The Civil War at 150: Mississippi Secession

[Simon_Jester]

In today's atmosphere of political correctness though, slavery is seen as such a horrendous evil that a bit of denial in those proud of their history and culture (even if not of the institution or its related bigotry) is easily understood.

How is it political correctness to think that treating people as interchangeable chattel goods is wrong?

The degree to which slavery is currently regarded (at least in the west) as such an absolute and self-evident wrong though, does give me some pause, considering the institution's lengthy and almost universal acceptance in the past.
The fact that freedom (defined as non-slave) has only come to be regarded (by some) and an unquestionably inalienable right in the past 1 or 2 percent of human history makes me wonder if its not more of a recent fad than a natural state.

The germ theory of disease is pretty recent too; that doesn't make it wrong. Think about it the other way round. The majority of the population being serfs or slaves, subjects of a hereditary aristocracy that can abuse them with impunity has gone on for a long time, the vast majority of history... but isn't it interesting that we've made so much more progress in the last two centuries of spreading equality and democracy, compared to the dozens of centuries before that time?

Maybe it works the other way around. 'History' stretches over such a vast span of time because for most of it we were trapped in stasis by poisonous institutions that stunted the growth of the cultures that supported them: diseases in the body politic.

The institutions grew up very naturally, of course, but that doesn't make them good for the cultures that had them.

I appreciate your sentiments, but am not sure if they are universally applicable. Living in Japan, I can assure you that there does not seem to be a great level shame in the overall populace, or at the government level, over denial for past war wrongs.
There is more of a feeling that, yes, we acknowledge there may have been some unpleasant 'incidents' in the past, but we don't want to rub the noses of our youth in them for fear that it may damage their national pride and confidence.

But is this healthy? In the American South, it's only served to promote and make permanent the idea that it's okay to keep treating blacks as second-class citizens, that there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with race relations in the South, that those damnyankees are just mean for coming in and saying otherwise...

It breeds a historical sense of resentment, one that has repeatedly served to feed terrorism*, reactionary political movements**, and resentment of the standards of education, culture, and good government found in much of the rest of the country.***

*See the Ku Klux Klan
**See modern American politics
***I can provide examples of this easily enough, but it would need to be a rather long list.

So I think we have a right to ask whether people should be able to deny their history and recast it as a glorious Noble Lost Cause when in fact their ancestors were fighting for the right to make people suffer for their own profit.

This is especially true when ignoring the question of historical injustice lets people get by without reexamining the basic assumptions their culture makes about how to treat people with justice, as we see in both the American South and Japan.

[Gurachn]

How is it political correctness to think that treating people as interchangeable chattel goods is wrong?

Your response here underscores exactly the point I was trying to make in my initial response.
On what basis (other than your personal emotions and lengthy cultural conditioning) are you able to pronounce slavery as an absolute and apparently self evident ‘wrong’?

Do you believe that modern man has somehow evolved to a higher moral and intellectual plane that has allowed us in the past few hundred years to suddenly realize the glaring error of our ways?
How do you account for the fact that many of the cultures from which we draw upon as the underpinnings of our current legal and philosophical beliefs were largely slave states? By your definition, they would have to be considered as unhealthy societies, yet they managed to survive and thrive for millennia, showing great innovation and creating much that we now value. Even our Christian friends who claim have the moral high ground can hardly deny that slavery is both commonplace and accepted in the bible.

You’ll forgive me if say that I can only find your position either intellectually blinkered, or arrogantly culturally imperialistic.
Personally, I can agree (alas I am a product of my society also) that slavery isn’t nice and I don’t like it. I also fully admit that I wouldn’t want to find myself enslaved.

Looking at a larger slice of human history, and the reality of modern day existence, it seems absolutely clear however, that humans have a natural disposition to systematically and consistently fuck each other over for their own pleasure and amusement.
It remains to be seen how long the very recent ‘fad’ of ‘lets be nice to each other and pretend bad shit isn’t real’ will last.
I would be more than happy to have you convince me that this belief is mere cynicism on my part, rather than a realistic appraisal or our situation, but frankly I’m not going to hold my breath.

