Captain's Quarters -

Thank you for this Captain.

Here, here, Captain.

Growing up in the South in the 60s and early 70s, I was harranged as a blasphemer by my peers for asserting the correct side won the Civil War.

Even though Lincoln's initial and overriding focus was saving the Union, he corrected many decades of willful constitutional blindness with the Emancipation Proclamation.

Lincoln boiled the issue down to its heart in a two single sentences:

" "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others" (April 6, 1859), p. 376.

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, (August 1, 1858?), p. 532.

"

To be fair, there was a conventional argument afoot at the time which purported to settle the apparent friction between our founding papers and the institution of slavery.

It was itself indefensible, but fools still tried--

it was the argument that africans were less than complete human beings. Remember the business of trying to codify that they were 2/5ths or 3/5ths of a person? This was for the valuation of testimony in a trial, I think, but I cannot recall for sure.

Let us remember that the defenders of slavery did not let that old constitutional friction rest without argument; they simply said that slaves were not 'men' as meant in 'all men are created equal'.

I've read recently a book that was called 'the slave narratives', stories written by slaves about their own lives, and it was powerful. To think that people with this much to offer in literary terms and human terms were dismissed as less than fully human is simply disgusting.

'2/5ths of a person'... just as odious, just as willfully blind, but a component nonetheless of this story, and you have not mentioned it, so I did.

"Remember the business of trying to codify that they were 2/5ths or 3/5ths of a person? This was for the valuation of testimony in a trial, I think, but I cannot recall for sure."

That was solely for census enumeration purposes. The South wanted a bigger population for more representation in Congress, while curiously denying that the slaves (Africans in general) were full human beings.

There's an attempt by some in the South to sugar coat slavery in the US by calling it "Christian slavery", i.e. there were benefits to being a slave in the US, chiefly the introduction to Christianity. It is, of course, utter hogwash. Slavery's wrong in 1790, in 400 B.C. or today.

Those words in the Declaration did not have the same meaning at the time as they were given afterwords. Take a look at Federalist 54. Although he does not reveal it in the text, Madison himself is a member of the "Southern interest".

The key passage.

It is a fundamental principle of the proposed Constitution, that as the aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States is to be determined by a federal rule, founded on the aggregate number of inhabitants, so the right of choosing this allotted number in each State is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants as the State itself may designate.

Universal suffrage was an idea universally rejected by the founders.

.. a practice that even if widely adopted at the time flew in the face of the words in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

The Constitution as first written clearly envisaged slavery.

Section 2.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Section 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Philadelphia in 1750 was the first jurisdiction in the world to ban slavery. The founding fathers believed they had ended it, between allowing forbidding the importation of slaves starting in 1808 and Washington's attempt to set an example by freeing his slaves in his will. Up until 1808, there were zero examples of slave populations which reproduced themselves.

But the economics of slavery changed in 1796 when Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. You could make a boatload of money stealing men's labor and lives to raise cotton between 1800 and 1861. Outside of the cotton-growing south, the planters actually lost money on their agriculture in this period. All of the profit was from selling slaves to the cotton-growing south. This is why, descendants of American slaves make up a proportion of slave descendants maybe ten times the proportion they were of slaves taken from Africa. I find the moral question ambiguous. Was American slavery better because they treated the slaves well enough that they multiplied, or was it worse because they raised slaves for sale like cattle?

At any rate, slavery is unimportant as an issue today. It is not the source of poor race relations. That prize instead goes to Jim Crow. Countries where there was slavery but no Jim Crow have far better race relations than America -- see Bermuda, Barbados, Brazil, Trinidad.

In fairness to Medved, I do not take his point to be that slavery was not a uniquely evil institution. It was instead that the United States is not a uniquely evil country. Despite the widespread nature of slavery, the United States, far more than other countries that were equally -- or more -- complicit, continues to be rebuked for its history.

