Today I won’t focus on Wartime Abraham Lincoln, the Emancipator…
…but on Peacetime Lincoln, circa 1854-1860, the gradualist opponent of slavery.
I’m going to suggest that during this period, Lincoln’s antislavery views made a good deal of sense.
Let’s look at 1858, when Lincoln famously laid out his views in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. On the surface, Lincoln and Douglas both seemed to be on the same side. Both Senatorial candidates – the incumbent Stephen Douglas and the upstart ex-Congressman Lincoln – wanted the territory of Kansas to be a free state, and both opposed President James Buchanan’s efforts to have Kansas admitted as a slave state under the proslavery Lecompton Constitution.
But the two candidates took different routes to reach their respective conclusions.
Douglas believed that the important thing was to let the white settlers of Kansas decide the slavery issue for themselves. Since most white settlers didn’t want slavery in Kansas, that should end the matter. Buchanan’s people had tried to rig the elections so that proslavery whites dominated over the antislavery white majority, and this was the scandal, Douglas said.
Lincoln said that it went beyond what the white people in the territory wanted. Federal territories should be free of slavery. Lincoln claimed that the Founding Fathers had wanted to keep slavery from spreading – confining it to the states in which it already existed but not allowing slavery to be brought into the federally-controlled territories. The nation could not endure half slave and half free, but, said Lincoln, a proslavery plot, including both Southerners and northern collaborators like Douglas, was on foot to overturn the Founders’ vision and extend slavery everywhere – ultimately, perhaps, into the free states like Illinois.
Douglas said that this was all nonsense. He appealed to the racism of his audience and said that the rights of black people meant nothing, that it was only the will of the white majority – whether that majority was proslavery or antislavery – which mattered in any given territory. The founders contemplated a diverse country, with slavery in some states and territories, and not in others, based on local whites’ assessment of local needs, free from any foolishness about rights for black people.
Lincoln made clear that, while he was a racist, he was less racist than Douglas. While Lincoln didn’t want black people to vote, and he was even open to resettling them out of the country (biases that he began overcoming during the coming war), Lincoln defended the right of any person, regardless of color, to own his own labor and not to have the fruits of their labor stolen by anyone else. This was the famous Republican “Free Labor ideology” much mocked by modern historians for its naive belief in the ability of hardworking people to rise in the world if given the chance to do so.
In the debates with Douglas and elsewhere, Lincoln made some exceptions to the right of free labor. For one thing there was the positive law of the Constitution, which required fugitive slaves from the South to be sent back to slavery. Lincoln supported this part of the Constitution as part of his loyalty to constitutional government. In that specific case, the positive-law provisions for slavery overcame the natural right to be free. Likewise, Lincoln recognized the validity of Southern laws providing for the enslavement of most of their black population – thus he denounced the John Brown raid seeking to overturn slavery by violence.
So Lincoln’s thought was: be careful to respect slavery where it existed, but don’t let it spread beyond the existing slave states.
Lincoln himself gave the best summary of his ideas, in a speech in New Haven:
If I saw a venomous snake crawling in the road, any man would say I might seize the nearest stick and kill it; but if I found that snake in bed with my children, that would be another question. [Laughter.] I might hurt the children more than the snake, and it might bite them. [Applause.] Much more if I found it in bed with my neighbor’s children, and I had bound myself by a solemn compact not to meddle with his children under any circumstances, it would become me to let that particular mode of getting rid of the gentleman alone. [Great laughter.] But if there was a bed newly made up, to which the children were to be taken, and it was proposed to take a batch of young snakes and put them there with them, I take it no man would say there was any question how I ought to decide! [Prolonged applause and cheers.]
As for slavery where it existed, it should be allowed to wither away with time, as was bound to happen if it wasn’t allowed to spread.
John Brown, of course, didn’t go in for that sort of gradualism.
Brown thought slaves were oppressed now, and they should be freed now. Just before he was hanged, Brown said that America’s sin of slavery would only be washed out with blood.
But Lincoln was, I believe, right about the Founders and the replacement of the Founders’ wisdom with an aggressive proslavery consensus among Southern leaders and their allies
The Founders may have been hypocrites, they may have been naive about slavery gradually withering away, they may not have knocked themselves out fighting against slavery, but they did mostly realize that slavery was wrong and that it was incompatible with the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
They set up the biggest anti-slavery territory in the world with the Northwest Ordinance. They got rid of the institution in the Northern states. They banned the importation of slaves from Africa into the United States. And at least in theory, they banned U. S. citizens and U. S. ships from taking part in the slave trade from Africa to Latin America.