...but isn't it interesting that we've made so much more progress in the last two centuries of spreading equality and democracy, compared to the dozens of centuries before that time?

Sorry, I can't resist... could you give me some examples of the 'equality and democracy' WE have spread?

[D.Turtle]

I appreciate your sentiments, but am not sure if they are universally applicable. Living in Japan, I can assure you that there does not seem to be a great level shame in the overall populace, or at the government level, over denial for past war wrongs.
There is more of a feeling that, yes, we acknowledge there may have been some unpleasant 'incidents' in the past, but we don't want to rub the noses of our youth in them for fear that it may damage their national pride and confidence.

In the case of current residents of the American south, I guessing that rather than attempting to deny the unpleasant realities of their slaveholding past, they are attempting to emphasize what they see as the positive elements of antebellum Dixie.

I addressed that very point:

If we would deny our history (like many do in the former CSA), it would make me less proud and even shameful of our (current) culture.

I think it is a point of criticism of Japanese culture that they (or at least parts of it) are unwilling to face their own history, pronounce judgment upon some of it and admit that they did wrong things.

Why would it damage the "national pride and confidence" to admit that your country/culture isn't perfect? Why shouldn't it make you more proud of your nation to admit that you were wrong in the past, but you have improved since then, showing that you are able to learn from history and avoid some of those mistakes in the future?

[Gurachn]

I think it is a point of criticism of Japanese culture that they (or at least parts of it) are unwilling to face their own history, pronounce judgment upon some of it and admit that they did wrong things.

Why would it damage the "national pride and confidence" to admit that your country/culture isn't perfect? Why shouldn't it make you more proud of your nation to admit that you were wrong in the past, but you have improved since then, showing that you are able to learn from history and avoid some of those mistakes in the future?

Although I tend to agree with you, Herr Turtle, I am unwilling to criticize a culture of which I am not a member.

Having lived in both Germany and Japan for some time, I can state clearly that the culture and psyche of the people are very different indeed. The Japanese put much more emphasis is put here in group harmony and acceptance. It is not so much that they deny the wrong doings of the past, or harbor any belief in the perfection of their culture. It is more a case that once their leaders had decided on a course of action, it was seen as inevitable that all members of society must conform to the group will.
If it is shown that the course of action is unsound, the leaders are expected to take full responsibility and bear the consequences.

It is my impression that the feeling is more "Our leaders made poor decisions with disasterous consequences and resulted in much suffering for many people. We pray that we never have such bad leaders again", than "We as a people did bad things and by fully facing our collective guilt we can avoid it in future."
I'm afraid this poor generalization can't capture the full truth of either culture, but I believe it shows the essential difference in outlooks.
I prefer to cast judgement on either viewpoint.

[Simon_Jester]

Your response here underscores exactly the point I was trying to make in my initial response.
On what basis (other than your personal emotions and lengthy cultural conditioning) are you able to pronounce slavery as an absolute and apparently self evident ‘wrong’?

On the same basis that I consider robbery at gunpoint to be an absolute "wrong," since enslavement is basically an extended process of robbing people at gunpoint over a period of decades.

Do you believe that modern man has somehow evolved to a higher moral and intellectual plane that has allowed us in the past few hundred years to suddenly realize the glaring error of our ways?

Would it be that much of a surprise? When a culture has gone from witch burnings to moon rockets in a few centuries, is it unreasonable to say that it's reached a higher intellectual plane? And very possibly a higher moral one?

Maybe our standards really did improve.

How do you account for the fact that many of the cultures from which we draw upon as the underpinnings of our current legal and philosophical beliefs were largely slave states? By your definition, they would have to be considered as unhealthy societies, yet they managed to survive and thrive for millennia, showing great innovation and creating much that we now value.

You're failing to understand something important here.

The fact that there is something wrong with a society does not mean all it produces is useless, or that it is doomed.

Throwing people to the lions as a form of public entertainment doesn't suddenly become a good idea just because the Romans did it. Not even when you point out that the Romans were a really big empire. The merits of a cultural practice have to be assessed on their own, not aped because someone finds the people who practice it impressive.

