Thaddeus Stevens

[TobyVonKanobi]

"Presume" and "likely" -- pretty thin evidence.

May I presume that you are saying he did not benefit?

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

Very few Christlike fellows in the political or military leadership business. Some folks tend to forget that.

Give me the devil that frees men over the saint that keeps them enslaved.

Yes. There were plenty of sentiments like that expressed on this thread. At the least, I was pointing out that it is not the whole story.

 

[jgoodguy]

"Presume" and "likely" -- pretty thin evidence.

IMHO it is an attempt by TobyVonKanobi to play the Ad hominem game to discreditStephens, pretty much what we have seen before from them earlier in the thread.

 

[ole]

May I presume that you are saying he did not benefit?

I don't know, but you've posted an emphatic condemnation of a crotchety man. I expect some backup stronger than presume and likely.

The idea that his iron works was on the brink of bankruptcy indicates that, whatever benefit he sought wasn't enough. As it was, the furnace method of making iron was obsolete.

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

That

I don't know, but you've posted an emphatic condemnation of a crotchety man. I expect some backup stronger than presume and likely.

The idea that his iron works was on the brink of bankruptcy indicates that, whatever benefit he sought wasn't enough. As it was, the furnace method of making iron was obsolete.

That's like justifying slavery for a plantation owner who was losing money because the business model was nearly obsolete.

 

[jgoodguy]

Yes. There were plenty of sentiments like that expressed on this thread. At the least, I was pointing out that it is not the whole story.

The problem is that you are attacking the personally of the man instead of his politics. In an informal debate, which IMHO this is, that is an Ad hominem Tu quoque informal fallacy. In short opening mouth inserting foot.

In formal debate this gets a participant demerits. Here raspberries.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely an irrelevance.[6]

Tu quoque

Main article: Tu quoque
Ad hominem tu quoque (literally: "You also") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. This argument is fallacious because it does not disprove the argument; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. Indeed, Source A may be in a position to provide personal testimony to support the argument.
For example, a father may tell his son not to start smoking as he will regret it when he is older, and the son may point out that his father is or was a smoker. This does not alter the fact that his son may regret smoking when he is older

Informal Fallacy

An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises fail to support its proposed conclusion.[1] The problem with an informal fallacy often stems from a flaw in reasoning that render the conclusion unpersuasive. In contrast to a formal fallacy of deduction, the error is not merely a flaw in logic.

.

 

[ole]

That


That's like justifying slavery for a plantation owner who was losing money because the business model was nearly obsolete.

Nothing close to equivelancy.

 

[BillO]

I don't know, but you've posted an emphatic condemnation of a crotchety man. I expect some backup stronger than presume and likely.

The idea that his iron works was on the brink of bankruptcy indicates that, whatever benefit he sought wasn't enough. As it was, the furnace method of making iron was obsolete.

I like that, calling Stevens crotchety is kind of like calling Caligula kind of kinky.

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

IMHO it is an attempt by TobyVonKanobi to play the Ad hominem game to discreditStephens, pretty much what we have seen before from them earlier in the thread.

If you, and those endorsing your comment, will make such a presumption about my motives...well, there's no way we can have a constructive conversation, is there?

 

[jgoodguy]

That


That's like justifying slavery for a plantation owner who was losing money because the business model was nearly obsolete.

Could be but you don't see an Northern iron factory owner selling the children of his slaves or their spouses to avoid bankruptcy like a Southern Slaver owner did. Southern factory owners leased slaves on normally 1 year contracts.

 

[jgoodguy]

If you, and those endorsing your comment, will make such a presumption about my motives...well, there's no way we can have a constructive conversation, is there?

I reserve my first amendment rights to have opinions. In post #186, I have presented evidence about Ad hominem fallacies which participants can review and judge your actions.

 

[John Hartwell]

If you, and those endorsing your comment, will make such a presumption about my motives...well, there's no way we can have a constructive conversation, is there?

Constructive conversation requires a common rational basis.

Assertions of opinion are not, however, "evidence" -- merely unsubstantiated opinion. Speculation, opinion, data, evidence, and proof are all very different critters!

Cheers!

jno

 

[ole]

I like that, calling Stevens crotchety is kind of like calling Caligula kind of kinky.

If I had known Stevens, I might well have hated his guts. Maybe not. I try to not denigrate those who came before. I can condemn their actions, but I can't determine their character.

