The argument that the Civil War was not about slavery is a little silly. Even the opponents of that notion admit it was about the economy. The southern economy was absolutely dependent on slavery. Witness the fact that the southern economy was in the dumper for a century after the war until the advent of widespread air conditioning and union busting.
ChrisH-
I have to say that I was clenching my teeth for the first couple of minutes in this conversation when it seemed that Jim was drawing an equivalency between Neo-Nazis and Neo-Confederates on the right and Antifa on the left. Personally, I'm not one who buys into that notion, and although I have issues with Antifa tactics, I view those forces on the right as way, way worse..."Issues with tactics?" For me, tactics are everything. From external observation, the uniforms and conduct of antifa and the KKK are identical. They both wear masks, they both use violence, they both show no interest in being tolerant of another's free speech. They both look a whole lot like Nazi stormtroopers did back in Germany in 1932. Both groups represent a mortal threat to civil society. If it walks like a stormtrooper, and if it quacks like a stormtrooper - its a freaking stormtrooper. There are no "friendly stormtroopers." Stormtroopers have no place in civil society. It fascinates me how people who are nominally "liberal" and "tolerant" will end up tacitly supporting the use of violence and terror as long as it is employed to suppress speech that they don't happen to like. "Tsk-tsk, finger-wag, I have issues with your tactics." I saw what antifa did at Berkeley to stop Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking there. Milo's speech was so dangerous that violent tactics needed to be employed in order to stop it. Antifa was there to make it happen. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/milo-yiannopoulos-uc-berkeley-event-cancelled Speech = dangerous = violence required to stop it. Tactics are everything. They're the difference between a peaceful protest and a terrorist who will happily run over a bunch of people with a truck in support of his cause. Tactics are everything. Tactics are what separates Ghandi and MLK from a Jihadi suicide bomber. The tactics of terror mean the end of civil society. Employing the tactics of terror lead directly to civil war. KKK is a terror group. Antifa is a terror group. That's because both groups use the tactics of violence and terror. Period. Full stop.
Christopher H wrote:
No, secession is not specifically prohibited in the Constitution. But to set the historical record straight, what started the Civil War was NOT the North declaring war on the South. Rather, it was the Confederates' bombardment of the Union garrison at Ft. Sumter that was the opening salvo of the Civil War.
…a podcast that addresses many of the most serious issues facing us is followed by a debate over the Lee statue, slavery and the constitution.
While I rather hesitate to wade into the discussion here as I really don’t care much one way or the other regarding the monuments. It reminds me of the arguments regarding the use of the flag that was a big thing years ago when I was in art school. I feel a need to point something out though that I haven’t seen mentioned yet in this discussion. Monuments and other sculptures have many different meanings to different people. There is no one “right” meaning or message that they convey. The artist who created them, or the people who commissioned them might have had a concept they wished to convey, but this in no way means it’s what viewers take away from a piece. Frankly it would take a surreal amount of talent for an artist to craft a visual work that conveyed one and only one message to all who viewed it.
The point I want to make with this is that it would be a mistake to think that everyone interprets a monument the same way you do. To you a piece might be all about glorifying slavery. If you think that is the one true meaning of the piece then anyone who is in favor of the piece must be all about glorifying slavery. Yet they might well think the piece is all about states rights, and if they think that is the one true meaning then your dislike of the work means you oppose states rights. Someone else might well just associate with the piece as a decorative statue that has overlooked many a wonderful afternoon spent with friends or family playing in the park. To them it may have become a symbol of good times in their community, a sort of inanimate “friend” they’ve grown up with.
We may all have a sole meaning attached to such works, or more likely we will have complex, nuanced or even conflicting reactions to something like this. What I highly doubt we have is the same understanding of a single piece. As such I feel like it’s important to always remember that others are not reacting to things for the same reasons you are. If someone likes something you hate that doesn’t mean they are liking it for the reason you hate it. Odds are better they are liking it for a reason that doesn’t resonate with you and what you hate doesn’t resonate strongly with them.