And I think you should ask yourself: is it a sign of great health and strength in a society when it survives for centuries without noticeable improvement? Compared to modern societies, even the most dynamic ancient societies were stagnant- positive change was slow and often stopped entirely, especially for the common man and woman.

These societies were also brutal. I do not think this was a coincidence: primitive conditions tend to make people more brutal, and brutality tends to prevent advancement of the society, keeping it primitive. It's a vicious cycle, one that we only need to look at sub-Saharan Africa today to see. We in the developed world are lucky to live in an era where there's at least some hope of breaking the cycle- maybe.

You’ll forgive me if say that I can only find your position either intellectually blinkered, or arrogantly culturally imperialistic.

How is it cultural imperialism to think that screwing people over is a bad idea, that it damages the society and makes us worse off?

Looking at a larger slice of human history, and the reality of modern day existence, it seems absolutely clear however, that humans have a natural disposition to systematically and consistently fuck each other over for their own pleasure and amusement.

Yes. And giving in to this is a bad idea. It does not work well. It's been tried, in countless different versions, throughout thousands of years of history, and it never works all that well. Not compared to enlightened self-interest and a basic sense of human rights.

If this is just a fad, then what it boils down to is that when the fad ends we go back into the Dark Ages. I know damn well that's possible, but I don't want it to happen; it would be on par with forgetting the germ theory of disease in terms of its potential to cause human misery.

...but isn't it interesting that we've made so much more progress in the last two centuries of spreading equality and democracy, compared to the dozens of centuries before that time?

Sorry, I can't resist... could you give me some examples of the 'equality and democracy' WE have spread?

You failed to parse the sentence.

"Equality and democracy" are spreading. During the time that they have been spreading, "we" (for very, very broad definitions of 'we') have made much progress.

This does not require "we" (for any specific, narrow definition of 'we') to be responsible for the spread of equality and democracy. Indeed, these ideas seem to spread almost in spite of the best efforts of people in advanced countries to keep the ideas to themselves. People like the idea that a peasant is not divinely commanded to obey whichever warlord has the most men with pointy stick stationed near his village. People like the idea that they actually get to remove corrupt magistrates and decide for themselves whether the country goes to war.

Given that societies which set things up this way generally outcompete the ones that don't, I'm not surprised that people tend to prefer things that way.

[CaiusWickersham]

Which is a hypocritical gripe at the very best; Southern majorities in Congress acted ruthlessly to expand federal power and use it to advance slaveholding interests whenever they could do so. The Fugitive Slave Act, as well as later expansions of the powers it granted to the federal head (and denied to the free states) stands as stark testimony to that.

Hardly hypocritical, Rogue. Yes, the South used Congress to fortify its interest when it had the power in Congress. That's how faction in democracy works. By the 1860s, the writing on the wall was clear to the Southern aristocracy that they had lost the ability to gather a majority for good. John Brown and Bleeding Kansas turned a lot of fence-sitters against them. Even if there was ambivalence on the concept of slavery, domestic peace was something to be desired and if there was going to be a bloodbath in the territories every time there was even a thought of introducing slavery, then there would be more people willing to put anti-slavery representatives into Congress.

[Jaevric]

Although I tend to agree with you, Herr Turtle, I am unwilling to criticize a culture of which I am not a member.

Maybe it's just that I'm a simplistic bastard, but that strikes me as a form of profound moral cowardice. Criticism of something, whether it's an idea, a person, a society, or a culture, is the only way to ever improve upon it. Why shouldn't a culture that leads to, that actually encourages human suffering and inequality be criticized? Do you believe the cultures in Africa that claim a homosexual woman can, and should, be "raped straight" are justified by their very existence? Do you believe cultures that hold that a woman is the property of her father and later her husband are reasonable just because that's the way they've always done things? Should a woman who flees from an abusive relationship be sent back to her husband because her culture and that of her husband says that beating and raping your wife is acceptable?

Once again, I'm a simplistic bastard, but I don't see the problem with looking at a culture (including that of the United States, which certainly has its flaws) and saying, "That culture has flaws that increase human suffering. Human suffering is bad and should be reduced as much as possible. Thus, there are things that can be done to improve that culture."

