Thaddeus Stevens

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I see all the various efforts to take the focus off slavery as a cause of the war as implicit acknowledgement that it is itself indefensible.

 

[John Hartwell]

This is precisely what is wrong with Yankee revisionism...economic issues are often moral issues.

The self-righteous presumption of moral superiority evidently leaves Yankee revisionism blind to the fact that immoral economic policies and self-serving politics are bad morals.

While Yankee revisionism may choose to glorify as one of the "few truly noble figures of the age" a politician who lined his own pockets via legislation harmful to consumers and was a wellspring of "virulent" hatred, I prefer to look for role models with simple morality.

With your last sentence I will fully agree. As the late Stephen Jay Gould observed (speaking of antisemitism) "though I hold no shred of sympathy for active persecution, I cannot excoriate individuals who acquiesced passively in a standard societal judgement. Rail instead against the judgment, and try to understand what motivates men of decent will." Acceptance of slavery was "standard societal judgment" in antebellum America. We should not condemn those who "passively acquiesced" in the "peculiar institution." But, we should recognize and credit those who were "ahead of their time" in identifying slavery as an objective evil -- whatever its economic benefits.

It has frequently been pointed out in these forums that many Abolitionists were also textile mill owners or investors, or otherwise had made considerable profits from slave labor in the south. That is very likely so, but, once they became aware of the moral evil that race slavery represented, they stood firmly and loudly against it -- even though its abolition would infringe on their profits. Sounds like a more "simple morality" to me.

As for your second paragraph/sentence: a good many southern planters, and their supporters, would be quite reasonable targets of such a diatribe.

And finally, the true Revisionism came in the decades following the failure of Reconstruction. In the impulse to "bring us all together", and reunify the country (for sound economic reasons), the current "Southern Cavalier" myths and "Lost Cause" paranoia were adopted wholesale, nationwide. A century ago it was even being taught in public schools right here in nasty old Massachusetts! It is only since the 1950s that a more reasoned, balanced view of the Great American Crisis has begun to emerge. Let's open our eyes and look at the actual record. The old myths and folktales are interesting, instructive, and valuable -- but they are not necessarily accurate history.

jno

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

If it is true that the southern State seceded primarily for tariff reasons then they must have been certain that upon being elected Lincoln would raise tariffs. The main thing the Southern States dislike about Lincoln being elected was his desire to stop the spread of slavery in the territories. The South probably did secede for economic reasons, but the economic concerns were the loss of the economic benefits derived from owning slaves.

Major Bill

Reading is fundamental.

I did not say they seceded primarily for tariff reasons.

 

[ForeverFree]

SC Partizan,

Too easy, too much of a 'knee-jerk' response.

Thaddeus Stevens, in my own view, was a hard man born a century too early.

He comes across as a 21st century man in views, his quotes, and his beliefs in the equality of all men. That he was born in a time were human slavery was considered 'normal' and legal and had the ability to see what a wrong it was strikes me that he was a remarkable human being and a courageous man.

"The face of evil?" I'm sure there were those who thought such, but they're dead. Stevens was harsh to those who supported inequality, slavery, and those who had no desire to help those in need or in the despair of bondage. To those folks, I'm sure he came across as evil, harsh, unforgiving, an implacable enemy who would never give them a moments peace or rest.

Thank God.

Unionblue

Stevens was a mean SOB who was merciless to his enemies. He was not a Ghandi, not even a Lincoln. Those attitudes haunt his legacy, but he might not have had a legacy - an impact - if not for his relentless attitude.

The world needs men who are driven... but not too many of them.

- Alan

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

With your last sentence I will fully agree. As the late Stephen Jay Gould observed (speaking of antisemitism) "though I hold no shred of sympathy for active persecution, I cannot excoriate individuals who acquiesced passively in a standard societal judgement. Rail instead against the judgment, and try to understand what motivates men of decent will." Acceptance of slavery was "standard societal judgment" in antebellum America. We should not condemn those who "passively acquiesced" in the "peculiar institution." But, we should recognize and credit those who were "ahead of their time" in identifying slavery as an objective evil -- whatever its economic benefits.

It has frequently been pointed out in these forums that many Abolitionists were also textile mill owners or investors, or otherwise had made considerable profits from slave labor in the south. That is very likely so, but, once they became aware of the moral evil that race slavery represented, they stood firmly and loudly against it -- even though its abolition would infringe on their profits. Sounds like a more "simple morality" to me.

As for your second paragraph/sentence: a good many southern planters, and their supporters, would be quite reasonable targets of such a diatribe.

And finally, the true Revisionism came in the decades following the failure of Reconstruction. In the impulse to "bring us all together", and reunify the country (for sound economic reasons), the current "Southern Cavalier" myths and "Lost Cause" paranoia were adopted wholesale, nationwide. A century ago it was even being taught in public schools right here in nasty old Massachusetts! It is only since the 1950s that a more reasoned, balanced view of the Great American Crisis has begun to emerge. Let's open our eyes and look at the actual record. The old myths and folktales are interesting, instructive, and valuable -- but they are not necessarily accurate history.

jno

Martin King had more reason to spread hatred about race injustice than did Stevens. King instead chose to set a moral example, unlike Stevens who, as you say, promoted virulent hatred.

