Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
No, it is not fascism, but racism, yes. With the other stuff, a tyrant, suppression of freedom of speech, etc., there is enough of an argument to counter your speculation and opinion there. While it may seem clear cut to you, this comes across as emotional rather than factual proof.
Frankly, the entire thrust of your Helper presentation only does one thing for me, and that is that it reinforces the idea that slavery was the main thrust, fear, concern and objective of the Southern leadership. That they had become so emotional, so paranoid that they could not see that their very extreme reactions were dooming the very institution they wanted to protect and doing the very same things you claim took place in the North. The censorship of freedom of speech, permitting no discussion on the problem of slavery or any alternative to it. The establishment of a class society with the planters and slaveholders at the top at the expense of the rest of the white population and the continuation of millions in chains to maintain that class.
Yes, the controversy of the Hinton Helper brought out much, being debated at the time of Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, but it all came back to slavery, not tariffs, not State's rights, but what would happen if the slaves were encouraged to revolt? What if the Republican party was endorsing the idea that slavery should be gotten rid of? What if abolitionists were coming South and encouraging the slaves to revolt? The one central theme, slavery and its hold on the South. The strength and fatal weakness of the South, its means of wealth and destruction, the cancer it could not live without, the one raw nerve that would make the election of a speaker nearly impossible, that would make government grind almost to a halt, in order to answer those fears of what could or would happen to that institution.
An opinion on the debate, and thank you for your many references and efforts to bring the material concerning the Hinton Helper to the board. I appreciate it.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Gentlemen,
If I may? I have read a number of your deep and analytical statements, and have deffinately come to the conclusion that I made on another thread, that no matter what the argument, no matter how forceful it is put, no matter how many quotes from other distinguished authors and journelists, if one BELIEVES in what he or she, believes in, absolutely no statement or article will change his or her opinion. It will depend on interpretation of said subject, and...................everyone will have his or her interpretation of it. If one believes in what one truly believes in, ........nothing will change his or her, mind! I believe that, that is what has happened here. These posts are a little above me, so I will not get into such a deep discussion, but, I am willing to wager, that basically, nothing has been changed. Most of you will still believe in what you started out believing with, in the first place. For instance, I still believe that slavery was not the sole issue and cause of the war. As to whether I believe if the states had the right to secceed? Well, there are plenty of arguments for both sides. You can quote from every law book or whatever, all you want to, and yet, the South secceeded, and the interpretations of either side, were loud and clear. Whether they were right or not, I guess the winners decided that question. I, personally believe that the South did what they believed was right at the time, therefore, I would go with, .......yes, the South was right! But, I suppose it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference, I doubt any one has had his or her, mind changed. One thing though......it does make for very interesting reading.
Hence, the ongoing debate, as it is interesting to see where each of our fellow boardmembers gets his reasons from to support his/her view.
As for when the debate heats up, one can only get pure gold from melting base metals under a truly hot flame. The trick is not to get burned in the process.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I’m not sure what type of fascism you are referring to
------------------
The only type there is. I approach this from the standpoint of political science, which is what I was trained in in both undergrad and graduate levels. Fascism is a specific type of political system that involves severe social and economic regimentation under an authoritarian dictatorship which forcibly suppresses dissent and subordinates the individual to the state.
but it is quite clear that Helper’s book and the Republicans were pretty much in fact, fascists.
---------------------
No, they weren't. That's an unjustifiable statement.
Fascism is about emotion taking the place of reason.
----------------------
No, it's not. By that definition the secessionists were fascists when they let their emotions about slavery take the place of reason.
Of images and words having the power to inflame the masses in the direction you want and also the rationale of violence and the justification of force.
-----------------------
Not quite. You're conflating propaganda with one aspect of fascism.
All under a system of a centralized government in a time of peace.
-------------------------
Not just any centralized government, but a totalitarian government. That is very different from anything that has ever existed in the United States.
And while the ending of slavery in and of itself is not fascism, the Republican endorsed Helper Book’s demeanor, words, inciting language and the plan itself all were fascism.
