|
Partisans tend to act about the same, with the same justifications for their actions. You just don't see one group in the US that much.
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Are you that guy who is really into abolition? Like really into it? If yes, consider therapy. Abolition gradually became a mainstream position though (at least in the North). Even then, there were certain proponents that were still far outside of the norm of the time (the "40 acres and a mule" people). That's why Reconstruction failed, because most people in the North didn't agree with it after a time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:What's your point? Abolitionism was a radical ideology and didn't became a mainstream position until after the war started. Two things: 1. Abolition as a nationwide agenda was a radical ideology. Abolition as a states' rights measure was common for the majority of the population in 1860. 2. Even during/after the war, any followup to abolition was still considered extremely radical. The common view at the time was "black people shouldn't be literal property, but helping them to regain economic power? ehhhhh". Even Lincoln agreed with that view. It's really only due to his assassination that we had the political strength to pass the 14th & 15th Amendments.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:That's where Lincoln started, anyway. His views shifted somewhat over time. Nah, even his second Inaugural Address is focused primarily on the ending of slavery, not what comes after: quote:The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." You could argue "Bind up the nation's wounds" could refer to reparations or it could refer to forgiving Confederates. What is known is that his assassination led to a much stronger majority in Congress, and that is what allowed two of the most important amendments passed to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:So you are saying that the early abolitionists were mentally ill? Early abolitionists worked within the system and got slavery banned in their respective states.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Abolitionist is a technical term referring to people who wanted slavery abolished immediately at the federal level. James McPherson is not the sole authority on Antebellum America. Or hell, let's use that definition: what time period are you specifically saying are "Early" abolitionists?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The people who are typically called "The Abolitionists" existed after the Northern states already abolished slavery. Under that definition, then yeah, had the South not been massive babies and Lincoln's policy of containment had endured, the Abolitionists would have probably been ostracized as cranks while slavery was gradually* abolished throughout the country. It would also be legislatively a worse off country due to the lack of the 13th-15th Amendments. *As in, without a Civil War.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:So just to be clear, are you saying that the abolitionists were mentally ill or not? I'm confused about what you are arguing. I'm saying A. You're using a definition of "abolitionist" that most people probably wouldn't use (academics are not "most people"). B. The actual policy of radicals is not why people are declaring them mentally ill, but their tactics (I'm bolding this because it's important). C. Under that definition, and understanding B, there are most certainly abolitionists who would qualify as mentally ill (John Brown being probably the clearest example). quote:FWIW there would probably have been succession in any case. The slave system needed expansion to survive and the South wouldn't have allowed itself to be choked out like that- they would have sent filibusters to Cuba and eventually down through South America. There are certainly outcomes that would have abolished slavery and had been immensely beneficial to slaveholders. As one example: - Slavery is declared illegal - Slaves are seized from slaveholders under eminent domain - Slaveholders are paid "fair market value" for said slaves - Slaveholders repeat the post-Reconstruction America but without the pesky 14th et all Amendments. This is getting really tangential to the primary point though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I'm willing to concede that John Brown could easily be mistaken for a madman. But I'm not so sure that abolitionists in general would be considered insane because of their actions. I wouldn't call the Jayhawkers insane for instance. It depends exactly what you think they did, but forming militias and getting into a shooting war with your fellow countryman is not exactly the height of rationality.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:I guess it depends on what you count as "extreme". I mean where are all of the absolutely insane left wingers? The right had a guy strip tease on stage at the libertarian presidential convention. Where is his leftist counterpart. Venezuela, for one.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Why not? I think that it was the height of moral rationality. Most people would (back then, maybe even today) disagree that opposition to slavery at any cost is rational.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:How does rent-seeking require or indicate mental illness? I don't get it. You asked where the paranoid extreme leftists were. There they are.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:I've seen it mentioned in the thread somewhere, but can someone explain to me why a preference for "alternative" medicines is classed as a left-wing stance? Because it's popular among populations traditionally considered left (i.e., not gun toting religious conservatives). What you're doing, incidentally, is an example of partisan exclusionary tactics. "My side can't be bad, it's rational!"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 14:11
|
|