Political Roundtable/Black hole of doom Part Deux

[Nivek]

Can we use some of that hefty defense budget to nuke the South? What are the downsides?

You'd be screwing up a lot of good beaches.

[fishercob]

Meh, I burn easily.

[Nivek]

Can we use some of that hefty defense budget to nuke the South? What are the downsides?

I know you say this is jest, but it's actually brings up a really important issue. The generally liberal North really dislikes and disagrees with the generally conservative South, and vice versa. Why force this marriage to continue? Both sides would be happier without the other.

Wouldn't that make us...Europe?

[nate33]

The Confederacy had no doubts about why it existed and what its purpose was to be. This is from the Cornerstone Speech, given by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens in Savannah, Georgia on March 21, 1861.

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.

Vice President Stephens leaves no doubt as to why the split occurred and why, from the point of view of the Confederates, it had to happen. It was slavery. Always was slavery.

We can find damning quotes insinuating racism from just about everybody in that era. It was the world view. Abraham Lincoln in a 1958 debtae with Stephen Douglas

“I will say then that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bring­ing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … there is a physical dif­ference between the white and black races which I believe will forever for­bid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other men am in favor of having the supe­rior position assigned to the white race.”

[Spence]

I know quite a few of us in the north have fantasized about that from time to time, but it isn't realistic. For one thing, this country isn't North and South anymore. There's something called the West, too. Check your maps -- it's pretty big. There's a ton of other reasons I could go into, but I'm still waiting to see some actual evidence that Northerners and Southerners really want to live in different nations. A 150-year-old Civil War isn't enough evidence for me. Seems like the actual preferences of the people involved should be considered.

And speaking on behalf of a lot of northerners, we're concerned about living next door to a country full of religious fanatics who believe that the universe was created in 6 days and the Sun revolves around the Earth -- and who also happen to have a large nuclear arsenal at their disposal. Sure, Pakistan already exists, but that's halfway across the globe. I don't want to live next door to a country where Timothy McVeigh's birthday would be a national holiday.

[Spence]

You're trying to change the subject, Nate. The question is not whether Abraham Lincoln held racial views that would be considered enlightened today, the question is whether or not slavery was absolutely central to the cause of the Confederacy and the Civil War. You asserted it was only one of many issues, and not necessarily the main issue. I provided a contemporaneous quote from the Vice President of the Confederacy that rips your argument to shreds. The adult thing to do here is admit you were wrong, not try to change the subject. If you want to argue that slavery was not immoral on racial grounds because the white race is superior or, that, by the standards of Objectivism, slavery is not immoral for any race or group of people because the strong have every right to dominate and enslave the weak, that's fine. Make that argument if that's what you believe. But slavery was the overwhelming and central cause of the Civil War.

Lincoln, as well as anyone, understood the cause of the Civil War, which he laid out in his second Inaugural Address on March 4, 1865:

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war...

[nate33]

You asserted it was only one of many issues, and not necessarily the main issue. I provided a contemporaneous quote from the Vice President of the Confederacy that rips your argument to shreds. The adult thing to do here is admit you were wrong, not try to change the subject.

Sigh. More arrogant condescension.

I never said slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War. I said it wasn't the only cause. Tariffs were the other big issue. In 1860, the Republican platform called for higher tariffs. The Morill Tariff was implemented by Congress in March 1861. It imposed the highest tariffs in US history, with over a 50% duty on iron products and 25% on clothing; rates averaged 47%. The newly created Confederacy responded by implementing a low tariff, essentially creating a free-trade zone in the South. Prior to this "war of the tariffs", most Northern newspapers had called for peace on the slavery issue through conciliation, but many now cried for war.

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."

- The Chicago Daily Times in December 1860, before any secession, foretelling the disaster that Southern free ports would bring to Northern commerce:

The Philadelphia Press demanded a blockade of Southern ports, because, if not, "a series of customs houses will be required on the vast inland border from the Atlantic to West Texas. Worse still, with no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. Cotton for Northern mills will be charged an export tax. This will cripple the clothing industries and make British mills prosper. Finally, the great inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio Rivers, will be subject to Southern tolls."

