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...

[x]

That book about Lincoln and the Catholics and Jesuits was written by an obvious kook. How would he possibly know what Lincoln thought or said? Was he there? There is nothing corresponding to the anti-Catholic rant in any of Lincoln's other writings.

John Stuart later complained that Herndon's version of their interview didn't accurately reflect what he told him. Herndon had a way of presenting the testimony of others in a way that reflected his own beliefs.

Most of his testimonies were written and signed by his informants: this does not necessarily make them reliable, of course, but to the extent that they may mislead, the responsibility lies in the writer’s faulty memory or deliberate calculation, not Herndon’s. In the interviews that he held, on the other hand, Herndon could control the agenda and leave things out: he explained that he was no stenographer and could barely write down “100th part” of what he heard, so his records are unlikely fully to capture the emphases or language of his interviewees; there may have been no conscious spin involved but there were manifold opportunities for him to summarize these conversations in his own words.

Source

The quote from the letter to Wakefield comes from the same 1924 speech that your earlier purported quote comes from. The letter has never been found. See Merrill Peterson's Lincoln in American Memory and They Never Said It by Paul Boller and John George, both available at Google Books.

[DiogenesLamp]

You deign to determine my range of vision? That’s very forward of you.

Observant.

Perhaps your strange and sick obsession is not all-encompassing in all aspects of your life, but here, on these CW threads, it is.

And here is where you go off the rails with your "obsession" theory.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Also, your map is wrong.
It would have looked more like this:"

Oh, so now you do finally confess the truth, that slavery was not limited to cotton States and could well expand over most of the United States, if "properly" supported.

Well, bless your dear heart.
Getting truth out of you is like pulling hens' teeth, but it seems, on rare occasion, can happen.

Thanks for that!

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry, but yours is the lie, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, here, for example.

Noting that some states hold slaves is not the same thing as proving that slavery was the reason they were leaving. As has been pointed out numerous times, there was no legal means of doing anything to abolish slavery at that point in history, so it's a tough claim to prove they were leaving over perceived threats to slavery.

Noting that the "slave holding states" were being abused, makes abuse the issue, and "slave holding states" the recipient of the abuse.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: " 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."

Your repeated lies about Corwin don't make Lincoln "flexible" they only make your own words unreliable.

[x]

In the 1850s-60s, I would have thought Church attendance was nearly universal, and especially for prominent politicians or community leaders.

Then you don't know the era. A higher percentage of Americans attended church in the 19th century than in the 18th century, but estimates are that only about one-third were very regular churchgoers. And while business and professional people were more often churchgoers or church members than the working classes, very well-off people often spent their Sundays doing other things.

And of course there are two of his law partners and his close personal friend and body guard claiming that he was.

That is debatable. See my other post.

[x]

Herndon is really all over the place when it comes to Lincoln's religion. What he says at one point doesn't square with what he says later. That has to do with the imprecision of terms like "freethinker," "unbeliever," and "skeptic." Do they mean not believing in the Christian orthodoxy of the day? Or not believing in any kind of God?

Herndon wrote in 1870: “As to Mr. Lincoln’s religious views, he was in short an infidel, was a universalist, was a unitarian, a theist.” Lincoln's biographer, Richard Carwardine comments, "To the modern reader this does not sound like unbelief." As time went on, Herndon took up with anti-religious circles, and that colored his view of Lincoln.

[x]

It is no coincidence that the modern Organized Labor movements are mostly concentrated in what were the Northern States of the Civil War.

Early industrialization. Labor unions established a foothold early and laws were drafted to benefit them. Early industrialization is why Alabama, with its steel plants has a higher rate of industrialization than the rest of the South, and why Northern states that remained largely agricultural until more recent decades have lower rates of unionization.

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh, so now you do finally confess the truth, that slavery was not limited to cotton States and could well expand over most of the United States, if "properly" supported.

You certainly project a lot more stuff into what I say then a rational person can wring from the words. I believe this map shows where cotton (and therefore slavery) would have stayed.

I have maintained all along, that the greater wealth flowing through the South as a consequence of independence would have eventually caused these other states to leave the USA and join the CSA. The Farmers could have shipped their grains and cattle to Europe down the Mississippi, and European goods could have flowed back up the Mississippi in exchange. Nobody would have had to pay the gouging rates of the North Eastern owned and operated rail road system that was mostly created with government collusion.

Look up the "Grangers" to understand what I am talking about.

New York would have lost money on this deal. Lots of money.

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln supported the Corwin amendment. Of course you treat his support as if it didn't exist because you are flexible in your interpretation of any particular topic.

