A secular Jew makes a surprising discovery about Christians and American slavery

Acton Institute ^ | Apr 2019 | John B. Carpenter

[CondoleezzaProtege]

"Christians ended slavery." Do you think that’s a conservative simpleton’s mock-worthy bombast, embarrassing the rest of us with his black-and-white, unapologetic caricature of American history? No. It is the considered conclusion of a Nobel laureate, a former communist, a secular Jew, and arguably the foremost scholar on American slavery.

Robert Fogel (1922-2013), the son of Russian Jewish immigrants, was president of Cornell University’s American Youth for Democracy, investing eight years promoting communism. Meanwhile, he married Enid Morgan, an African-American woman, consequently suffering the ugliness of American racism personally. Eventually, he rejected communism. Apparently, the data didn’t support it.

Fogel was driven by data, perhaps the purest pursuer of empirical truth I’ve ever met in academia...

Fogel’s bean-counting approach led to his discovery that plantations, organized in a business-like fashion with their “gang system,” had an assembly line-like efficiency. Hence Southern slavery was fantastically profitable.

He concluded that if the Civil War had not been sparked when it was, the South would have continued to outpace the North, adapt slavery to industrialization, been unconquerable if a later Civil War had broken out, and likely would have spread slavery indefinitely. Slavery was on the ascendancy at the outbreak of the Civil War.

Furthermore – and here it sounds scandalous – most Southern slaves were treated materially well by their “owners.” The average slave consumed more calories and lived longer than the average, white, Northern city-dweller.

The moral question: If Southern slavery was profitable, even providing for the slaves a relatively decent material life, then why is it evil? If slavery is wrong, then, we have to look beyond the beans that can be counted, the dollars that can be earned, the efficiency that can be charted. The answer is found in a system of morality that comes from beyond mere materialism...

[DiogenesLamp]

If true. And why is "owners" in quotation marks? Is the author implying that slaves weren't really owned? That it was really some sort of partnership?

You are rather slow sometimes. It is implying that the author disagrees with the concept of "ownership" of other human beings. It is the only possible implication from a statement made by a modern secular Jew. No one would dare suggest anything else.

[DiogenesLamp]

I travel a lot and sometimes drive through small towns where I see more bars than churches, and the bars are all open, some churches closed.

The culture has degraded greatly since the last half of the 20th century.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The average slave consumed more calories and lived longer than the average, white, Northern city-dweller. Contrary to popular myth, slave families were rarely divided up — only about 3% were — and slave-owners rarely used their slaves for sexual indulgence, with only about 2% of slave births being by white fathers."

Yeah, slavery was awesome! That's why no slaves wanted to be free, runaways were unheard of, and there was no need for laws about sending back escapees.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: " Did you miss this part?"

"He concluded that if the Civil War had not been sparked when it was, the South would have continued to outpace the North, adapt slavery to industrialization, been unconquerable if a later Civil War had broken out, and likely would have spread slavery indefinitely. "

Yes, I did catch that, disagree with "outpace the North" but 100% agree with "would have spread slavery indefinitely".

I see nothing inherent in either economics or modern technology which by themselves could force an end to slavery in states where it was so integral to their way of life.
Especially considering in 1860 abolition could not even be discussed publicly in the South and 1861 Reasons for Secession were all about protecting slavery -- not your crazy "money flows from Europe".

DiogenesLamp: "Yes, the South would have been a major economic power if the North hadn't been siphoning away most of it's profits from it's production."

That's just your Marxist training talking.
It like claiming your mortgage lender is "siphoning off" your earnings -- well duh, did you expect to borrow and not pay it back?
The real truth is, "the Nawth" didn't "siphon" anything, but they did manufacture and provide many services (I.e., transportation) Southerners were willing to pay for.

DiogenesLamp: " However, I think he is wrong about slavery continuing indefinitely (despite Lincoln's efforts to make that happen) , because he is not dealing with the increasing social resistance to slavery, not just in the Northern and Border states, but in Southern states as well."