chipshot-
I agree with the sentiment. But try this on. Instead of feeling sad, perhaps you can view this as a great local case study of just how powerfully such subjects can distract people away from critical issues that really need our full attention, and instead towards "wedge issues" that can never be resolved satisfactorily. That's because a) humans just work this way by default, and b) someone else out there knows this, and is making good use of that information. If (with all due humility) we see ourselves as the smart, rational ones in the world, and we get sidetracked by this stuff, how must the rest of the country be faring? Neurobiologically, "true belief" sits in the amygdala. The "Backfire Effect" studies tell us (via MRI scans) that if you challenge any of those true beliefs, you get a "my personal survival is at stake" response from that part of the brain. If my group was making a shitload of money running the various rackets, and didn't want anyone paying attention, the very first thing I'd do would be to assemble a list of left/right non-monetary issues that would hopelessly trigger the true believers on both sides, and for which there was no "split the difference" compromise available. And then, every single time my cartel had its gravy train threatened, I'd make sure to launch an event that would blow the cartel-income-threatening issue completely off the airwaves. "I am never upset for the reason I think." All we can do to protect ourselves is to become conscious of the fact that we are upset about something, and then ask the question, "might someone else be profiting by me getting upset?" Anyone hear about Bernie Sanders' "medicare for everyone?" What with statues, Nazis, and other important things, there's just no energy left to talk about an issue that more than 60% of Americans support.Incredible and sad how...a podcast that addresses many of the most serious issues facing us is followed by a debate over the Lee statue, slavery and the constitution.
Peace, Order and Good Government. . . only in Canada, you say? Pity!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-john-a-macdonald-name-1.4265561
The advantage America has is that some Presidents name their buildings before they’re dead.
http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/01/the-crazy-years-and-their-empty-moral-vocabulary
The main sign of when madness has possessed a crowd, or a civilization, is when the people are fearful of imaginary or trivial dangers but nonchalant about real and deep dangers. When that happens, there is gradual deterioration of mores, orientation, and social institutions—the Crazy Years have arrived.
Craziness can be measured by maladaptive behavior. The behavior the society uses to solve one kind of problem, when applied to an incorrect category, disorients it. When this happens the whole society, even if some members are aware of the disorientation, cannot reach the correct conclusion, or react in a fashion that preserves society from harm. As if society were a dolphin that called itself a fish: when it suffered the sensation of drowning, it would dive. But a dolphin is a mammal, a member of a different category of being. When dolphins are low on air, they surface, rather than dive. Putting yourself in the wrong category leads to the wrong behavior.
About time you both admit the left lost their mind and are on a Horse shit propaganda binge. There is nothing wrong with our President Trump and if you can't say that Obama was a disgrace your part of the problem of what is wrong with our country. That being Bullshit for his 8, 8 from Bush another 8 from Clinton.. Neither of you really knew about oil as you both never saw fracking coming and bought into peak oil. Reminds me of the population bomb that so many bought into and became the chicken littles of today.
I’ve been into oil since I was 18 from a childhood friend who studied Chemical Engineering and filled my head with cracking oil and a ex who was a Geology Major. I believe in a large motion of business that will guide us no matter what we do. I’ve followed Jim for 20 years who is 9 months shorter in the tooth and yourself Chris since you showed up. I grew up in Cleveland and we were all about oil at a time in N.E, Ohio. Jim spoke at the Cleveland Library and I wonder if he knows was built by steel and oil money and that the wood was steel as everything was made of marble, stone because of fire.
A epiphany came walking point in Vietnam and taking a break and lifting a branch as I checked out the stop to be safe like not next to a trail and below in the valley was Papa San plowing his rice field behind his water buffalo. I lit up a smoke and observed the varying colors of green that nestled him in his small valley. I saw a beautiful scenery that was as magical as one could ever see. My thoughts were at the time how much more does a person need . Later reading about the Nearing’s when I came home and actually Picking up the first issues of Mother Earth News. They were published not far from me in N.E. Ohio. They were a few years old in 1972 on the Drug store rack.
Are we quite sure that the Deep State wants Trump out? He’s been co-opted by the D.S., and being a first-class distraction keeps everybody looking the wrong way while the D.S. carries on. How much stage-management has taken place after his election is anyone’s guess.
One could argue indeed that both Hillary and Donald are prize-winning distractions. No-one seems to be attending to what really matters at all.
One of the most resonant statements in the Crash Course was Chris’ saying that each of us uses the daily energy equivalent of 60 slaves. I didn’t go back to get it verbatim but that is what stuck in my mind.
Out of all the discussuon above there was no mention made of what we can do to prevent a return to slavery when all that excess energy plays out. Kunstler’s World Made by Hand does NOT assume that the 0.1% could well end up with 90+% of the farm land and housing realestate. That will put most of us on the downstairs side of the upstairs/downstairs equation.
Moral indignation reflects the time we live in more often than absolutes. Years ago I visited Lincoln’s log cabin birthplace. The docent remarked that a next door neighbor of the Lincoln family had borrowed money and were shunned by the other neighbors for this.
