Posted on 04/23/2019 1:19:22 AM PDT by 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at acton.org ...
Over what other land did the US Government have control? Are you suggesting that US policy should apply in lands ruled by foreign powers? I don't get that. It seems nonsensical to me. Oh wait. I forgot to whom I was conversing here. :)
Why, it is as if the areas, that the South planned on expanding their “affairs” into, did not exist!
What business is it of the United States government what occurs in the lands of foreign powers? Cuba was already slave territory. The entire Caribbean was slave territory. Brazil was massively slave territory.
Are you suggesting that the United States has a duty or responsibility to force it's own ideas of morality onto other nations?
You know, like Central America, South America, Cuba, etc.
Cuba and South America I know for certain had slavery at this time. I would have to check for Central America, but since I consider it irrelevant, i'm not going to bother.
Funny that the US could claim it fought a war over slavery, but couldn't be bothered to deal with a Slave Owning Island much closer to Washington DC than was Texas.
It's almost as if they didn't really care about slavery so much as they did controlling those previously very profitable states.
.........and what generated this “money”, for the South?
Which has what to do with it?
"Nonsense!"
Yes, you would have us believe that his placing quotations around "owners" when referring to slaveholders is akin to us placing quotations around "knowledgeable" when referring to you.
That makes your attempt to give them legitimacy in post #99 nothing more than political hate speech, FRiend.
Always will. You have a strange and sick obsession with Honest Abe.
What generated the bulk of the money for New York and Washington? Have you been paying attention? It was slave labor that produced the vast bulk of New York's import income, and the vast bulk of Washington DC's total income.
Perversely, New York and Washington DC were making more money off of slavery than were the actual slave holders. Isn't that amusing?
The South was getting what was left over after New York and Washington DC took the lion's share of the production.
Now take a look at the Coal industry, and how it spurred the massive expansion of organized labor. Who was running the coal industry at that time? My "who", I mean "What city". :)
DiogenesLamp: "Over what other land did the US Government have control?
Are you suggesting that US policy should apply..."
The question first raised was over the expansion of slavery -- where could it go next?
The answer is many Confederates considered the Caribbean and Central America the best places to expand slavery.
This map shows one vision of the new Confederate Empire:
When I discuss politics with people, I often make the mistake of assuming they know as much about the demographic breakdown of politics in America as do I. Yes, people are individuals, and so are atoms, and just like physicists can't predict when any individual atom will undergo a fission process, they can predict the behavior of the group with astonishing accuracy.
Politics is much like this. The probabilities that someone in Organized labor will vote Democrat are quite high, but of course this varies by state. Far more likely in New York than it would be in Texas.
Secular Jews are generally Liberal, and if you were betting that secular Jews would vote Liberal, I believe you have an 85% chance of being correct. Orthodox Jews on the other hand, have about a 75% chance of voting Conservative.
Asians tend Democrat, Blacks tend very strongly Democrat, Homosexuals tend strongly Democrat, Urbanites tend Democrat, Latinos tend Democrat, College graduates tend Democrat, people in entertainment tend Democrat, and so on and on and on.
Married women tend Republican, Males tend Republican, Religious Christians tend Republican, Military tend Republican, Police tend Republican, and so on and on and on.
One of the things I learned when I became an activist is to study and understand the nature of the people who are your opponents. Learn what they think, what they like, where they tend to live, what issues they tend to care about and why.
Did you not?
So what has secular Jew got to do with it? Virtual certainty that he runs in Liberal circles, and shares Liberal revulsion of the most evil institution ever created by mankind prior to the Nazis. Very very very anti-slavery. *THAT* is what "Secular Jew" has to do with it.
.
Yes, you would have us believe that his placing quotations around "owners" when referring to slaveholders is akin to us placing quotations around "knowledgeable" when referring to you.
I'm not part of the topic until you make me part of the topic.
The man is clearly indicating that his putting scare quotes around "owners" is implying that they are not actual owners they are make believe owners because human beings cannot be owned.
Only you could interpret this in any other wy.
Iirc, that changed drastically in Dickens last visit here when he effectively apologized for previous negative expressions.
You asked about church attendance in 19th century America. I was trying to answer your question. My point was that church attendance and church membership weren't as widespread as people assume now. As I said, people in the professional class that Lincoln joined were more likely to be churchgoers, but it wasn't like the whole country was like that.
He certainly claims that his views changed. I wonder if he started attending church after he declared that he had embraced Christianity?
Lincoln wasn't in the habit of declaring his religious views. Mostly he kept them to himself. But he was responding to attacks. In his 1846 statement admitted that he was not a member of any church. Lincoln began to attend Presbyterian services in 1850, after his political career was over and after the death of his son. He would have another son die. Those losses and the much greater losses of the war made him more religious. But I guess none of that makes an impression on someone like you for whom everything is always about money.
But apart from that, Lincoln appears to be about as close to an Atheist as I think we've ever had. Maybe Jefferson perhaps, but I think he mostly kept it a secret.
