Cockburn on slavery
Henry C.K. Liu
hliu at mindspring.com
Tue Nov 10 09:54:56 PST 1998
Progress is always the illegitimate child of politics.
The same ironic rationalization would apply to Richard Nixon, lifelong
anti-Communist, who would be able to achieve as President a historic opening
to Communist China in 1973 as a grand strategy in geopolitics, after a
quarter of a century of ideological estrangement between the two powers,
while a similar attempt by a liberal Democrat, such as John F. Kennedy
(1917-1963), would have to face domestic accusation of being soft on
Communism.
Similarly, it would take an anti-abolitionist Abraham Lincoln (1806-1865),
who would gain attention early in his political career as a pragmatic
segregationist cloaked under the high-minded rhetoric of democratic ideals,
to finally overcome his previous political rationalization and to make peace
with his personal morals to issue the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862.
Lincoln would come into national prominence in the Lincoln-Douglas debates
during the 1858 Senate campaign by shrewdly trapping his opponent, Stephen
A. Douglas (1813-1861), into introducing the anti-slavery Freeport doctrine,
permitting the new territories to exclude slavery in the name of popular
sovereignty. The compromise proposed by Douglas, in spite of the Dred Scott
decision by the Supreme Court a year earlier, in 1857, ruling that slavery
could not constitutionally be excluded from any territory, would cost
Douglas much popular support, particularly among pro-slavery Southern
Democrats, even after his insistence on his personal indifference to the
immorality of slavery. Lincoln, the man who would oppose the exclusion of
slavery in the new territories with his perversely righteous and dubiously
motivated declaration: "A house divided against itself cannot stand", and
who would declare himself to be personally opposed to racial equality, would
end up abolishing slavery for the whole nation four years later as a
political expediency brought about by a poorly conducted, ongoing civil war,
notwithstanding his earlier belief that while "Negroes" should enjoy the
right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness promised to all men by the
Declaration of Independence, the extinction of slavery could only be a
gradual and lengthy process, with no near-term target date.
American attitude toward the issue of slavery in her history is clouded by a
fundamental conflict of its self-image and historical facts.
The majority of Americans continue to be abolitionists in public and
pro-slavery in private.
It shows up in every debate on social issues.
Henry C.K. Liu
James Baird wrote:
> >
> >The second point is, was it necessary to fight the Civil War at all? I
> >have long had a suspicion that the Civil War caused damage -- in terms
> >of casualties and regional resentments that endure to this day -- that
> >outweighs the benefit of ending slavery quickly (which, in itself,
> >seemed an afterthought -- Lincoln appeared much more concerned with his
> >fetish of preserving the union, to me a meaningless abstraction). Even
> >without the war, how long could slavery have endured without the South
> >becoming a pariah state in the 19th century as South Africa did in the
> >20th? My position is a pacifist one -- I think wars bring more ills
> >than solutions.
> >
>
> I read a book last year called "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men"
> by Jeffrey Hummel. He comes at things from a right-libertarian
> viewpoint, but his grasp of the literature is amazing. It's his
> contention that the North should have followed the recommendations of
> abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison and let the south go; that
> without the "enforcement subsidy" of the fugative slave laws, slavery
> was uneconomic and would die on its own.
>
> Jim Baird
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
More information about the lbo-talk
mailing list