It may have been so that you only knew his name at the time, but I do seem to recall you posting his name in a list of about a dozen abolitionists who you called important, as opposed to your characterization of Spooner. Your list, in which you included Smith, may be found here:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/849212/posts#70
That being said, your comment itself prompts another question. You now say that a few weeks ago when you posted that list including Smith that all you knew about him was his name. Exactly how, then, did you know enough about Smith to declare him more important than Spooner by way of that list if you knew nothing of him but his name? If all you knew was his name, then you had no basis on which to weigh him against Spooner, which indicates very clearly that you are not making an honest commentary on Spooner, but rather trying to find any and every reason, valid or not and no matter how ill-informed, on which you can discount his relevance to abolitionism.
I might have said, after finding out more about him that he was more important in his faction than Spooner, but there wouldn't have been any point in going further out on the line for someone I'd scarcely heard of and had no strong opinions about either way.
No. You made a list of names who you declared more important than Spooner. Smith was among them, and now you admit that at the time you posted it, you did not know a thing about the guy other than his name.
You expressed disdain for the Free Soilers as not being real abolitionists
Not necessarily. I simply note that it is wrong to confuse the two, as has been done by your buddy mac_truck. As I told him, it was perfectly possible for an abolitionist to be a Free-Soiler, and some were, but not all Free-Soilers were abolitionists and in fact most probably weren't. yet did not mention that Gerrit Smith himself was elected to Congress on the Free Soil ticket.
An abolitionist can be a Free-Soiler, but not all Free-Soilers were abolitionists. See above.
You elevated Smith above Garrison because he had been elected to Congress
Simply noting that Smith obtained greater political success than Garrison is not "elevating" him above Garrison with finality, x. You belittled the role that Smith played in abolitionism by portraying him as virtually inconsequential compared to Garrison and Wendell Phillips. I simply noted the fact that Smith won a seat to Congress, which is hardly inconsequential by any standards.
Now you come up with positive reviews of Spooner's book.
Yeah, from a number of abolitionists - as in the same crowd that you have repeatedly claimed to have been under no significant influence of Spooner's work.
A scrapbook of positive reviews is hardly enough to establish a reputation.
But it is enough to disprove your repeatedly asserted claim that Spooner had virtually no significant impact on abolitionism. Those quotes and newspaper reviews indicate that he did in fact have a strong impact on many abolitionists, including a very prominent one named Frederick Douglass (or are you going to start belittling his contribution as well?).
What about the negative ones?
I quoted one of them, Garrison's, and even it acknowledged that Spooner's argument was nevertheless logically sound and intelligent.
Or reviews of other abolitionists' works? Say, of Phillips's and Bowditch's refutations of Spooner?
A brief search of the Douglass' Newspaper records as well as some other abolitionist papers pulled up many hits on Spooner's book itself, but next to nothing of the Garrisonian factions or Phillips attempting to rebut it. So it would seem that Spooner's book is the one that made all the waves, whereas the attempted rebuttals, which have almost universally been judged as logically inferior to Spooner's, recieved barely any praise or notice. In fact, the main and only substantial criticism of Spooner that I found was a paragraph or so from around 1847 that Douglass wrote, initially rejecting the thesis. He changed his mind though and came to embrace it, as the July 4th speech from a few years later indicates.
Surely you know that every newly published political book attracts positive reviews because it contributes to a common cause, rather than because of its true merits.
In part that is indeed true. But such a book must also first be recognized as a significant contribution to a cause before anyone will pay enough attention to it to give a positive review. You have stated that Spooner's book contributed extremely minimally to the cause of abolitionism, which defies the implications of your statement above - that books attract positive reviews for their contributions to a cause. If Spooner's book did not contribute much to the cause, as you have suggested, it would not have attracted the reviews it did. Nor would praise of it linger for years after its publication and well into the 1850's.
What did the bigger circulation newspapers in New York, rather than in Bangor, have to say about Spooner's book.
I'll have to check the microfiche room to determine that. The only New York paper that has been fully indexed electronically is the New York Times, which did not come into existence until after Spooner's book was published (The NY Times was around when he died though, and they called his book then, as I quoted, an "epoch in the anti-slavery agitation."
And what, if anything, was said about Spooner 5 or 10 years later by less biased judges?