Oh, my gosh...To see how the New England mill owners immorally traded weapons and other contraband with Confederates to get feedstock cotton for themselves and export it to Europe, you may wish to read the article below. However, anyone not interested in facts contrary to Yankee revisionism may predictably ignore it.

Nonetheless, it's just the way it was.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/trading-with-the-enemy/

 

[OpnCoronet]

I see all the various efforts to take the focus off slavery as a cause of the war as implicit acknowledgement that it is itself indefensible.

Exactly right. Before and during the war there were many defenses of slavery, but those defenses, both legal, social, religious, economic and governmental, but after the war and Emancipation, those defenses were rendered impotent, if not ludicrous. So was born the 'lost cause' mythos, that attempts to defend secession and southern nationaliism without having to admit the importance of Chattle slavery to them(those same secession and southern nationalism)

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

Stevens was a mean SOB who was merciless to his enemies. He was not a Ghandi, not even a Lincoln. Those attitudes haunt his legacy, but he might not have had a legacy - an impact - if not for his relentless attitude.

The world needs men who are driven... but not too many of them.

- Alan

Yes, like Bernie Ebbers, Kenneth Lay, and Dennis Kozlowski, Stevens was driven to become one of America's richest men. But unlike miscreants Ebbers, Lay, and Kozlowski, he directly used his legislative status to encourage the adoption of laws that engorged his wealth.

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

I see all the various efforts to take the focus off slavery as a cause of the war as implicit acknowledgement that it is itself indefensible.

I see this assertion as implicit acknowledgement that some observers don't want to consider any other facts, especially those failing to conform to Yankee revisionism. The presumption of moral superiority entraps the dogma with false tunnel vision.

 

[John Hartwell]

Child labor laws were economic issues and also moral issues. The inability of Yankee revisionism to recognize that discloses a shameful misplaced presumption of moral superiority and a blindness for any facts that fail to conform to that presumption.

I don't recall anyone here, Yankee or otherwise, saying that child labor was a good thing. It was, however, a generally accepted practice, and had been for centuries (in every part of the country). It's abolition would be a long and difficult process. But, by the 1830s, most northeastern states at least, had begun issuing laws protecting children from its worse abuses. The number of hours children could work were limited; factory owners were required to see that they attended school (attendance was not compulsory anywhere, though every community maintained free public schools), etc. There may well have been similar laws in southern states, I don't know.

Although I have heard little of it here, anyone claiming a "Yankee moral superiority" is simply wrong (not to mention impolite). The whole country acquiesced in the social, economic, and moral injustices of their time, and the whole country must share the burden of guilt. Only a few individuals stood out in the fight to end them -- and they deserve out recognition.

jno

 

[James B White]

Exactly right. Before and during the war there were many defenses of slavery, but those defenses, both legal, social, religious, economic and governmental, but after the war and Emancipation, those defenses were rendered impotent, if not ludicrous. So was born the 'lost cause' mythos, that attempts to defend secession and southern nationaliism without having to admit the importance of Chattle slavery to them(those same secession and southern nationalism)

I agree. It's an example of the victors getting to write the history. The northern victors convinced the former secessionists that slavery was not only legally unacceptable, but morally wrong, so secessionists had to change their story if they wanted their cause to be palatable in the post-war and modern world.

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

I don't recall anyone here, Yankee or otherwise, saying that child labor was a good thing. It was, however, a generally accepted practice, and had been for centuries (in every part of the country). It's abolition would be a long and difficult process. But, by the 1830s, most northeastern states at least, had begun issuing laws protecting children from its worse abuses. The number of hours children could work were limited; factory owners were required to see that they attended school (attendance was not compulsory anywhere, though every community maintained free public schools), etc. There may well have been similar laws in southern states, I don't know.

Although I have heard little of it here, anyone claiming a "Yankee moral superiority" is simply wrong (not to mention impolite). The whole country acquiesced in the social, economic, and moral injustices of their time, and the whole country must share the burden of guilt. Only a few individuals stood out in the fight to end them -- and they deserve out recognition.

jno

Reading is fundamental.

rpkennedy asked me to provide examples of economic issues that are also moral issues. He was questioning whether economic issues can be moral issues. I cited child labor as one example.

The practice of replying to posts without actually reading them is "simply wrong (not to mention impolite)."

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

I agree. It's an example of the victors getting to write the history. The northern victors convinced the former secessionists that slavery was not only legally unacceptable, but morally wrong, so secessionists had to change their story if they wanted their cause to be palatable in the post-war and modern world.

See. Here is another example of the false accusation that "we are fighting for independence not slavery" was merely a post-war theme.

