Posted on 03/17/2012 4:12:31 AM PDT by BroJoeK
Dred Scott, horrible as it was as a legal ruling, was inevitable. If the nation took the political option of the Lewis Cass/Stephen Douglas position (”popular sovereignty”), the South would lose because it would soon be outnumbered by new free states and outvoted, and eventually would lose the protections of slavery.
If it took the Daniel Webster position that Congress had authority over slavery, the South would lose, for the same reasons: the North would, with its population growth, overwhelm the South in the Senate and House.
Only John C. Calhoun’s position-—that only a preexistent state government could abolish slavery-—would preserve slavery, so that is what Taney’s Court went with. That made slavery the de facto position of every new state, which was also unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans.
When Taney declared that Negroes were not people, he sealed the quicker and bloodier doom of slavery, but I don’t see how it was going to be accomplished without a war.
His essential point was that liberty is earned through education and actions, and that the state must protect liberty of the people above all else.
Governments should not engage in legislative action based on illogical concepts of egalitarian crusading, and that was what was happening in 1848 in the US Congress.
I personally think that this speech was probably his most important work. Many have concluded that his commentary is in direct opposition to Jefferson's DOI phrase that "all men are created equal". Jefferson used that phrase to refute the "divine right of kings" argument against Independence.
I do not think it was connected with egalitarian thought on the continent.
Since the deep South had already seceded, there was no point in conflict as a moral issue.
But no one thought that this meant that slavery would any longer be tolerated in the territories, and Lincoln was elected precisely because the Dred Scott decision was so morally wrong. And four slave states remained in the Union.
The Dred Scott decision is more than a little confusing.
Thanks for a clear explanation.
I understand your comments and know Lincoln’s position on slavery.
As Lincoln took office, he no longer had a slave problem. The states with the highest populations of slaves had seceded. This no longer affected his Presidency, either culturally or morally. The problem was gone.
With the morality argument being moot, and what was to happen in the territories being in the hands of a unified US Congress, Lincoln had a clean slate for governance.
Secession solved the problem.
"My guys" would probably include radical abolitionists and whatever believers in racial equality there were at the time.
They didn't get along with the rest of the guys, but both bunches of guys were on the same side against your guys.
Our guys, believing in liberty and justice for all, endured the atrocities until it all ended. Along with it died the concept of a nation governed by men enlightened with the concept of liberty, not egalitarianism.
Back to where we started. If you don't see that, there's no hope for you. "Your guys" didn't believe in liberty and justice for all. Not many people did back then, but we can at least put in a good word for the few who went a little further than the others.
Along with it died the concept of a nation governed by men enlightened with the concept of liberty, not egalitarianism.
C'mon, egalitarianism came in with Andrew Jackson. You can't break history down like that -- Southerners for liberty and against egalitarianism. Liberty and equality and slavery are pretty well mixed together in American history, and that includes Southern history.
Secession solved nothing and made a precarious situation even more so.
Pretending that the instigators weren't from the south and that the north is to blame for the insurrection is kinda like the rapist saying to the woman, "Lady, there ain't nothing you can do so you may as well lay back and enjoy it" lol.
Our guys, believing in liberty and justice for all, endured the atrocities until it all ended. Along with it died the concept of a nation governed by men enlightened with the concept of liberty, not egalitarianism.
You can say that about the modern-day south but that's not remotely the conditions on the ground during any part of the confederacy. And definitely not for the incorrect melanin-hued.
I been thinking about posting a bestiary -- that is, an I.F.F. dictionary of politically active names related to Civil War politics.
In no particular sequence, here's what I have so far (mostly quoted from Wiki):
"Wigfall, for one, actively encouraged an attack on Fort Sumter to prompt Virginia and other upper Southern States to secede as well.
Thus, the Fire-Eaters helped to unleash a chain reaction that eventually led to the formation of the Confederate States of America and to the American Civil War.
Their influence waned quickly after the start of major fighting."
Copperhead 1864 pamphlet, USA, mocking President Abraham Lincoln.
Does anyone know more names to add to the list?
Radial (Republicans): those who sought to use the war to prostrate the South and to end slavery, as opposed to merely reunify the nation.
BTW, I would add that Lincoln knew more about statesmanship than all the so-called southern “diplomats,” senators (including that buffoon Marxist John C. Calhoun), and spokesmen who ever walked the earth.