Criticism leads to change, which at least has the potential to be an improvement over what has come before. Failure to criticize something means never changing it, and never improving on it. If humanity didn't criticize, didn't think about things, we'd still be hitting each other with clubs because clubs were good enough for our parents and grandparents and we don't need to add sharpened rocks to the end of our sticks, damnit. We'd still be resolving our differences of opinion by beating the person who disagreed with us to death.

Bluntly, I consider a reduction in human suffering to be its own justification. I've never seen a convincing argument that reducing human suffering is morally or ethically wrong.

[Isolder74]

Which is a hypocritical gripe at the very best; Southern majorities in Congress acted ruthlessly to expand federal power and use it to advance slaveholding interests whenever they could do so. The Fugitive Slave Act, as well as later expansions of the powers it granted to the federal head (and denied to the free states) stands as stark testimony to that.

Hardly hypocritical, Rogue. Yes, the South used Congress to fortify its interest when it had the power in Congress. That's how faction in democracy works. By the 1860s, the writing on the wall was clear to the Southern aristocracy that they had lost the ability to gather a majority for good. John Brown and Bleeding Kansas turned a lot of fence-sitters against them. Even if there was ambivalence on the concept of slavery, domestic peace was something to be desired and if there was going to be a bloodbath in the territories every time there was even a thought of introducing slavery, then there would be more people willing to put anti-slavery representatives into Congress.

Actually that IS Hypocritical by every definition of the word.

They only preach State Rights only when the application of it benefits them. They use Federal Power to further their own political goals but the moment they perceive the slightest threat that that might be done to them, they throw a temper tantrum. EVERY SINGLE TIME! 1860 wasn't the first time buddy.

To claim a bloodbath as their justification, is stupid considering the slavocracy were one of the chief instigators of the problem by partaking in despicable practice of ballot stuffing and using violence to try and keep legitimate voters from casting their ballots. Bleeding Kansas was a bloodbath because of the strong arm tactics of the extremists on both side but was more so on the part of the Southerners. When it became clear that Kansas was going decided by a vote by the populace there, the first thing they did was send in ballot stuffers.

[Gurachn]

Although I tend to agree with you, Herr Turtle, I am unwilling to criticize a culture of which I am not a member.

Maybe it's just that I'm a simplistic bastard, but that strikes me as a form of profound moral cowardice.

Please do not confusing my unwillingness to pass judgement on an entire culture with an unwillingness to speak out against individual acts of cruelty and injustice. I would be lying if I were to tell you that I didn't rail on an almost daily basis on a variety of things I felt were unjust in the world, but that is worlds away from feeling I have the right to hold court on an entire culture, especially one on which I am looking at from the outside-in.

Criticism of something, whether it's an idea, a person, a society, or a culture, is the only way to ever improve upon it. Why shouldn't a culture that leads to, that actually encourages human suffering and inequality be criticized? ...Criticism leads to change...

A nice idea, but sadly one with little basis in fact. Criticising your girlfreind's weight is more likely to get you slapped than any other reaction. Similarly, most countries do not generally react positively to their neighbors telling them to 'change their evil ways'.
You may be able to coerce them to alter their beliefs and practices, but rarely, if ever, can you shame them into doing so through the sole power of your righteous indignation.
Also, I have yet to encounter a culture that actively aims to encourage human suffering. The suffering is generally a by-product of other positively intended social or economic conditions, not a purpose unto itself.

I've never seen a convincing argument that reducing human suffering is morally or ethically wrong.

I would be surprised if you had. My point was merely to suggest that for a major proportion of humanity, reducing human suffering falls somewhere below their home team making the playoffs on their scale of priorities.

[Jaevric]

Please do not confusing my unwillingness to pass judgement on an entire culture with an unwillingness to speak out against individual acts of cruelty and injustice. I would be lying if I were to tell you that I didn't rail on an almost daily basis on a variety of things I felt were unjust in the world, but that is worlds away from feeling I have the right to hold court on an entire culture, especially one on which I am looking at from the outside-in.

