Another post-Kelly Shelby Foote thread

[KansasFreestater]

Full disclosure: As some of you already know, I don't like Shelby Foote very much, and I'm particularly galled by what an outsized role Ken Burns gave Foote in his Civil War series.
More disclosure: Though I don't share Gen. John Kelly's perspective precisely, I nevertheless think much of his meaning last week has been distorted, either through intellectual laziness or deliberate malice.
Final disclosure: I have a love-hate relationship with Ta-Nehisi Coates. When he's good (in my opinion), he's really good; other times, he makes me pull my hair out.

Having said all that, I find this article interesting, and as Bee did the other day with her Shelby Foote-Ken Burns thread, I'm throwing this out there to get folks' comments, since I'd be interested to hear your thoughts:
http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/02...rica-insatiable-haters-like-ta-nehisi-coates/

Triple-red-flag warning: Linked article is from a site with a particular political slant, it contains references to modern politics, and I am nevertheless begging you all to avoid the kinds of comments that could get this thread shut down by moderators. Thank you!

 

[KansasFreestater]

Here's something I have a problem with. From the article (about halfway down):

But for writers like Chait and The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates, compromise was a bad thing because it preserved slavery. That such compromises limited slavery's spread and put it on the path to extinction carries no weight with them.
​

The author has it wrong. The country was not moving consistently down the path to slavery's extinction. Ironically, only one paragraph earlier, the author himself mentions the Kansas-Nebraska Act, a "compromise" that in fact repealed the Missouri Compromise! Thus, the 1854 legislation expanded the potential domain of slavery. And of course the Dred Scott decision in 1857 really opened up the gates for slavery's expansion.

 

[cash]

The author of the article repeatedly lies about Ta-Nehisi Coates. I've met Coates and spoken with him. He's a very impressive young man who is nothing like the caricature drawn by the author.

Also, as you point out, KF, the author is wrong about the history as well. Coates is far more knowledgeable about this history than the author, and far more correct about it.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

I read the article and tried to understand the slant and players. I'm glad Cash answered and now I can say, "what Cash says."

 

[Bee]

Having said all that, I find this article interesting, and as Bee did the other day with her Shelby Foote-Ken Burns thread, I'm throwing this out there to get folks' comments, since I'd be interested to hear your thoughts:
http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/02...rica-insatiable-haters-like-ta-nehisi-coates/

My thoughts? I am sorry to see this article given any more exposure than it already has. It has no redeeming value, whatsoever.

(you had to ask, Miss Kathy )

 

[wausaubob]

The author of the article repeatedly lies about Ta-Nehisi Coates. I've met Coates and spoken with him. He's a very impressive young man who is nothing like the caricature drawn by the author.

Also, as you point out, KF, the author is wrong about the history as well. Coates is far more knowledgeable about this history than the author, and far more correct about it.

Coates and Burns and Foote can be discussed ad infinitem.
However there were four national elections in a row, and in two of them blacks go to vote. In each election the voters of at least the northern section of the United States voted that:
1. The geographical expansion of slavery should not be allowed.
2. The Civil War should be prosecuted to conclusion.
3. Reconstruction along the lines of the 14th Amendment should continue.
4. President Grant had the country headed in the right direction, with open immigration, affirmation of the national debt and civil rights for blacks.
The entire "failure to compromise" mythology implicitly contends that those four elections were not valid.
As noted previously, a failure to compromise statement without a compromise identified is a general indictment of the results of the Civil War. Which of those results is the speaker indicting?

 

[wausaubob]

Their were many compromises at and every step the coerced labor advocates expanded slavery into Missouri, acquired more territory suitable for slavery, swept more slaves into the United States in Florida, Louisiana and Texas. They imported more slaves legally before 1808 and more illegally after that.
It wasn't until 1862, with Britain watching the United States carefully, that the United States began to enforce the laws against the slave trade.
Arguing with Coates is silly. Try arguing with Earl Russell, or W.E.B. DuBois.
What would Sun Tzu advise? If your enemy requests an armistice they are plotting?

 

[wausaubob]

How many more slave states should have created? Should California been split in half? Should slavery have been inserted into Kansas?
Should Texas have been split into several slave states to prevent a 30/10 ratio of paid labor/coerced labor from ever forming?

 

[huskerblitz]

You're conflating the issue. First, elections are only one way the nation can compromise. And at that, the presidential election is not even where most compromises even come into play. Secondly, I think the argument isn't there were not prior compromises, but rather a failure to compromise further is what helped to bring about the war. Thirdly, our modern day compromises mean nothing to what happened. None of us were around to promise, approve or disapprove any idea we put forth.

 

[7thWisconsin]

Here's something I have a problem with. From the article (about halfway down):

But for writers like Chait and The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates, compromise was a bad thing because it preserved slavery. That such compromises limited slavery's spread and put it on the path to extinction carries no weight with them.
​

The author has it wrong. The country was not moving consistently down the path to slavery's extinction. Ironically, only one paragraph earlier, the author himself mentions the Kansas-Nebraska Act, a "compromise" that in fact repealed the Missouri Compromise! Thus, the 1854 legislation expanded the potential domain of slavery. And of course the Dred Scott decision in 1857 really opened up the gates for slavery's expansion.

I don't see how any of the compromises limited slavery. Rather than merely protecting it, they were incrementally expanding its legality.