Loyal Union League: A Union League is one of a number of organizations established starting in 1862, during the American Civil War to promote loyalty to the Union and the policies of Abraham Lincoln. They were also known as Loyal Leagues. They comprised upper middle class men who supported efforts such as the United States Sanitary Commission, which helped treat wounded soldiers after battle. The Clubs supported the Republican Party, with funding, organizational support, and political activism
One of the Lost Causers attempted to equate the Union League with the KKK on a WBTS thread a while back. When pressed fro details of their more notorious misdeeds the best the I got back was that they advocated against electing democrats. LOL
Keeping in mind that although a French term, egalitarian thought was evident at the time of Plato, the Apostles, and all the way through the dark ages.
You hark en to Jackson, who was not an egalitarian by any stretch.
As posted earlier, I think Calhoun's speech of 1848 shows more than anything else his and other Southerner's opposition to political egalitarianism that was being thrust into the discussion of new territorial law and exacerbating the political unrest of the period. He said so in this passage:
I have, on all proper occasions, endeavored to call the attention of both the two great parties which divided the country to adopt some measure to prevent so great a disaster, but without success. The agitation has been permitted to proceed with almost no attempt to resist it, until it has reached a point when it can no longer be disguised or denied that the Union is in danger. You have thus had forced upon you the greatest and gravest question that can ever come under your consideration: How can the Union be preserved?
Mr. Calhoun's comments were directed toward his fellow Congressmen's efforts to make important decisions on territorial and state laws based on their impressions of slavery rather than the more important and fundamental protections of liberty that he recognized as the prime responsibility of his government. He addressed the ongoing confusion of leaders engendered by the egalitarian ideas expressed in the DOI but not embodied in the Constitution.
He refers to egalitarian ideas embodied in legislative actions based on:
a proposition which originated in a hypothetical truism, but which, as now expressed and now understood, is the most false and dangerous of all political error. The proposition to which I allude has become an axiom in the minds of a vast majority on both sides of the Atlantic, and is repeated daily, from tongue to tongue, as an established and incontrovertible truth; it is, that all men are born free and equal. I am not afraid to attack error, however deeply it may be intrenched, or however widely extended, whenever it becomes my duty to do so, as I believe it to be on this subject and occasion.
In pointing out this, Mr. Calhoun was exposing the cultural and social fallacies of the phrase "all men are born free and equal". That explanation has its roots in Plato's discussions on the relationship of the individual to the state. It would seem that Calhoun read Plato, and Hegel; as well as most assuredly Aquinas, Locke and Hobbes.
Practically every one of these thinkers rejected the concepts of government by democracy and that egalitarianism should guide political action. Although embodied in social interactions, especially certain religious movements, liberty was always valued over equality by some that understood the value of our constitution.
He said in this speech:
Instead, then, of all men having the same right to liberty and equality, as is claimed by those who hold that they are all born free and equal, liberty is the noble and highest reward bestowed on mental and moral development, combined with favorable circumstances. Instead, then, of liberty and equality being born with man; instead of all men and all classes and descriptions being equally entitled to them, they are prizes to be won, and are in their most perfect state, not only the highest reward that can be bestowed on our race, but the most difficult to be won and when won, the most difficult to be preserved.
In your research, have you found anyone that understood the fundamental concept of liberty and its total underpinning of government any more thorough than Calhoun?
As of Lincoln's first day, the states with slaves had largely disappeared from his per view. The political opponents had withdrawn. The Southern states were asking for peace. The Davis government was issuing offers of reimbursement for federal facilities.
Trade was continuing. The banks were prospering. Shipping was continuing without any violence. People were traveling.
All was well.
When it comes right down to it, you really do not know anything about which you posted, and using a contrived analogy does not help.
How about Senator Charles Sumner of Boston.
He was a member of the Republican Radicals, a faction of the new Republican party, which was a highly verbal and charged group of men that wanted to abuse Southern states.
In March 1861, after the withdrawal of Southern Senators, Sumner became chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations.
The Radicals primarily advocated the immediate abolition of slavery and the destruction of the Southern planter class. Senate Radicals included Sumner, Sen. Zachariah Chandler, and Sen. Benjamin Wade.
Wade was probably the most radical in the Congress at the time. During the American Civil War, Wade was highly critical of President Abraham Lincoln.
In a September 1861 letter, he privately wrote that Lincoln's views on slavery “could only come of one born of poor white trash and educated in a slave State.” (source: Wikipedia)
How about US Postmaster General Amos Kendall?
Have you ever studied logic, and the fallacy of gross generalization?
If you were to study Marxism, I do not think you would want to use the name Calhoun with the movement.
A more likely name of the time would be Ben Wade from Ohio.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.