Comment Of The Day: “Comment Of The Day: “Pre-Thanksgiving Day Ethics Wrap-Up, 11/27/2019””
Even if slavery really was “on the way out”, the South certainly fought to keep it going as long as possible. They weren’t just afraid of the economic fallout, they were afraid of what the people they’d been mistreating would do once they got a taste of freedom.
I’m honored and a bit bewildered haha thank you. This was very much an off the cuff spiel, you can tell by the horrible editing. I guess now I know how Jack feels when one of the substantive and prideworthy posts doesn’t get a lot traction but a random one does. That’d be a fun question: what’s your favorite post that never took off? Thats what, two COTD in six months and the first two in years of commenting? I don’t know what I’m doing different but I hope I keep doing it – thanks again. Anyway…
2. Michael West already covered it but yeah, once you secede federal land no longer belongs to the federal government. As a point of direct historical precedent, we sure as hell didn’t let the British Empire keep it’s forts and outposts inside our sovereign territory.
4. Kangaroo military courts could have gotten the conviction sure but the people of the US would not have recognized the legitimacy of that especially given that the war was over – “why are people being tried under martial law when when the war that required martial law is over?” Their ability to get a conviction in civilian court was very much in doubt and I’m sure they were happy to frame it as an act of forgiveness – even if that flies in the face of their rhetoric and practice during the war.
5. Slavery was on the way out. I agree that it’s not a justification for allowing it to continue but the fact remains that the economics of slavery was increasingly becoming less and less viable. Cotton was a labor intensive crop and slaves are not inexpensive to maintain so it’s only profitable when cotton prices are high. India had begun to compete in that market within the decade would crash the price of cotton. Slavery may have been popular but popular institutions cannot last if they’re not economically viable.
6. A president need not be popular to win, he need only be the lesser of two evils – a la Trump. McCellen’s democratic ticket was not terribly competitive given that most of the democratic party seceded from the union. Even then, he was only 6% of the vote away from winning.
Alizia Tyler’s Comment of the Day predictably set off another round of debates relating to the Civil War. There are few episodes in our history that are so rich with ethics and leadership controversies, so it is not surprising that Lincoln, secession, slavery, the Confederacy, Lee and other objects of contention keep finding their way here, most recently in connection with the relentless Confederate Statutory Ethics Train Wreck.
Red Pill Ethics has made an impressive entry in this fascinating and ever-green category. Here is his Comment of the Day on the post,”Comment Of The Day: “Pre-Thanksgiving Day Ethics Wrap-Up, 11/27/2019””….I’ll be back at the end.
I’m back. Brief notes:
2. Since Lincoln did not regard the South as a sovereign, the terming of it’s incursion into the Confederacy an “invasion” assumes as a fact what was the central issue underlying the war. Moreover, the South could not take over ownership of a US fort simply by declaring its independence. Lincoln was quite right that it remained U.S. property. In that case, it was the South that was doing the invading.
4. There is no question that with the kangaroo courts the military used to convict the Lincoln Conspirators and Colonel Wirtz in 1865, David, Lee and Stephens, among others, would have been convicted. Lincoln’s decision to pardon them was a wise one based on trying to heal the country.
5. I hate the “slavery was on the way out” argument. Every second it remained undermined the American experiment and its integrity.
6. Lincoln was popular enough to win the 1864 election easily.