At a time when people owned other people, it was personal debt that elicited moral indignation. In the near future when all of us are lashed as the Mother of All Bubbles bursts society may well end up viewing debt as more onerous than slavery again.
Is that where we want to go?
Look can’t we all just get back to what is really, really important and realize the Russians did it
Robert E. Lee never said this. This is a misquote from an “interview” that a reverend named John Leyburn claimed to have had with Robert E. Lee in 1869, several years after the war was over, and a year before Lee’s death.
John Leyburn had been born in Lexington, Virginia, and was a Presbyterian pastor. At the outbreak of the Civil War, Leyburn left his church and joined the South. He became Secretary of the Board of Publication for the newly-founded Southern Presbyterian Church, since the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America had become officially pro-abolitionist. (The two churches continue to be separate today.) After the war, Leyburn resettled in Baltimore, where he claimed to interview Lee.
An article by Leyburn was printed in 1885 in Century Illustrated magazine, so the quote itself is second-hand knowledge many years after the fact. Leyburn claimed to have asked if Lee had fought the war over the issue of slavery, and he said that Lee denied it. Leyburn claimed that Robert E. Lee told him:
"So far," said General Lee, "from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisified of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and suffered all I have suffered, to have this objective obtained." This he said with much earnestness. After expressing himself on this point, as well as others in which he felt that Northern writers were greatly misrepresenting the South, he looked at me and, with emphasis, said: "Doctor, I think some of you gentlemen that use the pen should see that justice is done us."So it would seem that this was in part an effort by Lee to resurrect his reputation after the fact. Or, it never happened, and it's something that Leyburn made up himself in order to resurrect Lee's reputation and promote Southern apologist sentiment. There is a bit of truth to this view of Lee, however. In 1856, several years before the war, Robert E. Lee wrote a letter to his wife that explained some of his feelings on the subject of slavery, and this letter is used by most biographers as the cornerstone of Lee's personal views on slavery (1, 2, 3):
"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day."In other words, though Robert E. Lee felt slavery was a "moral and political evil", he also felt it best to leave it in the hands of God to decide, and that slavery would end, eventually, on its own accord, even if that meant a thousand years hence. His letter goes on to say that the abolitionists should know that the way to end slavery is not to "excite angry feelings in the master" and that this would only make things worse. Lee's was not an unusual "moderate" point of view on slavery in the South in the 1850s. Yet, even though Robert E. Lee may have felt slavery was morally and politically evil, he was not against perpetuating the institution himself. In 1856, his father-in-law, George W. P. Custis, died, and on his death bed, it was reported that he told a group of his slaves that he wanted them emancipated upon his death. But no white person was in the room, and Custis's will stated that they should be freed five years after he died. This story reached the Washington D.C. correpsondent of the Boston Traveller newspaper, who printed an article about it on December 24, 1857, with the further claim that there were plans to sell some of the slaves down South before the emancipation date came. Robert E. Lee responded by writing to the New York Times on January 8, 1858, denying that Custis had ever said such a thing, that the slaves would be free in five years' time according to the will, and that he had no plans to sell them "on South":
"What Mr. Custis is said to have stated to the Washington correspondent of the Boston Traveller, or to his assembled slaves, on his death bed is not known to any member of his family. But it is well known that during the brief days of his last illness, he was constantly attended by his daughter, grand-daughter, and niece, and faithfully visited by his physician and pastor. So rapid was the progress of his disease, after its symptoms became alarming, that there was no assembly of his servants, and he took leave of but one, who was present when he bade farewell to his family."Was the Boston Traveller passing along false information or was Robert E. Lee telling the truth? It couldn't be proven in a court of law because "the testimony of negroes will not be taken in Court." So it wasn't until 1866 that the testimony of any of Custis's slaves was ever taken, and a former slave named Wesley Norris refuted Lee's version of events. This had led Norris and several other slaves to try to escape in 1859, but they were caught:
"We were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty."So although Robert E. Lee professed a hatred for slavery before the war, and denied he engaged in the war over the issue of slavery after the war, he nonetheless was willing to participate and help preserve the institution both before and during the war. Though he freed some of his slaves before the war, he did not free the last of them until the war was over. Lee's views on slavery have continued to be debated by biographers and historians. A century ago, the assessment by pro-Union authors was not kind. In a book about abolitionist John Brown, historian Franklin Benjamin Sanborn wrote of Lee's "lost cause" fight for slavery and printed the alleged Leyburn quote.
Robert E. Lee never said this. This is a misquote from an “interview” that a reverend named John Leyburn claimed to have had with Robert E. Lee in 1869, several years after the war was over, and a year before Lee’s death.
