Posted on 09/02/2020 6:32:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
I have returned with some regularity over the years to compare what is going on in our country today to what was going on in the 1850s, the years preceding the Civil War.
America has always been about freedom of expression. And that freedom has often led to protests and tension. Generally, we've gotten through these tough and challenging times and moved on.
But what caused everything to break down in the 1850s, leading to a horrible Civil War?
The answer, I think, is to understand the distinction between plurality of opinions and plurality of values.
Plurality of opinion is natural and vital to human reality and why freedom and democracy are so important. Each individual is unique and sees the world in his or her unique way. Each must be able to bring his or her own unique perspective, his or her own opinion, to the table.
But plurality of values is different altogether. In order to have the dialogue necessary to tolerate plurality of opinion, we must be on the same page. We must have the same core values.
When we no longer have any common ground in our most basic beliefs, in our most basic values, we lose all basis of being able to communicate and conduct civil discourse.
We may have different opinions about health care, education, foreign policy and climate change.
But in the 1850s, the differences were about the nature of man, whether blacks were human beings and whether slavery should be tolerated.
This is a breakdown in common values, not in opinion. Once the most common values were gone, the basis for civil discourse was gone, and the country broke into war, with brother killing brother.
Current tensions are supposedly about police brutality, though I think this is a smoke screen.
Police brutality is indeed a problem. And it is possible to have civil discourse about how to deal with this problem.
I have written about it. One issue is police unions. The unions make it almost impossible to take meaningful punitive action against officers with a track record of poor behavior.
Don't agree with me? Let's discuss it. If solving this problem is what all this is about, we can do something.
But the violence that is wracking our cities shows there is more going on. Police brutality is being used as an excuse for something more basic. It is being used as an excuse to reject our nation and the truths on which it is based.
This becomes obvious in a new book called "In Defense of Looting" by Vicky Osterweil.
She justifies looting as a legitimate form of protest.
"The very basis of property in the U.S. is derived through whiteness and through Black oppression," she says.
This is a point of departure from difference of opinion to difference of common values.
I simply cannot conduct civil discourse with someone who does not accept as a core value and core belief that private property is sacred, derived from the biblical principle "thou shalt not steal."
The idea that private property is sacred, that theft is sinful, is fundamental to the truths enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
To attack this principle is to attack the core-value structure on which the country is built.
And this indeed is happening. Those protesting, harassing and looting are not expressing displeasure about police brutality. They are expressing displeasure about America. They want to wipe out the USA.
Their objective is not to solve the problem of police brutality but to tear down the USA as we know it.
This is a time for vigilance for those who care about America as a free nation under God. It is a time for freedom-loving Americans to concede no turf and fight to preserve our nation.
Parker has a point. To state that CW I was fought on the basis of slavery is oversimplifying it. And if and when CW II breaks out as a hot war; there also will be no one single issue that we can identify as the root of the war.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/frances-fox-piven-protests-movement-racial-justice
Frances Fox Piven gives elaborate theoretical cover to what amounts to “burn baby, burn”.
I have come to the conclusion that it was all about money.
The South mentions slavery in its instruments of secession, but it also mentions things like tariffs.
The North (notably Lincoln) is for Union, with or without slavery.
But the part most history books skip over is that the North was facing bankruptcy if the South seceded. Most of the Federal Government’s revenue came from Southern ports. And, with the South controlling the mouth of the Mississippi and a 10% tariff (the Feds were imposing a 30%+ tariff on imported goods) visions of idle factories, empty ports, empty warehouses, empty treasuries and grass growing in the streets of the major Northern cities tormented Northern dreams.
So the North was fighting for its tax revenues. At no point was it fighting for abolition. Even the Emancipation Proclamation only affected the areas of the South the Yankees didn’t control. Meanwhile the North was using slaves, “contrabands,” as conscript labor.
In the new society the anarchists envision, they will be among the first sent to the gulags. Can’t have troublemakers around.
Really? I think most historians would agree that the North won the war largely in part because they had more money than the South.
And all the skirmishes and rebellions that led up to the Civil War were all about slavery.
They had more industry, not more money.
Virtually everything you've posted here is a pack of the usual Lost Cause lies, all of them totally familiar to anybody who's participated in FR CW threads.
The truth is it was only about "money" if by "money" we mean a shorthand for the South's peculiar economic institution: slavery.
Little Ray: "The South mentions slavery in its instruments of secession, but it also mentions things like tariffs."
Not so much, slavery was the number one issue by far:
| Reasons for Secession | S. Carolina | Mississippi | Georgia | Texas | Rbt. Rhett | A. Stephens | AVERAGE OF 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Historical context | 41% | 20% | 23% | 21% | 20% | 20% | 24% |
| Slavery | 20% | 73% | 56% | 54% | 35% | 50% | 48% |
| States' Rights | 37% | 3% | 4% | 15% | 15% | 10% | 14% |
| Lincoln's election | 2% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 5% | 0% | 3% |
| Economic issues** | 0 | 0 | 15% | 0% | 25% | 20% | 10% |
| Military protection | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6% | 0% | 0% | 1% |
** Economic issues includes both taxes in general and tariffs in specific.
Little Ray: "The North (notably Lincoln) is for Union, with or without slavery."