- Philadelphia Press, 18 March 1861

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".

- Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions."

- Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South"

- London Times on 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation".

- North American Review (Boston, October 1862)

"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism."

- Charleston Mercury editorial, 2 days before the November 1860 election

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests... These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."

- The New Orleans Daily Crescent, 21 January 1861

[LyricalRico]

^ Interesting quotes, nate. One follow-up question I'd have is to what extent would a "free trade" system in the South have benefited poor white southerners who may not have even owned slaves? I'd guess not very much, but I haven't done any research on the subject.

[Spence]

Sigh. More arrogant condescension.

I never said slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War. I said it wasn't the only cause.

Nate, I never wrote that you said slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War. Here again, is what I wrote:

>>You asserted it was only one of many issues, and not necessarily the main issue.<<

That is, in fact, a perfectly accurate description of what you wrote earlier. The fact that you persistently change the subject or mischaracterize what another person wrote, while claiming these things are being done to you, when the opposite is not only true, but can be shown to be true, leaves me with a rotten taste in my mouth. You seem perfectly capable of arguing rationally and honestly about basketball, even with people who hold views very different from your own. You seem equally incapable of doing the same when the subject is politics.

I'm fully aware of the tariff disputes of the time. I am also aware that they were a throw-in to the causes of the Civil War. I never heard the South refer to tariffs as "our peculiar custom." The Vice President of the Confederacy, in a speech intended to lay out the justification and foundation for the treason which led to that rebellious government, specifically argued -- at length -- that slavery was the natural condition of the Negro and that the preservation of slavery was the cause of the Civil War. He was hardly the only one. Virtually every important person in the Confederacy freely admitted that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War and the preservation of it the main reason for the Confederacy. They freely admitted it -- before and during the Civil War -- because they were not ashamed of it. After the war, when slavery was a dead issue, many of them recanted what they had said or written before and concocted all sorts of non-slavery reasons for why they went to war. Understandably, reputable historians have decided to regard the contemporaneous declarations as the most trustworthy.

I think we're done here, Nate. I have the entire body of reputable historians on my side -- something I'm sure you would dismiss as you dismiss the entire body of reputable economists. That's fine. But stop playing the victim by misquoting people and changing the subject and then claiming these things are being done to you. Whining about "arrogant condescension" when people just try to get you to argue honestly is embarrassing and I'm sure you're capable of better.

[nate33]

I don't know the answer to that. But I do know that only 10% of whites held slaves, and only half of them had more than one. Presumably, if they were able to pass a free trade law, they must have had a majority of non slave holders on their side.

[nate33]

There you go again, Spence. Accuse me of not being adult, and than call my argument embarrassing. I note that you didn't refute any of what I posted. You just disregarded it because it's not "credible" by your own personal standards.

I agree. We're done here because you refuse to have a serious conversation on the issue. You would rather attack and ridicule me. You do it every time on every political issue.

[nate33]

Sigh. More arrogant condescension.

I never said slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War. I said it wasn't the only cause.

Nate, I never wrote that you said slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War. Here again, is what I wrote:

>>You asserted it was only one of many issues, and not necessarily the main issue.<<

That is, in fact, a perfectly accurate description of what you wrote earlier.

Apparently, now you have to lie in order to discredit me.

This is what I wrote earlier:

Slavery wasn't the only thing the Civil War was about

[Zonkerbl]

I read a bunch of Civil War history novels last year. FWIW the author said that when the war began it wasn't about slavery at all, and if the Union had had competent military leadership the war would have been over quickly and slavery wouldn't have been abolished. The war didn't become about slavery until Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, which came quite a ways after the war had already started.

It was mostly about the Southern states wanting to secede. There were two folks fighting against the Secessionists, the Unionists and the Abolitionists, and the Abolitionists were considered left-wing wackos at the time (although Lincoln was one). The Unionists could care less about slavery at the time, they just didn't want to break up the union. Full stop.