John Leyburn had been born in Lexington, Virginia, and was a Presbyterian pastor. At the outbreak of the Civil War, Leyburn left his church and joined the South. He became Secretary of the Board of Publication for the newly-founded Southern Presbyterian Church, since the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America had become officially pro-abolitionist. (The two churches continue to be separate today.) After the war, Leyburn resettled in Baltimore, where he claimed to interview Lee.
An article by Leyburn was printed in 1885 in Century Illustrated magazine, so the quote itself is second-hand knowledge many years after the fact. Leyburn claimed to have asked if Lee had fought the war over the issue of slavery, and he said that Lee denied it. Leyburn claimed that Robert E. Lee told him:
"So far," said General Lee, "from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisified of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and suffered all I have suffered, to have this objective obtained." This he said with much earnestness. After expressing himself on this point, as well as others in which he felt that Northern writers were greatly misrepresenting the South, he looked at me and, with emphasis, said: "Doctor, I think some of you gentlemen that use the pen should see that justice is done us."So it would seem that this was in part an effort by Lee to resurrect his reputation after the fact. Or, it never happened, and it's something that Leyburn made up himself in order to resurrect Lee's reputation and promote Southern apologist sentiment. There is a bit of truth to this view of Lee, however. In 1856, several years before the war, Robert E. Lee wrote a letter to his wife that explained some of his feelings on the subject of slavery, and this letter is used by most biographers as the cornerstone of Lee's personal views on slavery (1, 2, 3):
"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day."In other words, though Robert E. Lee felt slavery was a "moral and political evil", he also felt it best to leave it in the hands of God to decide, and that slavery would end, eventually, on its own accord, even if that meant a thousand years hence. His letter goes on to say that the abolitionists should know that the way to end slavery is not to "excite angry feelings in the master" and that this would only make things worse. Lee's was not an unusual "moderate" point of view on slavery in the South in the 1850s. Yet, even though Robert E. Lee may have felt slavery was morally and politically evil, he was not against perpetuating the institution himself. In 1856, his father-in-law, George W. P. Custis, died, and on his death bed, it was reported that he told a group of his slaves that he wanted them emancipated upon his death. But no white person was in the room, and Custis's will stated that they should be freed five years after he died. This story reached the Washington D.C. correpsondent of the Boston Traveller newspaper, who printed an article about it on December 24, 1857, with the further claim that there were plans to sell some of the slaves down South before the emancipation date came. Robert E. Lee responded by writing to the New York Times on January 8, 1858, denying that Custis had ever said such a thing, that the slaves would be free in five years' time according to the will, and that he had no plans to sell them "on South":
"What Mr. Custis is said to have stated to the Washington correspondent of the Boston Traveller, or to his assembled slaves, on his death bed is not known to any member of his family. But it is well known that during the brief days of his last illness, he was constantly attended by his daughter, grand-daughter, and niece, and faithfully visited by his physician and pastor. So rapid was the progress of his disease, after its symptoms became alarming, that there was no assembly of his servants, and he took leave of but one, who was present when he bade farewell to his family."Was the Boston Traveller passing along false information or was Robert E. Lee telling the truth? It couldn't be proven in a court of law because "the testimony of negroes will not be taken in Court." So it wasn't until 1866 that the testimony of any of Custis's slaves was ever taken, and a former slave named Wesley Norris refuted Lee's version of events. This had led Norris and several other slaves to try to escape in 1859, but they were caught:
"We were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty."So although Robert E. Lee professed a hatred for slavery before the war, and denied he engaged in the war over the issue of slavery after the war, he nonetheless was willing to participate and help preserve the institution both before and during the war. Though he freed some of his slaves before the war, he did not free the last of them until the war was over. Lee's views on slavery have continued to be debated by biographers and historians. A century ago, the assessment by pro-Union authors was not kind. In a book about abolitionist John Brown, historian Franklin Benjamin Sanborn wrote of Lee's "lost cause" fight for slavery and printed the alleged Leyburn quote. He followed it with his own assessment of it:
“The Arctic Sea may be ice free in the next six weeks”.
due diligence
Grab that Johnny Walker pour a tall one, add ice. Hold it until the last bit of ice is gone, notice the phenomenon of rapid climate change in you hand.
Rest in Peace.
Hilarious that Kunstler and Martenson talk at length in the podcast about how the coverage and aftermath of Charlottesville is emblematic of the degree to which media is successful in distracting the populace from discussing the structural, systemic problems causing our country’s deterioration by fanning the flames of tribal conflicts and controversies… and then commenters launch right into a debate about the civil war. Case in point?