Jefferson, Washington, the Adamses, and possibly Madison were close in their religious views to each other and to Lincoln. It's unlikely that any of them were orthodox Trinitarian Christians. None of them were atheists. "Deist" or "theist" or "Unitarian" would be better terms. I don't see how any unbiased person familiar with religion or atheism could read Lincoln's writings and seriously conclude that he was an atheist.
*THAT* is in the eye of the beholder. Sort of like "at pleasure" rather than "necessity." People have differing opinions about what constitutes "pleasure" and what constitutes "necessity."
The language is all wrong, it doesn't sound like President Lincoln, during the Civil War.
See my comment above. Same thing.
The alleged quote is neither recognized nor discussed by any reputable scholar I know of.
Find me some examples of prominent academics criticizing Obama. Or are we to conclude that Obama never did anything wrong because academics never mention it?
Chiniquy is a strange case with obvious hatred of the Catholic Church and less than sterling reputation for honesty.
I know nothing of his honesty, but he certainly seems to be a little crazy in his manner of turning against his former Church. Of course for him to claim what he says about Lincoln is way beyond "less than sterling reputation for honesty." If it's wrong, it's out and out bald face lying.
The argument itself is blitheringly insane -- no informed & rational person would have thought such things.
I perceive this as your best argument so far. Yes, he seems a little nuts.
For example, why would anyone think that Protestant Jefferson Davis was getting advice and promises from Jesuit priests?? Or that even if received, he'd trust & act precipitously on them?
A drowning man will grasp at anything he thinks might save him. If people approached him and claimed they could get him money, arms and men, I think he would have listened.
So, anyone can see the alleged quotes make no sense and are contradicted by other known Lincoln words & actions, for examples, here and here.
Your second example is better than your first, and it's sufficient to indicate that Lincoln was not anti-Catholic in 1844. Of course back then, he was also in favor of States being able to have independence if they wanted it, so it's not indication that he retained this attitude in 1864, when I think this book sets the conversation with him.
Lincoln was reacting viciously towards anyone he saw as potentially causing him trouble over the war. He had that congressman Clement Vallandigham sent to the Confederates. He had newspaper editors arrested and locked up. You may not see him as a bit out of control during this period, but by today's standards his behavior would have been seen as quite tyrannical.
Would he have reacted viciously towards someone telling him the Pope was backing the Confederacy? If he didn't like religion or Christianity anyways, why wouldn't he see the Pope as his enemy?
You see it as out of character, and I'm not sure if it is or if it isn't. I've seen enough of the dark side of his character to be uncertain about this.
I'm still trying to make up my mind as to whether or not he was a tyrant or a saint, and I see evidence for both interpretations.
You see me almost exclusively on Civil War threads. You may be shocked to discover I write on a lot of other subjects, and have for many years.
I also write on other websites beyond this one, and on those, the topic of Lincoln seldom emerges. Your perception is constrained by the small window through which you look to see my writings. They extend much beyond your current range of vision.
Look, squirrel!
I am not so easily distracted. But, for the sake of argument, to answer your question as to which city was running the Coal Industry, was it Lincoln, Nebraska?
It was already there, and the slaves in those places were treated far more terribly than in the Southern US.
Beyond that, what business is it of the United States government if foreign countries wanted to employ the same sort of slave labor that was legal in the United States?
Notice all the Northern "Blue" states are connected by Water to New York City?
Lot of bread being buttered through that town.
Really? How so? What, did they stiff him for a hotel room or something?
You deign to determine my range of vision? That’s very forward of you. Perhaps your strange and sick obsession is not all-encompassing in all aspects of your life, but here, on these CW threads, it is.
Sorry, but yours is the lie, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, here, for example.
Well then please inform me further, because it was my understanding that the whole country was indeed like that.
In the 1850s-60s, I would have thought Church attendance was nearly universal, and especially for prominent politicians or community leaders.
Those losses and the much greater losses of the war made him more religious.
Maybe, but i'm getting conflicting impressions on that. I'm not sure that Lincoln's statements can always be taken at face value. That Corwin amendment thing tends to make me think he was a bit flexible.
But I guess none of that makes an impression on someone like you for whom everything is always about money.
When a series of coincidences all seem to have money as the common factor, it gets harder to believe it isn't about money. (or power, which converts to money.)
I don't see how any unbiased person familiar with religion or atheism could read Lincoln's writings and seriously conclude that he was an atheist.
I don't see how any unbiased person could read Lincoln's earlier writings and conclude he was against secession, but there it is.
And of course there are two of his law partners and his close personal friend and body guard claiming that he was.
You think the West Virginia Coal industry and Organized Labor has nothing to do with the issue of slavery? :)
How cute.
I am not so easily distracted. But, for the sake of argument, to answer your question as to which city was running the Coal Industry, was it Lincoln, Nebraska?
Why yes! Yes it was! Organized labor came about because people didn't like the cold winters up there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.