It's possible to criticize a culture without saying "Everything about your society sucks and you should feel bad about yourselves." Most cultures have at least some redeeming virtues; that doesn't mean that their flaws shouldn't be addressed. I don't think all Muslims are terrorists, but that doesn't mean I don't despise those Muslims who do support terrorism because their religion tells them to do so. I don't think all Republicans are idiots, either, but I certainly have contempt for Republicans who automatically accept anything they hear from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh without putting any thought into it -- just like I have contempt for Democrats who unthinkingly agree with anything a liberal talking head tells them.

A nice idea, but sadly one with little basis in fact. Criticising your girlfreind's weight is more likely to get you slapped than any other reaction. Similarly, most countries do not generally react positively to their neighbors telling them to 'change their evil ways'.

On the other hand, noticing your girlfriend's putting on a few pounds and suggesting some fun exercises that the two of you can do together like biking, rollerblading or kayaking probably isn't going to get you slapped. Nor is suggesting you go out for lunch to a salad place instead of for cheeseburgers. There's ways to point out, and address, problems that don't involve phrases like "Damn you're turning into a fatty."

You may be able to coerce them to alter their beliefs and practices, but rarely, if ever, can you shame them into doing so through the sole power of your righteous indignation.

I must've misspoken, I didn't mean to say anything about how simply telling someone "you're wrong, and bad, and wrong" would cause them to miraculously change their ways. Obviously, criticism of an idea or society is the FIRST step to creating improvements, not the only. Also, "righteous indignation" isn't necessarily the best form of criticism, just like "lol you're turning into a fatty" isn't the best way to tell your girlfriend she's putting on weight.

Also, I have yet to encounter a culture that actively aims to encourage human suffering. The suffering is generally a by-product of other positively intended social or economic conditions, not a purpose unto itself.

As for intentions, honestly, are good intentions worth more than good results? If I invent cold fusion and solve the energy crisis because I want to make a hell of a lot of money, does that make me a bad person? If I'm working on a nuclear reactor trying to invent cold fusion and solve the energy crisis, and accidentally blow up a city in the process, does that make me a good person? Many Christians honestly believe that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because it will cause the downfall of American society. That doesn't make them right, and it doesn't mean everyone else in the country has to nod and go on with their opinion because it's "their culture." They may have good intentions, but their results are shitty for a lot of people, and the benefits of their "good intentions" (if there are any) certainly don't outweigh the disadvantages.

I would be surprised if you had. My point was merely to suggest that for a major proportion of humanity, reducing human suffering falls somewhere below their home team making the playoffs on their scale of priorities.

So if most people don't see something as a problem or aren't willing to do anything about it, nobody should be? A lot of people didn't see a problem with the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe, either, and probably thought it was a waste of time to study it because the Catholic Church had made it perfectly clear that the universe is geocentric -- why bother questioning it? For that matter, I question if "most" people gave a lot of thought to the the origin of the species beyond their particular culture's creation myths. But Darwin did and look at what has happened.

Hell, by that argument, I guess we shouldn't be worried about climate change, either, since a majority of humanity doesn't spend much time thinking about it.

[Akhlut]

Your response here underscores exactly the point I was trying to make in my initial response.
On what basis (other than your personal emotions and lengthy cultural conditioning) are you able to pronounce slavery as an absolute and apparently self evident ‘wrong’?

Unless one delves into solipsism, slavery is very clearly a base evil due to a few very important reasons.

1) All humans essentially have the same capacity for suffering.
2) Slavery causes suffering.

Now, if we accept human suffering inflicted by other humans as evil, then it naturally follows that slavery is evil. Now, unless you're just Einzige's newest sockpuppet, I think we can all say that concious infliction of suffering on other humans is evil, minus punitive measures (which is itself a very contentious point).

Do you believe that modern man has somehow evolved to a higher moral and intellectual plane that has allowed us in the past few hundred years to suddenly realize the glaring error of our ways?