I think the criticism of Medved's argument that the descendants of slaves are better off because their ancestors were brought to America rather than remaining in Africa is also misplaced. If his argument were that slavery was not evil because these descendants are better off than they otherwise would be, I would agree with the criticism. Even fortuitous ends do not justify evil means. But, as I read Medved, he was raising this point in the context of reparations, saying that there is no basis for reparations to the descendants of slaves because they -- unlike their slave ancestors -- were not harmed by it. If the goal of reparations is compensatory, then there is no basis for them if those demanding reparations are not worse off than they otherwise would have been.

I'm afraid that I think the Captain is off base here. Just because slavery was horrid does not mean that one should be foreclosed from rebutting specious arguments about it or from pointing out that the indignation of critics (especially those outside the United States) is highly selective.

Honestly, this is why I read this blog.

We conservatives were the ones who stopped slavery in its tracks. And I disagree with levi from queens -- slavery is still an issue today, and is a source of poor race relations.

I'm going to be called a racist for this, but let me continue:

a) black culture in general continues to suffer from the effects of slavery. The most prevalent manifestations are (a) out of wedlock births, (b) belligerent disregard for concepts originating from the majority (european) culture, and (c) the replacement of the master by the state and federal governments.

b) white competitors to black workers, similar in class to the blacks with whom they now compete, remember the point at which they were higher in class than the enslaved blacks, and resent the fact that they have not been given equal or better breaks to those given the now-free blacks.

These issues go back to the Civil War. Does anyone remember why the Irish are so Democratic? Why the Copperheads existed? It's the same reason southern "white trash" dislike blacks so much. Blacks are demonized competitors for jobs. Why do blacks belligerently disregard authority? Because authority, for so much of their history in this country, tore their families apart, treated them like dirt, killed them if they didn't conform. It takes a equal amounts of bravery and foolishness to antagonize a policeman with power of life or death, but it happens every day. Out of wedlock births? If your culture had been damaged by the treatment of your married ancestors as unmarried property, does marriage as an institution matter any more? A conservative black friend says his daughter got pregnant out of wedlock -- not something taught in his family or even done as example; when counseled that she should marry the father, her response was "Marriage? That's such a White thing!" Welfare cheats; is there any reason to work when master provides all?

How long does it take to rebuild culture/ethnos damaged by several centuries of slavery? I would say several centuries more. And the culture I'm talking about includes the majority culture, which still suffers from a superiority complex manifested by both discrimination and reverse discrimination.

We have fixed our Constitution to remove the words required by the Southern planters as a condition of Union -- the pernicious institution. Society is another matter. We are working to fix that too, but it requires much nonviolent time, unlike the means used to fix the Constitution.

This post made me look up and re-read Lincoln's Cooper Union Address from 1860, wherein he painstakingly explains all that can be ascertained about the founder's views on whether the constitution prohibited the federal government from controlling slavery in the territories. His conclusion was of course that slavery is wrong, that the federal government had some say about it, and then ends it with these words:

"LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT."

It's a great read, and much like what frequently occurs in the comments of this blog, one very smart republican took the time to carefully explain something painfully obvious to a bunch of democrats. I just wish Bush could be so eloquent, and the rest of our politicians so convicted.

unclesmrgol
black culture in general continues to suffer from the effects of slavery. The most prevalent manifestations are (a) out of wedlock birth ...

It is not that simple. Consider this information from the Brookings Institution.
“In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites.”

One might blame the 24% “ base rate” on slavery, but not the ensuing increase.

http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb05.htm

unclesmrgol

white competitors to black workers, similar in class to the blacks with whom they now compete, remember the point at which they were higher in class than the enslaved blacks, and resent the fact that they have not been given equal or better breaks to those given the now-free blacks.

Ok, you are a racist.

Not only do you hold racist views of whites, you are also under the impression that "white workers" are all in their seventies, at a minumum. Given the reference to "now-free blacks" you may think that some white workers are at least one hundred and fifty years old.

Given the topic, I was wondering how long it would take one poster to call another a 'racist'. Not long, sadly.