Now that is a total lie which should shame you to claim.
In fact there was no abolition movement among Deep South elites, Fire Eaters or Confederate leaders.
Southerners who did oppose slavery and secession were entirely backwoods "hillbillies" in country like western Virginia and eastern Tennessee.
There's no possibility such people would ever persuade Southern power brokers in Montgomery, Charleston or Richmond to outlaw slavery.

And with the CSA serving as slavery's global anchor & defender, slavery could well expand, grow & prosper indefinitely.

DiogenesLamp: " He also fails to realize that to make factory workers out of slaves, you have to train them, and as Frederick Douglas noted, the more slaves learn, the more discontent they are with their condition.
Making them into factory workers would likely hasten the demise of slavery."

You forget that slaves were ALREADY factory workers in the South, notably in its largest factory, Richmond's Tredgar Iron Works, half whose workers were slaves.
Thousands more worked building & maintaining rail lines, so it's simply not true that only cotton could usefully employ enslaved workers.

[DiogenesLamp]

And yet your Lost Cause myth wants us to believe that Northerners only cared about the economics of slavery -- Northerners just didn't want to compete against slaves for wages, you tell us endlessly.

For the vast bulk of them, this is absolutely correct. It is no coincidence that the modern Organized Labor movements are mostly concentrated in what were the Northern States of the Civil War.

Wow. Look! Mostly the Liberal states!

So you tell me. Are/were not the Northern states preoccupied with labor/wage issues?

You deny over & over that religion or morality or, God forbid, "the milk of human kindness" motivated Republicans to oppose slavery.

Economic data tells the truth. People lie about their motives and always prefer to color themselves in the best possible light.

But here now it seems you confess differently -- now you do admit it really was Christian teaching after all, which Northerners learned in church and drove their opposition to slavery, regardless of economic factors.

You can't have an explosion without a fuse being lit. Christianity is what lit the fuse. Concern over the well being of slaves was not the powder, but who cares from what the powder was made so long as the explosion happened, right?

The vast bulk of manpower fighting the civil war did not care about slaves. Only the tiny few abolitionists cared about this, but without their constant efforts to push this agenda, it never would have gone anywhere.

It just so happens that the interests of the power blocks and the interests of the abolitionists aligned around 1863. The power blocks wanted the South economically broken for daring to challenge them, and they also wanted all those votes they planned to newly create.

[DiogenesLamp]

Quaker and Puritans vs. Anglican Cavaliers

And the d@mn Puritans are still f***ing with us today. They just have new goals now. It used to be freedom for slaves, and now it's indulgence of f@ggots, transexuals, child molesters, Abortion, and every other kind of perversion of which you can think.

Their new god is government, but they are still trying to shove their "progressive" morality down everyone else's throat.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, I did catch that, disagree with "outpace the North" but 100% agree with "would have spread slavery indefinitely".

I thought we had covered this several times. Where would it expand to?

Reasons for Secession were all about protecting slavery

Lie. Only a few statements were. The vast bulk were not. 3 states do not speak for 11 states.

[jeffersondem]

“If true”

ESPECIALLY if true.

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Might be bullsh*t.
It certainly seems sensationalized..."

Might be??
There's no "might" about it, it's total nonsense, written by a blithering idiot, certainly not by Lincoln.

[DoodleDawg]

ESPECIALLY if true.

Why?

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

There is an economics maxim about using statistics the way a drunken man uses a lamppost - for support rather than illumination. Without investing in the books it's hard to tell which use Fogel is making, wouldn't you agree? So this likely not a case of truth or lie, however much you would like to make it, but simply one interpretation of the data that is not shared by other scholars.

[Pelham]

I missed the part where you provided your opinion of George Washington as a slaveholder. But then I figured you would be afraid to address it.

[miss marmelstein]

Booze here seems to be extremely limited to the ABC. Although, the grocery stores sell wine.

[HandyDandy]

DL: ”So they could run their own affairs without sending the greater share of their profits to New York and Washington DC.