Benjamin Franklin ended his career as a near-abolitionist.
Alexander Hamilton was for gradual emancipation.
George Mason was a Virginia slaveholder whose papers contained considerable denunciation of slavery.
We now begin to experience the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place in the Declaration of our Independence. For a long time it lay dormant; but in the process of time it began to germinate, and produce its poisonous fruits. It had strong hold on the mind of Mr. Jefferson, the author of that document, which caused him to take an utterly false view of the subordinate relation of the black to the white race in the South, and to hold, in consequence, that the latter, though utterly unqualified to possess liberty, were as fully entitled to both liberty and equality as the former, and that to deprive them of it was unjust and immoral. To this error his proposition to exclude slavery from the territory northwest of the Ohio may be traced, and to that the ordinance of ’87, and through it the deep and dangerous agitation which now threatens to ingulf, and will certainly ingulf, if not speedily settled, our political institutions, and involve the country in countless woes.
So it seems Lincoln was onto something when he said that slavery apologists in his time were abandoning the pro-freedom ideals of the Founders.
As for a conspiracy to spread slavery – perhaps it should be called a competition among pro-slavery forces rather than a conspiracy. The various slavery supporters were at the time vying with each other to show proslavery voters in the South that they were more proslavery than the other guys.
So with these limitations – allowing that he did not recognize human equality to the same extent as did abolitionists, allowing that his wartime behavior raises a whole new set of issues, allowing that he had a background (and a future) as a Whiggish pro-big-government guy, we can say that the Lincoln of 1854-1860 was right.
Right, that is, about two specific things: (a) The Founders didn’t like slavery, and looked forward to a day when slavery didn’t exist in the U. S., and (b) there was by Lincoln’s time a strong faction which rejected the Founders’ wisdom and was committed to spreading slavery.
OT: 30% of Ohio HS Seniors Mary not graduate next year.
http://nbc4i.com/2017/04/12/state-school-board-seeks-to-avoid-ohio-graduation-crisis-in-2018/
We were warned that if Devos was made secretary of education this would happen.
So girls named Mary are dumb. Are they easy too?
There’s something about Mary?
My spell check seems to think so
They’re doing it wrong.
In CA we’ve learned that if you want to improve graduation rates, you lower standards. Only a fool would raise them.
Not much of a crisis in reality. 30% of those kids don’t have the brains to have a HS diploma. No big deal – get them into a trade. Or, better yet, let them get themselves into whatever the fuck they want, and the booksmart kids can go to college if THEY want.
Lincoln gave the famous ‘forgotten speech’ in Bloomington, IL where he supposedly advocated an immediate end to slavery (as was a popular belief in central Illinois at the time). The Chicago Tribune reporter that was in attendance, choose not to report on the substance of the speech for fear that it would impact his chances in politics.
I don’t see anything imprudent about advocating for immediate emancipation. I think the gradualist approach was naive.
There is a plaque to commemorate the speech in downtown Bloomington if you are ever driving through
Bloomington — just not Normal.
Oblong man marries Normal woman
You have to take into account the political climate at the time. Slavery was basically fact (think modern day climate science), and challenging that was not a straight forward “THIS IS WRONG!” kind of deal. We could do the same thing today and claim the second amendment allows us to own VX and nukes (which it does) but it would get us absolutely nowhere.
I don’t know if the ‘slavery was basically fact’ argument works out so well. Ignoring the anti-slavery measures Eddie already touched on,multiple anti-slavery acts had already been in place in British colonies, and there was of course the big one two decades before Lincoln was arguing. There were already numerous examples of the reality that slavery wasn’t ‘fact’ and could be successfully outlawed.
To be clear, I don’t mean the legal viability of slavery, I mean the more abstract ‘it’s okay to enslave blacks because that’s what god put blacks on this earth for’ thinking. The idea that blacks were equal to whites was certainly a minority opinion even in the 1800s. The legality of the institution of slavery was definitely vulnerable, but for the same reasons we have animal cruelty laws today. It wasn’t because most people thought slaves were equal they just thought they didn’t deserve to be treated quite that badly.
That’s an important distinction to make. Even many abolitionists of the time subscribed both to the idea that slavery was sinful and that white Europeans were racially superior to Africans. It might be comparable to people today who might believe that domestication of animals is morally repugnant, but wouldn’t consider a cow, for instance, to be a “person” in the same way as a human being.
“Lincoln was onto something when he said that slavery apologists in his time were abandoning the pro-freedom ideals of the Founders.”