Uncles,
"a) black culture in general continues to suffer from the effects of slavery. The most prevalent manifestations are (a) out of wedlock births, (b) belligerent disregard for concepts originating from the majority (european) culture, and (c) the replacement of the master by the state and federal governments."

Out-of-wedlock births is not because of slavery. Those have skyrocketed in the black community since the 50's. As have items b) and c). Making an educated guess, those are all related to the growth of the welfare state and the creation of the idea that blacks continue to be victims.

Captain, the idea of slavery was inconsistent with some of the language of the Declaration of Indepedence, Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But it clearly was the understanding of the writers of those documents that slaves were not "men" for some of the documents' purposes.

As conservatives generally believe in interpreting the Consitution by determining how the Framers intended the Constitution to be interpreted, there would have been no good way for a conservative judge to "read" slavery out of the Constitution without a formal amendment of the document.

I agree with exhelodrvr: I am participating in a project to index the 1900 US census. I have done many precincts in South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana etc. I noticed that 100 years ago, black families looked the same as white families. Father, mother x number of children etc. I doubt that you would see the same if you were to index the 2000 US census. The welfare system has had a terrible impact on black families. Fathers left the home in the mistaken belief that their family would be better off without them. The real tragedy is the number of black children especially the young men who have grown up in the last 40 years without fathers.

flenser,

You've completely lost me with your comment.

Explain my racist views of whites to me, so that I might see better.

Explain how I view all "white workers" as being in their seventies.

"now-free blacks" is ageless. Our culture remembers them as "once-slave". We are not yet allowed to forget that fact for many reasons. The janitor on my floor wears a "Reparations Now!" button; he certainly has a feeling as to where he recently came from; white people younger than me seem to remember too. You don't seem to, however. Why is that?

exhelodrvr/Oria,

Oria's statement about the 1900 census is interesting. So, households are measured in the census, and Oria is saying that the statistics of those households indicate a relatively small number of broken families.

So the welfare system may indeed (as I posited in my post above) introduce a broken culture scenario every bit as pernicious as that of the slavery system. When I pointed out the effects of discrimination and reverse discrimination on culture, I make them identical. Seems to be. Orea needs to do the 2000 census, so we can see. By the way, Orea, what variables have you chosen from the 1900 census?

Good for you, Ed.

The information gathered in the 1900 census included name, race, sex,month of birth, year of birth, marital status (m,s,w,d) how many years married. For women; how many children and how many children living, state of birth, father's birth place, mother's birth place. Year of immigration. Due to privacy concerns the census information is not made available to the public for 100 years. It will be a while before the 2000 census data will be available except in aggregrate. It also struck me that the 1900 census was only 35 years after the end of the civil war. I have seen very few broken families or apparently out of wedlock births. There are a lot of widows and it is also sad to see how many families buried children.

"Slavery" was something given to us by the Brit's. Ya know how I know? WE didn't have a navy! We didn't have ships!

And, yet, when we became a country. And, trade with europe was VITAL, guess what? The Brit's stood back and told the arabs, from tripoli to africa, that they could capture American ships. Keep the merchandise. And, enslave the sailors.

How many white men were captured? More than a million. So very early on, in American history we had to deal with the garbage that the europeans pulled. Including a propensity to "pay tribute."

This would change. All be it, slowly.

That slavery was expunged from our US COnstitution? Indubidably. And, at great cost.

While the Blacks who are here aren't necessarily that highly regarded in Africa; when they take the "tours" to go back. American blacks, by African standards are "spoiled."

For what it's worth.

The other issue worth noting? Women weren't given the rights to vote. That took working out, too.

A living Constitution is able to keep on working.

The idea that the document was "perfected" in the beginning; isn't what passing the baton of freedom is about.

Plus, the structure of our US Constitution, had been under European debate for about two hundred years.

Our Founding Fathers stood on the shoulders of giants.

And, ya know what else? In the 1800's, when "physics" was taught within the confines of higher education, it was the word for PHILOSOPHY. Not math! OR at least not divorced, like it is today; so that physics has it's own curriculum requirements.