His putting it in his speech and saying he had "No objection to it being made express and irrevocable" is somehow opposition to it, or at worst neutral regarding it.

Poppycock. It's clearly support. So is sending letters to the governors of the various states, which it is not the responsibility of a President to do.

[x]

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. .

If you really think one has to be liberal or a Jew or secular to hate slavery, your problems go much deeper than anybody suspected.

Fogel was a communist for at least eight years. Maybe, like Eugene Genovese, it was capitalism that he hated most.

[DiogenesLamp]

Do they mean not believing in the Christian orthodoxy of the day? Or not believing in any kind of God?

I've noticed that a lot of people have differing interpretations for what words mean. Sometimes they have a range of meanings, depending on context. I can see someone using "Atheist" to describe someone who is against Christianity, but it's not quite right. Many of us are guilty of imprecision in our speech from time to time, and so I often consider statements to be of a general nature, showing a range and a direction, and not necessarily being precisely accurate.

As to Mr. Lincoln’s religious views, he was in short an infidel, was a universalist, was a unitarian, a theist.

I've seen that quote attributed to Stuart. Which is correct?

As time went on, Herndon took up with anti-religious circles, and that colored his view of Lincoln.

Could be. People often want their own views to be seen as popular among admired people, and so here perhaps is why this man would want Lincoln to be seen as agreeing with his own opinions. It boosts Herndon's perception of his own importance and wisdom.

[BroJoeK]

X quoting: " he was in short an infidel, was a universalist, was a unitarian, a theist.” "

Key to understanding is the word "Unitarian" which in those days still meant Christian.
In that sense such views also describe some Founders, which I would guess is who Lincoln patterned his on beliefs after.

[DiogenesLamp]

Early industrialization. Labor unions established a foothold early and laws were drafted to benefit them. Early industrialization is why Alabama, with its steel plants has a higher rate of industrialization than the rest of the South, and why Northern states that remained largely agricultural until more recent decades have lower rates of unionization.

Seems to correlate, but why would industrialization require Unions? Is it inherently inimical to laborers?

[DiogenesLamp]

If you really think one has to be liberal or a Jew or secular to hate slavery, your problems go much deeper than anybody suspected.

I do not think that. What I think is that Liberals are far more likely to "virtue signal" about slavery than are anyone else. Putting scare quotes around "owners" is a form of virtue signaling in my mind. It's an effort to make the reader aware that the writer does not agree with this characterization.

Fogel was a communist for at least eight years. Maybe, like Eugene Genovese, it was capitalism that he hated most.

Some of the best conservatives are reformed socialists/communists. They sometimes wake up and realize how blind they have been.

Evan Sayet, Roger Simon and others comes to mind.

[x]

I've seen that quote attributed to Stuart. Which is correct?

Sources I've seen say it was Herndon and that he wrote it in a letter to a freethinking magazine.

[DiogenesLamp]

Key to understanding is the word "Unitarian" which in those days still meant Christian.

It certainly doesn't mean that today.

In that sense such views also describe some Founders, which I would guess is who Lincoln patterned his on beliefs after.

And yet they all put "Year of our Lord" into the US Constitution. Whatever they may have believed, they kept it to themselves and let the people believe they were Christian.

Even gave the President the Sabbath day off for considering a bill.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sources I've seen say it was Herndon and that he wrote it in a letter to a freethinking magazine.

Till I find disputing information, I will consider you correct on this. There is a lot of crap people put on the internet that is made up, and a lot that is misattributed.

[x]

Seems to correlate, but why would industrialization require Unions? Is it inherently inimical to laborers?

Nowhere near so much as slavery is. Early industrialization was harsh. There weren't many laws concerning employer-employee relation and fights over wages and unionization could be bitter. But I doubt anybody would give it up to become a slave.

If a state was already industrialized and had strong unions before the New Deal, it became a closed shop state, so unions are stronger in those states. If a state didn't have much industry, unions were weaker and those states became open shop states. These things were sorted out in the 1940s and when it comes to union states and right to work states not much has changed since then.

[Dead Dog]

Those aint the puritans, dude.
I honestly think the left descended from the old Royalist/Cavalier culture: one class has natural right to rule others. They were transplanted feudal lords. “Progressivism” has never been anything but a return to feudalism under a bureaucratic aristocracy. They just dropped the biblical fig leaf.

Check out Albion’s Seed. Great history of British America.

Btw, we cant rip on the Cavaliers too much. They produced some great men (and some absolute waste products). Modern, conservative, America, mixed the best qualities of Puritan/Cavalier/Quaker/Scotts-Irish. It all comes from studying the unfiltered word of God.

No Earthly Lord=A New Social Order.