I am not sure why the argument had to go that far, debating over the rightness or wrongness of enslaving certain others based on race. The mere act of enslaving men, black, white or purple is a betrayal of the founding principles. Once those are abandoned the natural progression would be to reestablish full or partial enslavement of anyone regardless of race. In fact, some early socialists were arguing for that very thing. Either all men are free or none are. The citizenry is composed of free men or cattle. Take your pick.
Too lazy to verify it, but the Yale course on Civil War I listened to made the case in 1850s the combined value of all the land in the US was the only asset ahead of combined value of all the slaves.
Multiple anti-slavery acts could have been passed in the Empire once its largest slave possession was gone, and thus compensating (or ignoring) people who are affected was less expensive, materially and politically. Maybe abolition of Russian serfdom would be close, but that was a case where an autocrator had the strength to ram it through, and undermining the position of rural nobility would have been a beneficial side effect. And, looking up on Wikipedia, supposedly most of the serfs were already mortgaged to the national bank, making it even easier.
In a republic where half the country’s elite stands to lose vast amounts of wealth, and the institution is still profitable, it’s much harder.
As I touched on below, viewing slavery’s value from a purely 1850s perspective is not reflective of its long standing economic value, The idea that acts could only have been passed due to the revolution is pure revisionism from what I’ve seen; Britain was already in the slow process of abolition, culturally and politically. Regardless of victory or loss in the revolution the culture in Britain would have still passed the Slave Trade Act in 1807, and a cowed Thirteen Colonies’ response to later abolitionism is alternative history posturing.
Ah, yes, I usually assume “no Revolution” means “an agreement with London that gives greater autonomy/Parliament seats to Americans” and would argue, in that configuration, ban on slave trade may be likely (increases price of slaves, which large slaveholders would like), but straight abolition takes longer.
If it’s a “Revolution is defeated” then yes, abolition as additional layer of economic punishment may have been accelerated.
Much as I like the armed intelligentsia, a plain reading of the 2A doesn’t get you a constitutional protection for CBRN weapon systems. The Framers were wise enough to understand the difference between arms and ordnance notwithstanding the modern tendency to use imprecise language.
Hmmm…this speech?
That’s a disputed transcript. The actual transcript of the speech doesn’t exist
In other words, a model republican.
You know who else was right about some things at least…
Robby Soave?
(citation needed)
I didn’t mean recently.
+2 be sure
Richard Posner?
Joe McCarthy?
Everyone ever?
Wait, I forgot about…well, quite a few people. Marx, Krugman, Obama…it’s a long list.
You also forgot about insane humans and vampires in logic puzzles. Geez, do you even Smullyan?
NOT FDR. I hate that guy.
Pythagoras?
Abradolf Lincler?
Whatever he stood for, it wasn’t this.
Interesting perspective. The founders were certainly divided on the issue, though I do concur that most of them would have liked to see the peculiar institution flounder and fail.
My thinking (at least my optimistic hope) is that the founders knew that slavery was an absolute wrong but they needed the support of the southern states in order to make the revolution work, so they caved with the stipulation that slavery would never leave the original territories designated for it. It certainly looks like their plan from an outside observer.
That’s fair. Also historically understandable. And if I remember my RevWar history right the south played a major role in the latter part of the war, so it made sense that the northern founders would feel some obligation to them beyond just holding the, then young, union together.
From what I’ve seen it’s less that, and more they viewed the issue as self-correcting because they didn’t see chattel slavery as economically profitable in the long run (and given the various anti-slavery southerners who owned slaves and also had issues with their finances, they were probably very aware of the fact). And they were more or less right, slavery was largely unprofitable in the southern agricultural system…up until the widespread use of the cotton gin. The belief that slavery would fade away was defeated by technological innovation that prolonged it.
Also cotton demand exploding during the early Industrial Revolution. Basically economic influences that couldn’t be foreseen.
Makes sense. Strange that technology should prolong slavery, but I suppose given enough time mechanization would have replaced slavery anyway.
The eventual effect of mechanization is a tricky issue. On the one hand, mechanization multiplies the effects of unskilled labor, so there’d be no reason right off the bat to reduce the number of slaves. On the other hand, there are diminishing returns that might set a lower limit on the maximum number of slaves an owner might profitably own; machines require maintenance and are vulnerable to sabotage, meaning you’d have a greater need for skilled workers you could trust, which pretty much rules out slaves; and, finally, between the machines themselves and the greater output, space becomes an issue, such that past a certain point additional slaves cost you more in space and upkeep than you gain from them as machine operators.