Again, people are confusing our wonderful nation, with their garbage affirmative action ideas.

Well, we've already discarded slavery more than 140 years ago. How long will it take us, now, to get rid of the affirmative action quacks?

Carol Herman's point about "white slavery" is well taken. Consider the recent Madeleine McCann "sighting" in Morocco. Given the ravages of the Barbary Pirates over 350 years ago, there are probably many Irish-looking children about Morocco.

Jim; Every single word in that original document is the result of a compromise between rational, anti-slavery men and fundamentally irrational slaveholding "men." That's why an "originalist" reading of the Constitution is foolish. It's also why one of my good friends says we need to re-write the Constitution, not just Amend it.

Carol mentions the "baton of freedom." It's a great metaphor. Even if the shape doesn't change, it gets better or worse depending on the hands it winds up in.

Affirmative Action has less to do with Slavery (or, rather, it should have less to do with Slavery) than it does with Jim Crow, as Medved pointed out in his article. The latter is the reason today we're divided. It's not fun knowing the scales are occasionally tipped against me, but I also know that as a White man I have a huge advantage in just about everything else here in America. So, I think the government's correction of a market failure is a good thing. That's sound economics.

unclesmrgol

"now-free blacks" is ageless.

That's rather the point. Every black person from now to the end of time is a "now-free black". It even includes blacks whose forefathers were never unfree. The phrase creates a presumptive victim class based on skin color.

The janitor on my floor wears a "Reparations Now!" button; he certainly has a feeling as to where he recently came from

Where did he "recently come from"? Again, unless he is of very advanced years, your janitor has not "come from" anything deserving of reparations.

white people younger than me seem to remember too.

They do not "remember", a word which has a particular meaning.

You don't seem to, however. Why is that?

I don't "remember" because the events which you are hung up on occured many decades (and in some cases, centuries) before I was born.

Explain my racist views of whites to me, so that I might see better.

Hmm, you claimed that whites "resent the fact that they have not been given equal or better breaks to those given the now-free blacks."

I suppose its like the way you can't smell your own breath. If you can't see the racism in the above statement, nothing anyone can do can explain it to you. But is has to do with your firm conviction that large numbers of people are bad based on their skin color. A conviction which you rest on nothing other than your own ill-informed opinions.

davejoch

I also know that as a White man I have a huge advantage in just about everything else here in America.

Can you offer any specifics? I'd like to get in on this huge advantage myself.

flenser

The advantages are just about everywhere. Racism isn't always in the form of a noose.

Specifics include, but are not limited to, my dealings with police, my experience with the education system, my economic status, my job prospects, and my interaction with other Whites. In any one of those situations I am more likely to have a positive experience than a Black person not because of economic status or personal traits, but rather because of the color of the people to whom I was born.

And to your second point, I am aware that Jefferson and Madison and Washington were all slave-holding "men." And yes, they are irrational.

Jefferson said, in 1784, "There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other." And yet he submitted himself to despotism and subjected his slaves to submission. I have read that Jefferson promised to free his slaves once he was out of debt for them. That was his way of dealing with the great moral question of his time? That's like saying "I really believe abortion is 100% morally wrong, and I will never have one again until I get rid of my pregnancy."

"We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man." - James Madison And yet he held slaves until the day he died.

In 1786, Washington wrote that he wanted slavery to be abolished slowly throughout the country, and vowed not to buy anymore slaves. He even had the courtesy to stop selling slaves without their consent. And yet, when he died, he held in bondage more than 100 on his farm. A leader leads by example, I think. Manumitting after dying is weak.

Each of those people came up with some fantastic ideas. And yet each of them held slaves. So, yes, they were irrational. And they were fundamentally immoral. It doesn't make their other contributions any less valuable, in the same way that the value of the contributions doesn't make them any less evil for what they did.