Lincoln opposed slavery all his life, but understood the Constitution then granted the President no powers -- zero, nada powers -- to abolish slavery in loyal states.
Little Ray: "But the part most history books skip over is that the North was facing bankruptcy if the South seceded.
Most of the Federal Government’s revenue came from Southern ports. "
A complete absolute lie!
In fact the total of 1860 revenues from all Confederate ports combined was less than $3 million, or 6% of the $48 million in total Federal tariff revenues collected that year.
Of the <$3million, 75% came from just one Southern port: New Orleans.
Every other Confederate port combined added up to less than 2% of Federal tariff revenues.
Little Ray: "And, with the South controlling the mouth of the Mississippi and a 10% tariff (the Feds were imposing a 30%+ tariff on imported goods) visions of idle factories, empty ports, empty warehouses, empty treasuries and grass growing in the streets of the major Northern cities tormented Northern dreams."
A 100% Lost Cause fantasy!
In fact, no sane businessman would want to import through a Confederate port, pay the Confederate tariff however low, then import a second time into the USA, paying a second tariff.
And since virtually no Union products shipped through Southern ports to begin with, there was no reason for Union merchants to change their previous practices.
Yes, closing the Mississippi to Union commerce was a concern, but as it turned out, there were several alternate routes readily available to prevent disruptions of the Union economy.
Little Ray: "So the North was fighting for its tax revenues."
A pure Marxist historical interpretation = a Big Lie.
In fact, Unionists fought first to restore the Union, then to abolish slavery.
Little Ray: "At no point was it fighting for abolition.
Even the Emancipation Proclamation only affected the areas of the South the Yankees didn’t control."
More lies!
In fact the Union began to free slaves early in 1861, under the legal authority of "Contraband of War".
The Union Army, with Congress's blessings, freed tens of thousands of Confederate runaway slaves even before Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed tens of thousands more right away, and millions by the war's end, such that by the time of the 13th Amendment's ratification in December 1865, only a relative handful of slaves in a few states remained to be officially freed.
Remember this: Julia Ward Howe's Battle Hymn of the Republic was written on November 18, 1861 near the war's beginning, and was sung by Union troops throughout the war, ending with this stirring verse:
More lies!
No Joe, you are whipping a dead horse. There was slavery in the Northern states after Lincoln was assassinated. Right now the Ku Klux Klan has far more membership in the North than the South, which syncs up correctly with Democrats desperate to keep "their nigs" on their ideological plantation. Fortunately smarter people are waking up and refusing to "be woke".
Agree. It is a difference of common values. The common values in conflict today is that America, despite it’s flaws, is a great country that has provided the most freedom for the most people than almost any other country ever.
The other value is that America is a horrible country that is basically evil and has always been evil and needs to be overthrown.
The difference between those two values is as great as the difference in the value of slavery between Lincoln and Davis.
“If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” President Lincoln
“African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing.” Jefferson Davis
And just like the civil war the Republicans are on the side of right and the democrats are on the side of wrong.
If by "dead horse" you mean the seemingly endless inventory of Lost Causer lies, then I'd submit that Little Ray's post is convincing evidence that horse is far from dead.
MikelTackNailer: "There was slavery in the Northern states after Lincoln was assassinated. "
Only if by "Northern States" you mean Kentucky, even though most Kentuckians don't think of themselves as "northern".
But the fact is that slavery was lawful in some places until ratification of the 13th Amendment in December 1865.
However, the numbers of slaves remaining to be freed in December 1865 had been reduced -- via the Emancipation Proclamation & other state abolition laws -- to just a few thousand, from the four million slaves in 1860.
MikelTackNailer: "Right now the Ku Klux Klan has far more membership in the North than the South..."
The Ku Klux Klan was created in the South to enforce Black Code/Jim Crow laws.
It's membership rose & fell, reaching a peak in the mid-1920s of 6 million.
Today the clan has a few thousand members in a few dozen chapters, two-thirds in the South, one third in the lower mid-west.
MikelTackNailer: "...which syncs up correctly with Democrats desperate to keep "their nigs" on their ideological plantation."
For decades now Republicans have looked for ways to appeal to more conservative African-American voters, without notable success.
Democrats have had a lock on black votes largely, it seems, because blacks still fear the former Southern White Democrats who now vote Republican.
But President Trump has made massive efforts to bring African Americans into the Republican "big tent".
We'll see how well that works.
I have no doubt that alone can explain the riots, burnings and lootings in many big cities.
I’ll not argue stats that can’t be confirmed but will tell you with utter conviction that racism is far more ingrained in the North than the South. Why have visiting Northerners hand me KKK recruitment cards (three times) when no Southern people do?