Well, 5 years later Frederick Douglass was publicly espousing Spooner's book. 10 years later William Seward was speaking favorably of it, while some of the more radical slave owners were denouncing it as one of the greatest abolitionist threats. And 40 years later, major city newspapers like the Boston Globe and NY Times were calling it "remarkable" and "epoch in the anti-slavery agitation," respectively.
Douglass accepted the Goodell-Smith-Spooner hypothesis, and naturally raved about Spooner's books when they first came out.
Actually, no he didn't. In 1847 or so, he wrote an article that briefly mentioned it and expressed great skepticism of it. He changed his mind upon further reading sometime around 1850 and began publicly promoting it, the most prominent being the 1852 speech 7 years after Spooner's book was published. He did publish stuff that was favorable to Spooner's subsequent abolitionist writings on fugitive slaves and jury nullification in the 1850's.
He wasn't the most unbiased observer.
Oh, so what do we have now? Why, it's another excuse! You truly are a piece of work, x.
A few days ago it was 'Spooner had no significant influence on other, "more-prominent" abolitionists,' as you called it. I pointed out that he did indeed with Gerrit Smith, who, upon your discovery of that truth, magically went from being a prominent abolitionist to a little known fringer. So I pointed out that he also had a strong influence shaping Frederick Douglass, but now that doesn't count either because Douglass was "biased." Does it ever end with you, x? Or do you simply keep making up new excuses every time somebody comes along and demonstrates you to have been in error? As I said previously, it could be shown that Lysander Spooner secretly invented a time machine and travelled back to Rome to incite Spartacus into action and you still wouldn't concede that he was a prominent abolitionist. You wouldn't concede it because your judgment of him is not based on fact, but rather a personal desire to discredit his abolitionist credentials since they confound any effort to dismiss his post-war criticisms of the Lincoln government with the broad brush of "racism."
And apparently, once the initial reaction subsided, he didn't see any reason to elevate Spooner above Goodell or Smith.
Douglass' most famous public endorsement of Spooner was on July 5, 1852, x. That's a full seven years after Spooner's book was published - hardly within the time frame of the "initial reaction." Most of those other quotes were made in the late 1840's around 1847 and 1848 - 2 and 3 years after publication, respectively, and again hardly within the "initial reaction" timeframe.
Garrison's comments are the kindly exchange of civilities which precede a more critical dissection of a book, that is why he speaks of "a merely logical effort."
That may be so, but that is not something I ever contended. My point is that Garrison paid attention to Spooner's book and, even though he disagreed with it, he took it seriously. And that's yet another of the many facts that does not coincide with your oft repeated yet never proven claim that Spooner was a "minor" figure with no significant influence.
There's much to be said for Spooner's view that slavery contradicted the principles Declaration of Independence, though many disagree with it.
Though a significant part, that was not the entirity of Spooner's thesis. As I said, read the book if you want to pretend to make serious commentary about it.
The idea that slavery was a violation of the Constitution is more dubious and appears to go against the accepted sense of words.
Yet again, read the book. You are offering a simplistic version of its argument that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. What was that old saying about the classics though...something about centuries of ignorance before a wise man's understanding?
The idea does have its attractions, but it wasn't original to Spooner. His version may have been the most thorough and developed, but it wasn't the first or most defensible.
You keep saying that, yet do so to no consequence. Just the same, David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage wasn't the first or the original. But he duly gets the credit because his was the greatest refinement and articulation of the theory. Same goes for Spooner's book.
Spooner was one of many abolitionist writers. He wasn't a nobody or without influence.
So you admit that now? Cause the other day you essentially were calling him a nobody and claimed that his influence among abolitionists was next to nothing.
Someone active in the movement would have heard of him. But he was by no means one of the most important, most influential, or best known abolitionists.
His scope apparently went well beyond simply the abolitionist movement. It came up on the floor of Congress repeatedly in the 1850's and was apparently commented on in several newspapers. Spooner's obituaries all state that he attained widespread fame as an "agitator" during that decade as well, so it sounds to me as if he attained much more prominence than you give him credit for, and yes - arguably enough to have made him one of the most recognizable abolitionists of the period.
There was no reason to find him any more important than a dozen or so other abolitionist writers, thinkers and activists.
There is in that he, more than anyone else, defined and spread the abolitionist legal philosophy found in his books. Others were better speech makers or literary authors and the sort, but Spooner defined the legal-philosophical basis of abolitionism.