In any one of those situations I am more likely to have a positive experience than a Black person not because of economic status or personal traits, but rather because of the color of the people to whom I was born.

Can you point to any empirical evidence to back this up? A black person with an engineering degree has better prospects than a similar white person. You are simply repeating the ideas which have been taught to you.

You seem to be familar with the history of the founders, so I don't see how you can say that "they were irrational". If you take a look at Lincolns ideas on race, he was pretty much in the Bull Connor camp. Was he also irrational and immoral?

flesner, Unfortunately, I don't have empirical evidence in terms of numbers and stats compiled over time. I would love to have them, but I don't. I do know that I grew up in an almost-all-White suburb and moved to a part of Brooklyn with a Black majority, and when I met people there their experiences with education, family, police, and jobs were all substantially different from my own, that made me re-evaluate my feelings on Affirmative Action.

One cannot hold that slavery is absolutely morally wrong and should be abolished while holding slaves. It's hypocritical and irrational. In fact, I would condemn the Jeffersons and Washingtons and Madisons even more than I would condemn most white slave-holding "men," because the former were so informed and so intelligent. But, again, it doesn't make their other arguments less powerful - it just makes the arguers irrational hypocrites. America was not built on these "men," but on the ideas of these "men."

And, Lincoln actually was nothing like Bull Connor. I would highly recommend "Lincoln" by David Herbert Donald. It's 13.60 on Amazon and it will change the way you look at politicians forever. And it will correct your misconceptions on Lincoln. I'd even be willing to send you my worn and written-on copy, just to help you out.

I don't find your anecdotal account to be persuasive I'm afraid. You may in fact have had a very nice upbringing. I wonder what your reaction would have been if you had moved to a poor white area instead of Brooklyn.

One cannot hold that slavery is absolutely morally wrong and should be abolished while holding slaves. It's hypocritical and irrational.

But none of the people in question seem to have held that slavery was absolutely morally wrong, which makes your conclusion invalid.

But, again, it doesn't make their other arguments less powerful - it just makes the arguers irrational hypocrites.

This would only be true if they had argued against slavery. They did not. In fact they did not believe in the equality of all people at all. Not only were slaves not full citizens, but neither were women and poor white men.

And, Lincoln actually was nothing like Bull Connor.

Lincoln did not desire the full integration of the slaves into American society. In fact he proposed that they be repatriated to Africa. He announced that he was not in favor of "bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races".

While Jefferson & Madison both believed that it was impractical on several levels to emancipate immediately, they also wrote;

"...there is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814

"Nobody wishes more ardently to see an abolition, not only of the trade, but of the condition of slavery; and certainly, nobody will be more willing to encounter every sacrifice for that object." - Thomas Jefferson to Brissot de Warville, 1788.

"Our opinions agree as to the evil, moral, political, and economical, of slavery." - Madison, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson 'Answers Concerning Slavery'.

And, despite what you may say, they did advocate ending it, as soon as it was practical, as noted above and in prior posts.

As for Lincoln, his views on Black suffrage and equality were like his views on emancipation; they developed over time. In 1836 he didn't even mention Black suffrage in his political speeches in Illinois government (page 59 in Lincoln). In 1858 he uttered the quote you had above. And yet in 1863 he was pushing the 13th Amendment and "assured William D. Kelley that he, too, now believed in Nero suffrage, at least for the better educated and those who had served in the Union armies, and he showed the Pennsylvania congressman a copy of his letter to governor Hahn of Louisiana, suggesting limited enfranchisement of blacks." (563 in Lincoln)

Lincoln is not equivalent to Connor because he didn't turn firehoses on them and didn't send attack dogs at them. Lincoln is not equivalent to Jefferson/Madison/Washington because he acted in real ways during his lifetime.

You can keep shifting the debate but the facts and words will still remain.

The guilt trip that keeps on giving.

I love when thinkers just sit around casting aspersions on folks from the past in the comfort of their modern world using that always perfect 20-20 hindsight.