I think you hit on it here – the majority of them believed that slavery was on the way out anyway.
The Founders did wonderful things in their time. I’m sure they believed their descendants would work out the end of slavery.
A million deaths later and we had worked out the solution.
Considering Communism came into vogue not too long after, I’m not so sure we had so much a solution as a rebranding.
A hundred years after the Civil War’s end, the African-Americans were finally freed from the Jim Crow laws, and were then promptly hustled onto the Federal plantation.
Thomas Jefferson PBUH (birthday tomorrow) wrote this in the original draft of the Declaration
Now is this grandstanding? Yes. Is it hypocritical considering all of TJ’s slaves/rape victims? Yes. It’s also blaming King George for forcing slavery on those poor colonists who just can’t help themselves.
That said, it’s still important to show that abolition was at least on the table during the founding. As with most things in American history, just blame the nutty ass South Carolina folks
Considering the effort just to unite and forge this nation, I’ve always considered emancipation to have come quite quickly in the grand scheme of US history.
It did. It is one of the most remarkable progressions of civilization that has ever occurred, and not the only one we have accomplished.
Blacks are the equals of whites, Jews aren’t blood-consuming demons…what’s this site going to try and sell me next? That orphans shouldn’t be used in the mines?
Didja know that irish are whites too and the chinamen are good with numbers? It’s all here in this pamphlet…
Well, the Irish, maybe, but surely not the Italians!
…but we don’t want the Irish!
I intend to write a bit about inalienable rights. I banged something out already, went back and fixed it. Unhappy with it I sat around and thought about it for two weeks now. I am glad I did. More than a few important things have occurred to me since. Pretty soon I will quit talking about it and send it in.
“Writing is re-writing”. Seriously, every time I’ve written something good, I re-wrote it numerous times. I’m sure there are people for whom first drafts are brilliant, and I’m also sure I’m not one of them.
My first drafts are always brilliant. I wait a few days and read it over and…what idiot wrote this shit?!
Then I re-write. This keeps going and going and going…
But seriously, I have it nailed in my head, now to just get it on paper. It is an important subject and one that no satisfactory justification has been given that I know of. Everyone I read just says ‘We cant justify this by any means other than ‘god given’ so we will just go with that.’ This irritates me so I gave it a shot.
Speaking of slavery…Slavers kill cash cows and eat seed corn. They just cant help themselves.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-venezuela-brazil-electricity-idUKKBN17E2B8?il=0
I’ll just leave this here.
Also… no footnotes? I’m outraged!
Just thought I would add that, Abradolf Lincler partially approves of this article.
In the neverending annals of things that piss me off: someone on Twitter (yeah, yeah) linked just a screenshot of the headline from this piece, which makes a weak sorta defense of Spicer’s comments yesterday re: Hitler, Germans, and the gassing of the latter by the former. Now, I don’t know whether the author is right in his analysis of European Judaism and twentieth century ethnography; but he is Jewish, and I’m not, so I’m willing to defer to his knowledge on the matter. And his larger point is full-throated defense of Israel as a redoubt for Jews when civil societies in other countries collapse.
But you wouldn’t know any of that from the Tweet. The screenshot is stuck out there as if to say, This guy, amiright? And the responses are, as you’d expect, pretty critical of the thesis, which they didn’t read, and the author, whose name they don’t even have: he’s a bigot, antisemite, ohmygod the alt-right will say anything in defense of Trump, etc. I
tl:dr, we live in the dumbest of times.
Indeed. Exhibit #290384902 =
Ergo = ban cars
re: spicer’s remarks
I purposely haven’t read anything about it because i refuse to participate in what appears to be one of the orgies of stupidity i’ve seen to-date…
…but my impression was he simply said, “Hitler never used chemical weapons” (emphasis on WEAPONS) and additionally never used them on his own people, a la Assad (allegedly), Ergo = Assad (worse than) Hitler.
A stupid comparison, but as far as the details go, ‘technically accurate’. Hitler had gas-weapon stockpiles and specifically didn’t use them for reasons much debated over many years… none of which really needs getting into.
But from what i can tell everyone (including Soave, natch) has decided that they should apply the most dishonest-possible interpretation of his comment, and assume he was actually *denying the holocaust happened*
I have decided the right posture here is to ignore the whole thing as much as possible and continue hating everyone involved.
(including Soave, natch)
I only saw Soave’s comment on the links yesterday, but he at least wasn’t inferring that Spicer was denying the Holocaust, more pushing the typical holier-than-thou lecturing about “how dare anyone actually understand the distinction between chemical weapons and chemicals used for executions”.