It's distasteful to have so many equally worthy or worthier abolitionists passed over simply because of Spooner's later anarchist or pro-secessionist writings.
Like who? Oh yes, people that you know nothing of beyond their names but list anyway in order to pad the ranks of those you purport to have been "worthier." As for his other post-war writings, Spooner attained national prominence as an abolitionist before a single one of them was even penned.
You know perfectly well that Spooner would not have a website today if not for his anarchist writings.
You mean lysanderspooner.org or whatever it is? Probably not that one. He would probably have others though, including the text of his Unconstitutionality of Slavery.
And you probably wouldn't have much of anything to say in his favor if he hadn't defended the "right of secession."
My, my, how little you know of me. Anyhow, I think it would be a safer assertion to make that you would have no problem whatsoever with giving Spooner due credit for his abolitionism had he not penned "No Treason" or any of his letters that were critical of the Lincoln government. Whereas your claim against me is blind speculation, my claim is supportable on the evidence of this thread, which shows repeatedly that your motive in belittling Spooner's abolitionism has to do not with that abolitionism but rather with the fact that he criticized The Lincoln's tyranny.
Two months ago is not "a few weeks ago." That accounts for my difficulty in figuring out what you were talking about. Read carefully what I wrote. I made no claim as to Gerrit Smith's importance. You wrote:
Aside from maybe Garrison, Spooner was perhaps the best known and most prominent of the abolitionists of his day.
A manifestly untrue statement to anyone who knows anything about the history of the period. I responded:
It takes a rare and massive ignorance to pass over Wendell Phillips, Theodore Parker, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Elijah P. Lovejoy, Frederick Douglass, Theodore Dwight Weld, the Grimkes, James Birney, Moncure Conway, Gerrit Smith, Lewis Tappan, John Brown, John Greenleaf Whittier, Sojourner Truth, Lucretia Mott, Horace Greeley, Martin Delaney, Henry Ward Beecher and others and single out the obscure Spooner as one of the "best known and most prominent" of the abolitionists. Spooner isn't even mentioned in most short accounts of abolitionism. It's only because libertarians have rediscovered his works and put them on the Internet that he is remembered at all. But such ignorance is a fertile field for Rockwellism.
I didn't have to know all about Gerrit Smith's or Lucretia Mott's or Martin Delaney's or Lewis Tappan's activities to know that their names appeared in more books and articles on the subject than Lysander Spooner's. In looking for other information, one notices these things, and it's easy to go back and check them. I did not "declare" that Smith or any other person on that list was important, merely that a person who was honest and knew about the abolitionist movement wouldn't pass over a long list of names, including his, and baldly state that Lysander Spooner was second only to Garrison in the movement. Your original statement was untrue. I didn't have to be or claim to be an expert on the period to know that. And I called you on it.
For all of your accusations of my supposed backtracking, you don't seem to express your original conviction with as much force. Could it be that you no longer think that Spooner was one of the two or three most prominent abolitionists? Or do you persist in your original statement, in spite of evidence to the contrary because it's too hard emotionally for you to back down?
We live and we learn. It's all a part of life and if we weren't led to modify or rethink our positions sometimes, these discussions would be of little use. Unfortunately the charges and countercharges, quibbles and accusations get one away from the original point. Since you've offered so little reliable evidence in defense of your original statement, I will presume that you have been convinced that you were wrong. If you have been unwilling to consult major written accounts of the abolitionist movement up until now, I don't think anything I say will convince you.
For what it's worth, Spooner did have an influence on Frederick Douglass. I have learned that, and you can count it as a point in your favor. You seem to like that sort of thing. But having adopted the idea of the unconstitutionality of slavery Douglass was disposed to talk up those associated with that idea. He paid homage to Spooner, also to Smith and Goodell and the three as a group. There's no sign that he a made a special cult of Spooner, and you haven't said anything about what he thought of other abolitionist spokesmen. He may well have been effusive in his regard for them as well -- or excessively critical, because they didn't share his views. It's hard to evaluate Douglass's comments statements without knowing the context.
And Douglass was far from the only abolitionist. Others in the movement weren't so enthusiastic about Spooner. They praised his intelligence, for he was good with words and argument. And, in the larger scheme of things he was on the same side, and those fighting for an unpopular cause graciously extended courtesy to those struggling for the same end. One can't expect that they'd rake him over the coals and risk alienating his faction. It's neither necessary nor justifiable nor useful to savage everyone with whom one has a disagreement.