I have absolutely no guilt or remorse about anything from the historical past. If I did I would be forced to hate humanity for its prior monstrous sins, slavery being well down the list. I only deal with my own sins.

As to slavery-yawning-we ended it, that all that counts.

A question to all my learned friends. How did you end up white, or black? Is there a debit card that comes with that luck of the draw? It's the same stupid inferred logic that says Germans born after WWII are somehow guilty for Hitler. Yes my little fuhrers, you have bad dna! Jeez, I'm sure glad I was born Irish. This birthing thing sure gets complicated.

When you know why, you happened to be you and not the dog you are petting I'll listen to your blather about hair shirts and self flagellation.

Patrick, I don't think it's about guilt in the sense that you or I are "guilty" of slavery like we could be guilty of robbing someone tomorrow. "White people" is an abstract idea, like "Americans."

Are you responsible for Hiroshima? Are Britons responsible for Dresden?

I'd go so far as to say the people of America weren't responsible for Hiroshima, and the British weren't responsible for Dresden. A few people were. It doesn't make the crime go away, and it doesn't make the consequences go away. Somehow, as a society, we have to figure out a solution. But "guilt" is not a factor.

In regards to slavery we figured out a solution. We ended it by killing over 600,000 of ourselves ans horribly wounding millions more while we basically "Sherman Marched" the entire south.

As to guilt--that is the only factor. It is the horse whip that the race baiters use to drive their arguments.

I don't let myself get whipped.

On another note their you go again with Hiroshima and Dresden being crimes.

flenser,

No, not every black is free. Look in somalia, for instance.

Given that we are talking about the United States, you are correct.

But freedom isn't everything, is it? Consider the freedom you have, and the freedom Bill Gates has. Do you think they are equal? If they aren't, why not? How does that equation apply to race relations, with the disparate by-race family income levels?

The janitor may or may not be deserving, but what matters is that he thinks he is deserving, and the reasons he thinks he is deserving. He isn't the only one, either -- there are millions more. You may not think this matters, but knowing the viewpoint of others is important by my book. In fact, the concept that this janitor and his peers' views are inconsequential is, in my mind, a form of racism itself.

Hmm, you claimed that whites "resent the fact that they have not been given equal or better breaks to those given the now-free blacks."

You'll note I didn't say all whites -- I said those who are in direct competition with blacks for jobs. During the Civil War, those whites were the Irish -- relegated to the lowest paying and harshest jobs. When you look at who built the Transcontinental Railroad, you see two ethnic groups represented, which makes my point exactly. Only the Chinese and the Irish were willing to take those jobs. The blacks were out -- because most of them were slaves. In the 1860's in the North, why were the Irish so dead-set against freeing blacks? Why were they nearly 100% Democrats? The answer lies in the potential for economic competition.

To say that these acts don't echo down to the present is a head in the sand kind of position. Are you sure you want to go there, flenser?

Who stood to lose if the blacks were given their freedom, and could compete for these obviously low-rung jobs? How does that competition echo down to today? Blacks were promised their 40 acres -- but the white sharecroppers in the South weren't, in spite of being of the same economic stratum as the enslaved blacks. Does that have any effect on race relations today in the South? Regardless of the fact that the 40 acres were never awarded, I'll bet it does, on both sides.

Upper strata whites, particularly those of the liberal stripe, attempt to pay reparations for their party's defense of slavery and dismantlement of Reconstruction via the welfare state intitlements. Don't you think the welfare state, in which certain perks are awarded only on the basis of race, does not pour caustic soda on race relations in the poorer economic strata? Isn't this a modern occurrence, rooted in the New Deal?

Finally (for this post anyway), what your father and grandfather endured and related to you are part of your experience. Example: When the janitor talked to me about reparations, I told him that my grandfather, an FOB from Sicily, worked in the coal mines in Pennsylvania and died slowly of the black lung so his grandfather in Detroit could have heat in the winter. Did he want that our two grandfathers should have changed jobs?

So, flenser, thank you for explaining my racism. I'm comfortable in it.