In short, it’s his typical safe, cowardly little virtue signalling, no more stupid that say, his constant historical ignorance.
I don’t really go there at this point.
If this point had been involved in some way in Spicer’s response, I think he would’ve had an easier time defending himself. Stammering out “what I meant was that he didn’t gas his own people” was pulling the trigger on the pistol that he’d already pointed into his own mouth.
If he couldn’t already hear voices in his mind shrieking “you mean Jews didn’t count as Germans?” he is not qualified to be a PR person.
He stepped in a steaming pile of shit and rather than go “oops – that was a big pile of shit, let me step back” he picked up the shit and smeared it all over his face.
Not that the Team Blue ‘Holocaust Denier’ attack isn’t laughably dishonest and absurd, but Spicer contributed materially to his own disgrace here.
i quote =
I think spicer specially said “used chemical weapons”
anyone who tries to pretend that saying, “Hitler didn’t use chemical weapons” should be understood as “Hitler didn’t gas the jews” is a fucking asshole who is purposely misinterpreting someone’s intent to mean something it obviously wasn’t.
Its so fucking stupid its not worth belaboring. But its just the kind of petty-mendaciousness that i specifically avoid reading CNN/WaPo/NYT etc. for. That this sort of thing is now de rigeur @ Reason is pathetic.
I must’ve missed the headline, I was more thinking about the use of the term ‘chemical gas attack’. I’m not going to defend Soave being a cunt, because that’s self evident.
Gilmore – the whole quote is something like “The US didn’t use chemical weapons in WWII. Not even Hitler did.” The immediate context was “use of chemical weapons in WWII.” Thus, reading his statement as limited to use of chemical weapons in actual warfare seems mandatory – that’s what he said.
It was bloody obvious what he meant, he came out afterward and apologized for making an inapt comparison, but of course in this, the dumbest of times, you’re not allowed to flub a line without letting leak some occulted truth about your character. We’re a bunch of fucking Freudian psychologists again. So there are still idiots making ominous noises about the administration minimizing the Holocaust.
Excuse me, it’s been seventy fucking years. Nobody in the US, outside certain campus Muslim groups, denies the Holocaust. If anything, our obsessive need to assuage fears that we might somehow inadvertently minimize the Holocaust does more to minimize the Holocaust than explicitly minimizing the Holocaust. It makes us all a bunch of preachy retards.
Nobody in the US, outside certain campus Muslim groups,
….and certain morons on the internet.
Well, sure, but the point is: nobody worth freaking out about. Certainly not the press secretary.
Sargon had a piece on this.
“America has been a wonderful host country for the Jewish people, but we’re still guests. I pray the current embrace will last forever, but the only place American Jews are guaranteed security is in our own home, Israel.”
American Jews are Americans until and unless some awful disaster (which God forbid) turns us into some kind of post-apocalyptic Nazi hellhole. Not that I’m ruling that out, but that’s pretty much what it would take.
And the idea that there’s more security in Israel than America strikes me as kind of…weird.
I had the same reaction – “Wait – Israel – you mean that place where Jews are subject to random attack pretty much constantly?”
The DoI does make it hard to see slavery as allowed, or at least not encouraged.
All men are created equal sounds like patriarchy if you’re an idiot. Even as a kid I saw that as mankind.
unrelated to slavery, what was it that allowed us to not let women vote? was it the word man taken very literally?
Mankind? MANkind??!! Misogynist shitlord!
*foams at mouth, eats paint chips off of the wall*
I think you have that order backwards.
Nice article sir, good read.
I hope this doesn’t mean that I’m going to have to start reading the actual articles on this site now, cause aint nobody got time for that.
Nice zinger!
The whole article is excellent. You have pleased me, Eddie. Have a liturgy from your second-favorite theocracy.
(well, fine, Montenegro technically hasn’t been a theocracy since mid-19th century but you know what I mean).
Great service, thank you!
Since we’re (kind of) on the subject, anyone ever read the Killer Angels by Michael Shaara?
yeah, it was mandatory reading in high-school. I remember it being excellent
Yeah, had to write a paper on it in College Am History I. I didn’t mind a bit, because it was so engrossing.
Big Bang Theory, but with the laugh track replaced by Ricky Gervais.
Florida Snake. Well, NSW anyway.
Wrong. Victoria is the Florida of Oz. That’s Alabama snake or SC snake.
Calhoun looks a tad too cool.
Great story.