And Republicans ARE on the right track now with Candice Owens and others getting the word of truth out. So don’t kick my culture down when I don’t do that to you when the worst racism comes out of the liberal strongholds of New York and LA. “Fly-over Country” has grown tired of their jets dumping crap on them.
That all depends on your definitions of words like "racism" and "North" or "South".
The way Leftists define "racism" it means anybody who doesn't agree with them on any subject.
I'd reverse that and say the Left itself is consumed by racist ideologies, and literally can't see anything else -- except socialism, of course.
Socialism plus racism = our "woke" Leftists.
My own reasonable definition of "racism" requires that racial distinctions be part of your legal, ethical and... let's say "commercial" codes = discrimination based on race.
By that standard there is no official US racism left, and very little that can be documented on a personal level.
For an example, consider SC US Senator Scott, "from cotton to congress in one generation" -- but still he can cite several examples of personal discrimination against him.
I would simply point out that as annoying as those were to him, they proved harmless to his career and personal life.
Indeed, I'm certain most people, regardless of race, can cite examples where they were not treated as well as they deserved to be -- that's life.
So, is there more "racism" in the North or South?
I couldn't say, but doubtless you can define your terms such that either answer is correct.
MikeTackNailer: "Why have visiting Northerners hand me KKK recruitment cards (three times) when no Southern people do?"
I have no knowledge of the KKK -- none -- beyond what you can pick up from a quick google search.
So people who study these things say there are just a few thousand members left in a few dozen units, two thirds in the South, one third in the lower mid-West.
I've never met anybody who claimed to be one and can only name one person as having once belonged -- the late West Virginia Democrat Senator Bird.
Now West Virginia is an odd-bird of a state, half Northern, half Southern, but Senator Bird came from the Southern part.
MikeTackNailer: "And Republicans ARE on the right track now with Candice Owens and others getting the word of truth out. "
Agreed, there are more public conservative black voices today than I've ever seen before.
I sure hope those can translate into more African-American votes, we'll see.
But I think that helps explain why Democrats are so desperately burning down their own cities, hoping it seems, to keep their black voters on the Democrat plantation.
MikeTackNailer: "So don’t kick my culture down when I don’t do that to you when the worst racism comes out of the liberal strongholds of New York and LA.
“Fly-over Country” has grown tired of their jets dumping crap on them."
Half my larger family is Southern, scattered from Texas to Florida, North Carolina, Virginia & Maryland, so I'm not here to kick down anybody's culture.
I am here to kick down the Lost Cause lies some old-time Southern Democrats tell each other to justify their Democrat ancestors' actions from 1860 onwards.
I live in the back woods of Pennsylvania (aka "Pennsyltucky" or "Alabama").
We are as conservative as they come, and usually get outvoted by PA's big cities, but not in 1860, or 2016 and maybe not again in 2020.
“the numbers of slaves remaining to be freed in December 1865 had been reduced — via the Emancipation Proclamation & other state abolition laws — to just a few thousand,”
Not quite exact. Besides Kentucky and Delaware, slaves existed in those areas exempt from the Emancipations Proclamation. While the number is not know for sure, it is estimated at between 600-800 thousand slaves were freed by the XIII Amendment. You are correct in that over three and a half millions slaves had already been freed before the XIII Amendment was ratified.
All people at some point or another. It was Obama who dredged up the victim mentality after America was slowly yet surely successful getting to where all citizens are regarded equal regardless of race. Now it's run rampant and the closet Communists are running wild - and I can't even get a hunting license for them. Isn't putting down foaming-at-the-mouth rabid animals a public service?
Seriously though, conservatives have to find each other and consolidate for our very survival because these NPC automatons created from our lack of education oversight will kill us, cowardly yet certainly, given the chance. I'm the guy at the rally wearing an eagle and American flag on his hat.
Thanks for that reminder, but I'm guessing we're into a gray area trying to define what was then meant by "slave" or "freed".
Suppose in 1865 two African-Americans were working side by side on a plantation -- one had been officially freed by Lincoln's Emancipation but the other was exempt, yet suppose both were working.
Was one being paid but the other not, were both being paid or neither?
Now suppose they are brothers and after the crops are harvested decide to leave the plantation in search of family members who had been "sold down the river".
In the summer of 1865 was one subject to the actions of slave-catchers and the other not, were neither or were both?
My guess is that in 1865 there was very little practical distinction between those legally freed and those not yet so.
Neither were being treated fairly by our standards, but both were more free than they had been in, say, 1860.
“slave” is a legal status, just as is freeman, citizen, immigrant. While those people exempt from the Emancipation proclamation may no longer have been out picking the master’s cotton, they were still legally slaves. As such they could not legally vote, hold office, offer testimony in court. own property, etc., etc. Freemen could do these things, slaves could not. It did make a big difference in a person’s life.
Sure, but we're talking about the gray area between slave & free at the end of the war and before ratification of the 13th Amendment in December 1865.
Consider, for example, Kentucky:
So where, exactly, were all these hundreds & hundreds of thousands of legally unfreed slaves waiting for ratification of the 13th Amendment in December 1865?
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.