That sounds a lot like, “they did it for money”.

DL: So far as the Declaration of Independence says, their reasons for seceding are immaterial. The only thing required to justify independence is the desire for it.

Just between you and me, and leaving out the Declaration of Independence, there was a reason why the South seceded. Without using a euphemism (like, “so they could run their own affairs”) would it be possible for you to spell out what you mean by “their own affairs”? Please be specific.

Afterall, you went so far as to quote the Huffington Post to dig up dirt on your nemesis (probably your lowest point yet). I skipped that post. Best guess is you were Lincoln bashing. You spend all your time dissecting the nefarious motives of the North, even snuffling through swill. Can you plainly state the motive of the South? Hint: Everyone knows what their motive was. I want to hear it from you. TIA

[DoodleDawg]

You are rather slow sometimes.

LOL! Being called slow by you is rather amusing.

It is implying that the author disagrees with the concept of "ownership" of other human beings.

Is it now? Or just more of your lame-ass analysis?

It is the only possible implication from a statement made by a modern secular Jew. No one would dare suggest anything else.

Apparently not.

[DoodleDawg]

Well likely none that will convince you anyways.

None that exists. But go ahead and source it and let's see who it convinces.

You might want to look at some other things Lincoln was reported to have said and by whom are claimed to have reported them.

Lincoln is reported by you to have said a lot of things. The problem being is that Lincoln is the most carefully recorded president of the time. Literally every letter he wrote or speech he gave is available online. And few of the things you report that he said are in any of those sources.

If that anti-Catholic screed claimed to have been said by Lincoln is correct, it makes it all the more plausible to believe Lincoln was very much anti-religion in general.

If.

[DiogenesLamp]

Might be?? There's no "might" about it, it's total nonsense, written by a blithering idiot, certainly not by Lincoln.

And you know it's nonsense how? The man claims to be a former Priest. Apparently he is historically significant enough to have a Wikipedia entry.

I must admit I have never heard of him before, but I won't immediately dismiss him as a liar unless someone can show some reason why I should think he is.

I think you just do not like what he says. He isn't even trying to attack Lincoln. He claims that he owes Lincoln a great debt of gratitude for successfully defending him, and considers Lincoln to be a friend.

One thing I have noticed is that it seems a great many of Lincoln's friends paint a different picture about him than what I had been led to believe my entire life.

I had *ALWAYS* thought Lincoln was a Church going Christian as was the norm for most people in those days. It never occurred to me that he would have been anything else, because so much of his justification for what he did seems to revolve around God and religion.

Of course when you consider it possible that a man is a cynical user of people who will say whatever needs to be said in order to acquire and use power, then it is not unreasonable to believe his pronouncements of piety and spirituality are merely useful tools.

I've pointed this out before, and it has troubled me since I was a young person and found out about what happened to the Lincoln family. His young son died while he was in office, and his wife went insane.

Why would God allow such things to happen to a man doing God's work? Why wasn't Lincoln and his family blessed with divine happiness?

Always bothered me.

[DiogenesLamp]

Without investing in the books it's hard to tell which use Fogel is making, wouldn't you agree?

Seriously? Modern Jewish guy...

... implying that slaves weren't really owned? That it was really some sort of partnership?

I'll borrow a word from BroJoeK here.

"Nonsense!"

[HandyDandy]

Funny how that map only shows the United States of America. Why, it is as if the areas, that the South planned on expanding their “affairs” into, did not exist! You know, like Central America, South America, Cuba, etc.

[DiogenesLamp]

That sounds a lot like, “they did it for money”.

It is exactly like "they did it for the money", which is what I have been saying all along. Here, let Charles Dickens explain it for you.

So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. 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 many other evils … the quarrel between North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.

Please be specific.

MONEY. M-O-N-E-Y. That's as specific as it gets.

[DiogenesLamp]

Being called slow by you is rather amusing.

Like Children, some people are easily amused. :)