So before the Emancipation Proclamation Nate is right, and afterwards Spence is right.

[DCZards]

I know you say this is jest, but it's actually brings up a really important issue. The generally liberal North really dislikes and disagrees with the generally conservative South, and vice versa. Why force this marriage to continue? Both sides would be happier without the other.

Since the majority of African-Americans still live in southern states and, in most cases, already have to endure the rule of hard-core conservatives like Mississippi governor Haley Barbour, I'm sure they have no interest in turning back the clock to the days of "state rights." Blacks remember all too well the days when Southern whites and their elected leaders could pretty much make laws (including those that deny African-Americans their civil and political rights) without any federal oversight.

So, no let's not go back to the days of olde.

[Spence]

Jeebus, Nate, that's not a lie, that's an accurate description of what you wrote. You said slavery was not the only thing was about and didn't even acknowledge it as the main issue. My description is perfectly accurate. If you wish to change your view after the fact, like some latter-day Confederate, that's fine. But I was accurate.

Nate, I don't have to argue with you or anyone else about the causes of the Civil War. The Vice President of the Confederacy made it pretty clear. You apparently believe you know more about why the Confederacy came to be than the VP of said Confederacy. I'm sorry, who were you accusing of arrogance? You are in no position to contradict the people who were running the Confederacy at the time they launched their rebellion. The truth is, you want to argue the Confederate cause but don't want to be burdened with the legacy of slavery. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. Slavery comes with the package and, for the vast majority of the Confederate ruling class, slavery WAS the package.

I don't have to lie to discredit you, Nate, nor would I do such a thing. I just have to wait for you to type. You favor Constitutional policies [nullification] that would permit slavery, segregation and legal discrimination based on race, religion, gender, etc. And your response to a poll showing that most Republicans have more favorable views about Confederates than Unionists is that such views are completely natural and "victors right the history books." You misspelled the word write, but your meaning is clear. Whether you favor the cause of slavery or simply favor the cause of state's rights even if it leads to slavery and oppression doesn't really matter. Adherence to a political doctrine that inevitably leads to such injustice, even if one claims to dislike that injustice, is morally indistinguishable from those who held the whip in their hands.

And you think I'm trying to discredit you? Not necessary, Nate. Not in the least.

And that really IS my final word. I'll let you sweep up, Nate, but that isn't a broom in your hand, it's a shovel and you keep digging yourself in deeper.

[Zonkerbl]

Spence, you need to chill. The South might have fought because of slavery, but in the beginning that's not why the North fought. A lot of Union folks (I believe Benjamin Franklin included) felt that the slavery issue could be resolved without a war.

[nate33]

Jeebus, Nate, that's not a lie, that's an accurate description of what you wrote. You said slavery was not the only thing was about and didn't even acknowledge it as the main issue. My description is perfectly accurate. If you wish to change your view after the fact, like some latter-day Confederate, that's fine. But I was accurate.

It's not accurate. You inserted the phrase "and not necessarily the main issue", and then attacked me on that front.

Adherence to a political doctrine that inevitably leads to such injustice, even if one claims to dislike that injustice, is morally indistinguishable from those who held the whip in their hands.

Ah. So now I'm a racist that secretly wishes to own and whip slaves. For that matter, so is anyone in favor of state's rights. Debates are so easy in your universe. Just label the other guy as evil so you can't lose.

[fishercob]

Spence, I generally really enjoy your contributions to this forum and enjoy your wit and snark. But i think you've been a little over the top this morning with nate.

[Nivek]

It's amazing how quickly these kinds of conversations turn nasty. For what it's worth, I thought Spence's line -- >>You asserted it was only one of many issues, and not necessarily the main issue.<< -- was a fairly accurate summary of what nate wrote. Whatever.

The more substantive issue is the cause of the Civil War, and it was about slavery. Southern states wanted to secede to preserve their "right" to own people and make them work. There were some other issues, but those issues stemmed first from slavery.

[doclinkin]

Actually I quite enjoyed this little dust-up. A little friendly border skirmish between neighbors. Great fun for the popcorn chompers on the sidelines.