But yes, your comparison is apt.

 

[unionblue]

If you, and those endorsing your comment, will make such a presumption about my motives...well, there's no way we can have a constructive conversation, is there?

TobyVonKanobi,

So let me understand your reasoning.

You can make unsupported assumptions and presumptions about Thaddeus Stevens, but when we comment you do this, we are making presumptions about your motives so we can have no constructive conversations about what you presume and assume about Stevens?

BINGO!

Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

If you, and those endorsing your comment, will make such a presumption about my motives...well, there's no way we can have a constructive conversation, is there?

"Belief does not make truth.
Evidence makes truth.
And belief does not make evidence."

We know what you believe.
Now we wish to know if you can prove it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

An excerpt from a speech by Stevens on December 9, 1862, from the Congressional Globe, vol. 47, part 1, pg. 50.

"...Now, these rebellious States being a Power by the acknowledgment of European nations, and of our own nation, subject and entitled to belligerent rights, have become subject to all the rules of war. I hold the Constitution has no longer the least effect upon them...

Hence I hold that none of the States now in rebellion are entitled to the protection of the Constitution, and I am grieved when I hear those high in authority sometimes talking of the constitutional difficulties of enforcing measures against this belligerent Power, and the next moment disregarding every vestige and semblance of the Constitution by acts which alone are arbitrary...

This talk of restoring the 'Union as it was under the Constitution as it is,' is one of the absurdities which I have heard till I have become sick of it. This Union can never be restored as it was. There are many things which render such an event impossible. This Union shall never, with my consent, be restored under the Constitution as it is, with slavery protected by it."

Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

"No compromise can be made which will have any effect in averting the present difficulty. I regret that fact. But when I see theses states in open rebellion, seizing forts, arsenals and millions of public property, when I see the batteries of seceding states blockading the highways of the nation and their armies in battle array against the flag of the Union; when I see our flage insulted and that insult submitted to, I have no hope that concession, humiliation, and compromise can have any effect whatever."

Thaddeus Stevens speech, January 29, 1861, Congressional Globe, pg. 621.

Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

"The real aggression which one of the states frankly assigns as the reason of secession, is that the North has taken from them the power of government which they have held so long. They have elected the man of their choice President of the United States. The American people have used no violence or malpractise, but they have dared to disobey the commands of slavery, and this is proclaimed as just cause for secession and civil war. Can not the people of the United States elect whom they will for President without stirring up rebellion and requiring humiliating concessions to appease the insurgents? I would take no steps to propitiate such a feeling. Rather than show repentance for the election of Mr. Lincoln with all its consequences I would see this government crumble into a thousand atoms. If I cannot be a freeman let me cease to exist."

From the book, The Life of Thaddeus Stevens, by James Albert Woodburn, Chapter 8, Disunion and No Compromise, pg. 163.

Unionblue

 

[jgoodguy]

"The real aggression which one of the states frankly assigns as the reason of secession, is that the North has taken from them the power of government which they have held so long. They have elected the man of their choice President of the United States. The American people have used no violence or malpractise, but they have dared to disobey the commands of slavery, and this is proclaimed as just cause for secession and civil war. Can not the people of the United States elect whom they will for President without stirring up rebellion and requiring humiliating concessions to appease the insurgents? I would take no steps to propitiate such a feeling. Rather than show repentance for the election of Mr. Lincoln with all its consequences I would see this government crumble into a thousand atoms. If I cannot be a freeman let me cease to exist."

From the book, The Life of Thaddeus Stevens, by James Albert Woodburn, Chapter 8, Disunion and No Compromise, pg. 163.

Unionblue

Them uppity Yankees went and elected their own President.

 

[unionblue]

Stevens in a speech before the Union League in Lancaster, 1863.

"...These base Copperheads would change the Constitution to conciliate the South, but not to hurt slavery. Before this Rebellion began the Constitution bound us hand and foot to the car of human bondage. Now when an all-wise Providence has caused this wicked treason to break those obligations and enable us to strike off their shackles and guarantee universal freedom throughout this grand continent, these vipers, instead of glorying in the opportunity, insist with one voice on reimposing their chains and dooming this fair land, and generation upon generation of human beings, to its blighting curse.

"Of what stuff are such things made? Have they human souls? I doubt if there can be found in the hottest corner of pandemonium cinders black enough and hard enough to make hearts for such inhuman wretches."

Unionblue