Not evolved, but gained a greater understanding by ceasing to completely "otherize" and dehumanize other human beings. But, hell, one has seen and can see people from hundreds and thousands of years ago having the same basic ideas about human value, dignity, and rights to freedom. The Haudenosaunee people of New England opted to end slavery, retalitory raids, and cannibalism and institute, in effect, a representative parliament nearly 1,000 years ago that had relatively equal gender relations and was otherwise a very liberal society for Medieval nation. Bartolome de las Casas, similarly, thought that Spanish enslavement of American Indians was a grave sin, and that brutalizing and murdering them was horrific and should have been stopped immediately. Francis of Assisi recognized lepers as human beings at a time when they were shunned as being demon-possessed.

How do you account for the fact that many of the cultures from which we draw upon as the underpinnings of our current legal and philosophical beliefs were largely slave states?

How do you account for the fact that many of the cultures from which we draw upon as the underpinnings of our current scientific methods and pedagogy were largely believers in magic, alchemy, and astrology?

By your definition, they would have to be considered as unhealthy societies, yet they managed to survive and thrive for millennia, showing great innovation and creating much that we now value. Even our Christian friends who claim have the moral high ground can hardly deny that slavery is both commonplace and accepted in the bible.

So what if they survived and thrived? Had Nazi Germany somehow won WWII, it would have potentially survived and thrived for decades or centuries; does that make throwing other humans into ovens not evil? Simply because they managed to not fall apart and sometimes manage useful or beautiful things does not make slavery a good thing or even neutral. I can admire Emperor Justinian's rulership of the Byzantine Empire and his magnificient code of law that survives to this day, but still say that his antisemitism and acceptance of things like slavery were evil; I can say that Winston Churchill was instrumental to defeating the Nazis and the victory of WWII, but still recognize that his racism and willingness to use chemical warfare on native tribes was evil.

You’ll forgive me if say that I can only find your position either intellectually blinkered, or arrogantly culturally imperialistic.

So, you're a cultural relativist?

Personally, I can agree (alas I am a product of my society also) that slavery isn’t nice and I don’t like it. I also fully admit that I wouldn’t want to find myself enslaved.

Looking at a larger slice of human history, and the reality of modern day existence, it seems absolutely clear however, that humans have a natural disposition to systematically and consistently fuck each other over for their own pleasure and amusement.

And? Humans apparently have a natural tendency towards cannibalism, too; would you say that's peachy?

[Gurachn]

Sorry, I get the feeling that some of you mistakenly feel that I am attempting to argue in support of slavery, suffering and injustice.

It also seems that my initial observations on the current perceptions of slavery seems to have devolved into an assertion that, 'In the last few hundred years we humans (or at least those of us in the enlightened West) who formerly thought evil stuff was good, have now realized we were wrong and slavery is bad after all, so we are OK now."

The former is absolutely not the case, and the latter chain of thought may be nice, but frankly I find it a bit silly and self-delusional.
I think we have probably hijacked the OP's thread enough for the time being, however.
If anyone cares to continue this chain of thought over in SLAM, I would be happy to add my thoughts over there.

[Ilya Muromets]

Sorry, I get the feeling that some of you mistakenly feel that I am attempting to argue in support of slavery, suffering and injustice.

It also seems that my initial observations on the current perceptions of slavery seems to have devolved into an assertion that, 'In the last few hundred years we humans (or at least those of us in the enlightened West) who formerly thought evil stuff was good, have now realized we were wrong and slavery is bad after all, so we are OK now."

The former is absolutely not the case, and the latter chain of thought may be nice, but frankly I find it a bit silly and self-delusional.
I think we have probably hijacked the OP's thread enough for the time being, however.
If anyone cares to continue this chain of thought over in SLAM, I would be happy to add my thoughts over there.

Excuse me? Since when the hell did this turn into an "enlightened West" versus "unelightened East" or whatever argument? Are you seriously trying to accuse people who don't agree with your point of view of automatically being smug and superior assholes who look down on anything outside the West? Because that's seriously how it comes off as.

EDIT: Ah, hell, didn't read the date of the last post right. I thought it said Feb 14 instead of Jan 14. Sorry for the necro. It's just that the part I bolded above struck me with incredulity.