-----------------------------
Not at all. Not in any respect. That is a complete misrepresentation.
The elimination of the right to vote. Abolishing the Freedom of the Press,
------------------------------
What about violating the freedom of speech in order to protect slavery?
and my personal favorite, showing the racist mind set, "A Tax of Sixty Dollars on every Slaveholder for each and every Negro in his Possession at the present time, or at any intermediate time between now and the 4th of July, 1863 —— said Money to be Applied to the transportation of the Blacks to Liberia, to their Colonization in Central or South America, or to their Comfortable Settlement within the Boundaries of the United States." ......
-------------------------------
That's not necessarily a racist mindset, though. If support for colonization was seen as the only way to ensure blacks would be treated fairly, then I would reject the characterization of that as a racist mindset.
Since the Republican’s paid to have to book distributed and he is quoting Weed and Sherman himself claimed it a manifesto I see no reason to believe ‘We’ should not be considered anything but what it is.
-------------------------
Helper wrote the book before any Republican ever read it. To claim "We" means the Republicans is dishonesty on the part of the person who wrote the broadside.
And just FYI This was not from Helper’s first book but the Modified version the Republican’s wanted.
--------------------
No, that's wrong. It's from the original version of the book, published in 1857, before the Republicans thought of endorsing it.
To not ascribe ‘we’ to the Republicans in this instance.......ok. Feel free. But to tell me I am misrepresenting something is misrepresenting me.
------------------------
As it turns out, the misrepresentation was done by the person who wrote the broadside--you simply copied and pasted their misrepresentation.
I was going to reply with rebuttal but as I said I am done with this thread. ( I actually deleted photo materials. Why waste the bandwidth) And I am. No matter how offensive and utterly wrong I find the reply. But I will note that although I do not have the education others repeatedly feel the need to comment on, I have read extensively. And that reading actually has included Bergson, Schopenhauer, Nietzche and yes, even Sorel. So to parade a supposed education in front of me as proof I do not know the root philosphy of fascism is not impressing me. Sorry. Hope ya'll enjoy the thread. As I will not be checking back in on it. My apologies to all.
And that reading actually has included Bergson, Schopenhauer, Nietzche and yes, even Sorel.
----------
None of whom were fascists. The fascists did cherrypick a few selected ideas from Bergson and Sorel, especially Sorel's "Theory of Violence," but to say one understand fascism by reading them is like saying one understands Shakespeare from studying part of the alphabet.
Better would be Giovanni Gentile, who wrote extensively on what fascism was and what fascists believed. Also, Mussolini articulated the beliefs of fascism as well, especially when he said, "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato," which means everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.
The nice thing about having "a supposed education" was having experts in the field point the way and guide the reading.
Fascism is present everywhere. It's when it comes into power is when it becomes a problem. The founding fathers knew that, and built in safeguards. It's been attempted many times in many countries with varying degrees of success. When it does succeed, it is temporary, as it requires the people to submit and, in the long run, they do not.
China or Cuba may be the last this world knows. Maybe not. I could be wrong.
"We cannot bring ourselves to think that Mr. Lincoln has done anything that would furnish a precedent dangerous to our liberties, or in any way overstepped the just limits of his constitutional discretion. If his course has been unusual, it was because the danger was equally so."
James Russell Lowell in the January 1864 North American Review.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I would not have thought such a poet to be of such limited cognitive capacity. He 'cannot bring himself to think?' Why? Is he playing the ostritch? Is he an 'ends justify the means' guy? I find it quite easy to think that Lincoln was and is a danger to liberty, and "way overstepped the just limits of his constitutional discretion." BTW, where in the Constitution is the President given the 'discretion' for unconstitutional acts. And just what is the danger of which he speaks - that secession will end the Union; it is an illusion as proven by history.
His statement is no more than propaganda and self-serving rhetoric. It belongs in the 'Philosophy of Coersion' thread.
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