I've said several times in this thread that Davis said it in July 1864. Those who don't know about it would benefit by researching the circumstances under which it was said.

Presently it is obvious that some respondents simply are not reading what I write. The practice is yet another example underscoring how Yankee revisionism makes the future more predictable than the past. Specifically, Yankee revisionism can be reliably predicted to repeat infinitely into the future the same false assertions when confronted with facts contrary to the dogma.

 

[ForeverFree]

Yes, like Bernie Ebbers, Kenneth Lay, and Dennis Kozlowski, Stevens was driven to become one of America's richest men. But unlike miscreants Ebbers, Lay, and Kozlowski, he directly used his legislative status to encourage the adoption of laws that engorged his wealth.

TVK,

Your association of Stevens with Ebbers, Lay, and Kozlowski might seem cute to you, but they make it hard for me to take your argument seriously. No... it makes it impossible for me to take your argument seriously.

If your whole view of Stevens is that his lifelong advocay of rights and equality counts for noting; and that he was somehow unique (and uniquely corrupt) in passing laws that helped his interests in Congress; and that he was as corrupt as convicted offenders like Ebbers and Lay... well, there's just not too left much to talk about.

"Our enemy has a general now. This man is rich, therefore we cannot buy him. He does not want higher office, therefore we cannot allure him. He is not vicious, therefore, we cannot seduce him. He is in earnest. He means what he says. He is bold. He cannot be flattered or frightened."
- Howell Cobb, Speaker of the House, Rep-GA; in response to a speech by Stevens during the debates of the 1850 Compromise

- Alan

 

[rpkennedy]

See. Here is another example of the false accusation that "we are fighting for independence not slavery" was merely a post-war theme.

I've said several times in this thread that Davis said it in July 1864. Those who don't know about it would benefit by researching the circumstances under which it was said.

Presently it is obvious that some respondents simply are not reading what I write. The practice is yet another example underscoring how Yankee revisionism makes the future more predictable than the past. Specifically, Yankee revisionism can be reliably predicted to repeat infinitely into the future the same false assertions when confronted with facts contrary to the dogma.

How widespread was the idea of independence over slavery in mid-1864? If it was so widespread instead of the president's opinion, why was there such a divisive debate on whether or not to use slaves as soldiers in 1864? There is no getting around the fact that the South's cornerstone was slavery (as Alexander Stephens pointed out in 1861) since, without slavery, what was going to divide the North and South from one another. Without slavery, there is no reason for secession.

R

 

[John Hartwell]

Oh, my gosh...To see how the New England mill owners immorally traded weapons and other contraband with Confederates to get feedstock cotton for themselves and export it to Europe, you may wish to read the article below. However, anyone not interested in facts contrary to Yankee revisionism may predictably ignore it.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/trading-with-the-enemy/

Neither I nor anyone with a whit of knowledge or common sense denies this. It's not anything new or shocking. No one is defending it or ignoring it! It's all been hashed over on these forums in the past. You are a recent member, and I don't fault you for not knowing that. But, many of us have done a great deal of study on these topics -- we are not easily "shocked" by 150-year-old facts.

jno

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I see this assertion as implicit acknowledgement that some observers don't want to consider any other facts, especially those failing to conform to Yankee revisionism. The presumption of moral superiority entraps the dogma with false tunnel vision.

So why are you trying so hard to direct attention away from slavery?

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Can you accept that there were indeed people who did go to war to defend the right to own slaves, and people who went to war to take away that right?

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

What is the point of this? You make it seem like "Yankees" were the only ones "working" children - are you saying that, for example, slave children did not work in the fields of the South? Are you saying that farm children of any race did not work on Southern farms?

As I recall, a coalition of people from all sections of America worked together to regulate child labor, including many "Yankees." I say hats off to all of them for their progressive advocacy in behalf of the young.

- Alan

Reading is fundamental.

rpkennedy asked me to provide examples of economic issues that are also moral issues. He was questioning whether economic issues can be moral issues. I cited child labor as one example.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that some commenters are replying to my posts without actually reading them.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I seem to recall that some of the worst epithets that could be used against Northerners during the war were "Abolitionists" and "Black Republicans." That's highly suggestive. If the uproar was about tariffs, why bring the Abolitionists into it?

 

[ForeverFree]

I agree. It's an example of the victors getting to write the history. The northern victors convinced the former secessionists that slavery was not only legally unacceptable, but morally wrong, so secessionists had to change their story if they wanted their cause to be palatable in the post-war and modern world.

That is an interesting thought. Now, even after the war, there were still many people who stated outright that slavery was OK. For example, Jefferson Davis continued to portray slaves as a "contented" lot after the war. And the United Daughters of the Confederacy persisted in censoring school books that portrayed slavery as anything other than a benign institution.

But, as time went by, the notion that slavery was "good" seemed to die. The virulent defense of the institution just phased out. I'm sure somebody has written about this - about how the ideology of the righteousness of slavery died (even as Jim Crow took root and spread). That might make for an interesting read.

- Alan