negroes played any major role other than easing the conscience of Southeners is a bogus. I acknowledged I have not proved that here, but neither have you demonstrated that the idea was widespread or genuinely held. But overall, your analysis is way too simple and accepting of excuse to recommend it as valid.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

But I *did* respond, saying that I thought you'd wandered way off topic. Nothing in your "Lincoln leniency" argument relates to Lincoln's words about human nature. It read like an attempt at distraction. Well, that's just nuts. Human nature isn't pretty much the same no matter where or when you consider? Explain. Oh, I can tell just how much you're dying to discuss whatever it is.--Percy

What you actually do is compose misinterpretations, not just here, but in all threads where we discuss. When you can't find things to disagree about you just make them up. You're still confusing two different arguments. Davis spent considerable time with Northerners in Washington. Most Southerners rarely came in contact with Northerners. This is false. Could you please stop making stuff up? If you want to discuss things I've actually said then go ahead, it would be a welcome change. What you're doing reflects a stubborn determination to misrepresent or an incredibly incompetent yet consistent ability to misread. Well, that certainly overstates the case. For example, there were efforts in California to join the secessionists. Of course you don't. You're in a constant state of denial. You can't quote where I actually say the things you claim. You just take a bit from here and bit from there and juxtapose them into a contradiction of your own creation.What I'm saying is not rocket science. It's very simple to understand. Instead of accepting the arguments as I've composed them and then disagreeing, you instead seek misinterpretation after misinterpretation while simultaneously implying that I favor slavery. Could you just stop?--Percy

This reasoning surprises me. Everyone is a product of upbringing and environment. Perhaps their parents are to blame for the upbringing, or perhaps the parents only passed on what they learned from their parents. And of course neither the parents or children could be held responsible for the cultural environment. How is the boy evil? Even NoNukes has said that Southerners were evil because they were exposed to the correct attitudes and morality yet rejected them. My assumption has been that commission of evil implies awareness that it is evil? How is this boy, completely ignorant of other ways, evil?I've been asking that the definition of evil be nailed down. Perhaps someone should take a stab at it.--Percy