But Garrison and Phillips were very critical of Spooner. They regarded his view on slavery and the constitution as wrong, as going against the meaning of words and what they understood of the world. There was something backhanded in their compliments. In the view of Phillips and Garrison, Spooner was too apt to split hairs, too clever for his own good, "merely logical" rather than truly wise. Given that they thought him wrong and misguided it's hard to see why they would submit to his influence or defer to him more than any other abolitionist writer.
Reviews and obituaries always exaggerate the importance of their subject. That's why we have to turn to reviews or obituaries of other figures, or better still, to more extensive works that deal with a topic in more exhaustive fashion or articles that scrutinize a smaller topic but don't loose sight of the bigger picture. When someone only has to write about Lysander Spooner they will speak differently than when they survey his whole period and many of his contemporaries. And the old rule about not speaking ill of the dead means that obituaries should be treated with caution. I'd imagine that you'd find the same effusiveness from the Boston Globe or New York Times in eulogizing at half-dozen or dozen abolitionists.
Your claims about Gerrit Smith are a mess. The endorsement by the Liberty Party of Spooner's ideas was the reward of a shriveled and dying party for a loyal follower and carried little significance outside a small rump faction. Smith won his election on the Free Soil ticket which you have condemned as not being truly abolitionist. His election to Congress or what he did there didn't mean much alongside Garrison's thirty plus years of effort culminating in the abolition of slavery. Smith was as much of a compromiser in Congress as his fellow Free Soilers, and this diminished his standing among radical abolitionists. And Smith resigned in mid-term, not valuing his seat enough to keep it. Being elected to Congress apparently didn't mean as much to him as a career as an outside agitator. Louis Filler (The Crusade Against Slavery) pays tribute to Smith and his faction, but leaves one wondering if he really had the right stuff in him to leave much in the way of real accomplishments behind.
The point you were trying to make about Gerrit Smith and Lysander Spooner doesn't seem to stand up. But that's okay. We can't all be right about everything all the time, and it's foolish to think that anyone can. Surely such discussions as these are intended to reach understanding and truth and not to rack up points for oneself.
I have no problem giving Spooner his due. If I ever said that he had no influence or virtually no influence I was wrong. Clearly he did have some influence, but he still wasn't one of the most important figures in the movement. Manifestly untrue statements, like your February comment about Spooner being second only to Garrison as the "best known and most prominent" abolitionist of the day are provocative -- and not in the good sense of the word. Make such exaggerated and manifestly untrue claims and you ought to expect harsh and unequivocal responses. Promote someone beyond his deserts and his flaws will become more noticeable than his virtues.
Judging from some of your earlier posts on anti-slavery activists and your many condemnations of New England my belief that you single out Spooner for praise only because of his support for the idea of a "right to secession" is more than "blind speculation." Had the federal government or the North adopted Spooner's plan for slave insurrections and a war of liberation and circulated his manifestoes, I don't think you'd applaud Spooner so loudly. I don't suppose either of us thinks much of John Brown, why do you make an exception for one who shared Brown's views about armed slave insurrection? You're certainly free to disagree, but if people care to think about it they will have to make up their own minds about whether I'm right, and I stand by my opinion.
If Spooner were just an abolitionist, we wouldn't have been having this conversation about him. We don't passionately discuss William Bowditch or William Goodell. If Spooner weren't an anarchist he wouldn't have the Internet presence that he has today. And it's clear to me that he wouldn't have been singled out for praise by Confederate apologists if he'd only been an abolitionist or anarchist, and hadn't supported secession.
Would I be so hard on Spooner if he hadn't attacked Lincoln? The more anarchist Spooner was the more I'd criticize him. Someone who so strongly condemned virtually all governments as "tyrants, robbers and murderers" isn't really to be taken seriously. Spooner's excessive and intemperate rhetoric would make him pretty low in my book regardless of what he thought of Lincoln. If he'd made a more nuanced and responsible critique of the Unionist cause, my reaction would be different. I wouldn't object as strongly to an anti-Lincoln or anti-union argument that wasn't so extreme, one-sided, anarchistic or ill-tempered.
This discussion has gone on too long and taken up too much time. I don't really think there's anything more to say at this point.