Why Harry Jaffa would puke if he saw those in Claremont, CA, who pretend to revere his name; from "Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates"
Brad, you have been on a roll lately with excellent and thoughtful commentary. This is a particularly appropriate choice to demonstrate the stylistic and moral differences between Douglas and Lincoln. I am always amazed at how Douglas wove complex and elegant arguments devoid of decency that withered in the face of Lincoln’s simple logic and moral consistency.
I assumed that slavery would die because it was not economically viable, but I've forgotten the basis for that assumption. What if slavery continued in the US? Would slavery have spurred more aggressive US expansion, which included slavery? The world would indeed be a much worse place.
I hope you will expand on this provocative idea in media with a wider readership.
The idea that by surrendering to an opponent waging a not unjust war you cast yourself and all your descendants into slavery forever is a relatively common one in human history—for if you did not deserve to be a slave, you would either keep fighting until you were dead, or at least have a backup ransom plan. The idea that nobody should be enslaved is a relatively new one in human history...
By chance I saw this excerpt from the book "Illusions of Empire ..." which tells of attempts during the Civil War to build slave supporting colonies in northern Mexico. "Gwin approached Pesqueira with an idea to establish the 'Dukedom of Sonora; a pro-French colony of American immigrants who supported slavery and espoused the Confederate cause."
Why is this expansionist-imperialist program of the antebellum South, and its enablers in the North, so little remembered or remarked upon in public discussions of our history? Certainly the very fact of slavery, and the moral revulsion to it, pretty much occupies the mind, but the Southern plans for conquest were just as revolting, considering what they intended to do with conquered lands. But while I knew of this, I never knew of Douglas' position on conquest, or that he was so dismissive of "mongrels." I'm not an uneducated person, but this is shocking news to me. The parallels to the Nazi program are glaringly and immediately obvious, as is the dreadful affect it would have had on the American experiment, and ultimately upon world history. It also puts into context Lincoln's opposition to the Mexican-American War, and the South's headlong rush to succeed even before Lincoln was inaugurated. Maybe I just slept through class? Maybe its conveniently considered alternate history not worthy of serious study? Maybe we recoil at describing Southerners as proto-Nazis?
This is a data point on a long time question of mine. Why was the South willing to go to war over the legal possibility of the EXPANSION of slavery. And the North that expansion could only be stopped by political and ultimately military force?
Not a disagreement, but a reflation on how identity reflects on our feelings about history. I sense (maybe wrongly) in your reply a New Englander who has never forgiven the South for the Mexican War. As a transplanted Texan, I do not FEEL that way. [I KNOW as well as you, that it was naked imperial aggression.]
Another, personal, reflection. Since becoming a Catholic as an adult, I realized that my FEELING about Henry V and the destruction of the monasteries had shifted.
Brad, you have been on a roll lately with excellent and thoughtful commentary. This is a particularly appropriate choice to demonstrate the stylistic and moral differences between Douglas and Lincoln. I am always amazed at how Douglas wove complex and elegant arguments devoid of decency that withered in the face of Lincoln’s simple logic and moral consistency.
Thanks...
Douglas = Putin?
I wish this rhyming scheme would go away.
And, once again...THIS is why I subscribe to this substack.
:-)
I assumed that slavery would die because it was not economically viable, but I've forgotten the basis for that assumption. What if slavery continued in the US? Would slavery have spurred more aggressive US expansion, which included slavery? The world would indeed be a much worse place.
I hope you will expand on this provocative idea in media with a wider readership.
The idea that by surrendering to an opponent waging a not unjust war you cast yourself and all your descendants into slavery forever is a relatively common one in human history—for if you did not deserve to be a slave, you would either keep fighting until you were dead, or at least have a backup ransom plan. The idea that nobody should be enslaved is a relatively new one in human history...
By chance I saw this excerpt from the book "Illusions of Empire ..." which tells of attempts during the Civil War to build slave supporting colonies in northern Mexico. "Gwin approached Pesqueira with an idea to establish the 'Dukedom of Sonora; a pro-French colony of American immigrants who supported slavery and espoused the Confederate cause."
https://www.delanceyplace.com/view-archives.php?4650
Very interesting...
Why is this expansionist-imperialist program of the antebellum South, and its enablers in the North, so little remembered or remarked upon in public discussions of our history? Certainly the very fact of slavery, and the moral revulsion to it, pretty much occupies the mind, but the Southern plans for conquest were just as revolting, considering what they intended to do with conquered lands. But while I knew of this, I never knew of Douglas' position on conquest, or that he was so dismissive of "mongrels." I'm not an uneducated person, but this is shocking news to me. The parallels to the Nazi program are glaringly and immediately obvious, as is the dreadful affect it would have had on the American experiment, and ultimately upon world history. It also puts into context Lincoln's opposition to the Mexican-American War, and the South's headlong rush to succeed even before Lincoln was inaugurated. Maybe I just slept through class? Maybe its conveniently considered alternate history not worthy of serious study? Maybe we recoil at describing Southerners as proto-Nazis?
I confess that I do not know the answer...
This is a data point on a long time question of mine. Why was the South willing to go to war over the legal possibility of the EXPANSION of slavery. And the North that expansion could only be stopped by political and ultimately military force?
Yes: the conquest of the Caribbean and Central America was on the menu, for the South at least...
Not a disagreement, but a reflation on how identity reflects on our feelings about history. I sense (maybe wrongly) in your reply a New Englander who has never forgiven the South for the Mexican War. As a transplanted Texan, I do not FEEL that way. [I KNOW as well as you, that it was naked imperial aggression.]
Another, personal, reflection. Since becoming a Catholic as an adult, I realized that my FEELING about Henry V and the destruction of the monasteries had shifted.
Indeed... :-)