From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: A fresh start. Negroes need not apply
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:39:12 GMT

KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes:

>It would have been presumptuous of me to have tried when I knew you were out 
>there.

Clever riposte.:)

>: The United States is a country built on a murderous and exploitative basis.
>: Slavery is a holocaust-like institution that endured for centuries in
>: a putative 
>: democracy. Both the USA and the CSA were morally bankrupt and discussion 
>: of the 
>: legitimacy of the CSA is roughly comparable to discussions of angels 
>:  dancing 
>: on the head of a pin. 
>: 

>Let me propose a somewhat altered third position (perhaps to be called
>the Abolitionist position).

>When we discuss the original causes of secession and the Civil War, it is 
>inappropriate to project the self-congratulary and sanctimonius oppinion
>that the Union Army fought to abolish slavery (some soldiers did, most did
>not) and that South was monolithically fighting to preserve it.

Hmm, there is not a necessary symmetry here. Just because the Southerners were
fighting for slavery doesn't mean the Northerners were fighting against it. To
be honest, I'm not sure what they were fighting for, except that they were 
drafted by a government determined to reincorporate the CSA.

>: >Failure of pro-Unionists to concede even the plausibility of Southern 
>arguments
>: >is essentially as divisive as a Southerner waving the Confederate Jack.
>: 
>: That last sentence is classic. I suppose that refusing to concede the
>: plausibility of Hitler's arguments is also divisive?
>: 

>Let me ask you to read that sentence one more time in the context of the 
>whole paragraph. If you want to equate the cause of the Southern
>aristocrats (that directly benefited from slavery) with those of
>Hitler, I for one will not argue with you. However, I explicitly was
>discussing the motivations of the NON-SLAVE-HOLDING Southerners. It is
>important to remember that something like 80% of the slaves in the US
>were held on only 2000 big plantations. These 2000 plantation owners
>held disproportionate power in the "putative democracy", just as big
>money has disproportionate power today. The vast majority of white 
>southerners held no slaves.

Yet they derived economic and psychological comfort from slavery. They were
insulated from a large group of economic competitors, and enjoyed cheap goods
produced from their unpaid labour. No matter how miserable their condition,
they could, and did, take pleasure in the fact that the Africans were far
more degraded.

>Now, I was careful to point out in one of my recent posts that the majority 
>of the population of South Carolina were black slaves, so I will not try to
>justify its secession on the basis of majority rule. In fact, even limiting
>the discussion to the "electorate", which excluded both blacks and women, it 
>is doubtful that a majority would have voted to secede. But the Southern 
>aristocrats were successful in manipulating the majority of whites 
>(after secession was a fait d'accompli) to fight for the cause of "self
>rule". You may argue that these Southerners were indirectly fighting
>for slavery as well, but slavery was no more in the self-interests of
>the non-slave-holding southern farmers than it was for the northern or
>western farmers who fought on the other side.

That's not the point. The key is whether or not the non-slave-holders *thought*
that slavery was in their interest. And, overwhelmingly, they did.

>: Yeah, as the LA riots illustrate. I predict that the US will erupt in a race 
>: war by the middle of the next century. It is a war that has been incipient in
>: this country for centuries.
>: 

>Okay, I admit I was dreaming when I typed that "bound together in spirit" bit. 
>The point of my post was to find a moderate position in a burgeoning flame war.
>Obviously an incipient race war is a more significant problem. My interest in
>the Civil War is based upon my desire to understand how such disasters might be
>avoided. I believe the first step is to honestly attempt to understand both
>sides.

I agree. And I understand why simple greed and racism motivated southern whites
during the Civil War.:) What I've never understood is how the North managed to
hold together during the war.

>: White southerners sought to annihilate the prospect of economic
>: competition from newly freed blacks. Simple greed was their motivation, along
>: with a heavy dose of racist ideology.
>: 

>This may have been a widely held opinion, but I doubt that many were
>willing to fight to the death avoid economic competition. 

This is true, were they to have confronted the naked truth. However, they 
wallowed in the collective self-delusion people typically indulge in when going
to war. No doubt they probably were able to convince themselves they were
fighting for self-determination, but what of the self-determination of the
AFricans in their midst?

>: >6) The Civil War proved to be vastly more violent than anyone expected at the
>: >time. This has given us a cautionary example of the dangers of immoderate
>: >actions by government leaders.
>: 
>: One which has been generally ignored, unfortunately. I see nothing to prevent a
>: Yugoslavia-like scenario in the US in the middle to late 21st century. In fact,
>: the LA riots may prove to be a harbinger of an even more rapid societal break-
>: down than I've expected.

>You may be right, but I pray you will be wrong for my children's sake.

And mine as well.

>: Aww, you're no fun. The party's just beginning.:)

>My real concern is that all moderate voices, northern and southern, will
>tune-out. This is the first newsgroup I have encountered that had an
>information-to-noise ratio that is high enough to make it worth reading. 
>I realize we have not yet had a real flame war, but the skirmishing is 
>becoming brisk.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. I'll spend more time posting info on the AFrican
perspective on the war, since that appears to be rather meagre in this group.

>: I would add to that discussion of the probability of a yet another civil war
>: in the US, this time along racial lines.

>I believe you have already raised the issue, above.

Yeah, but just in case anyone missed it....

>: >Those are my ideas. Flame me if you will, but I'm leaving the country for awhile
>: >so it won't hurt.
>: 
>: You can run but you can't hide!

>Actually, I have discovered that I have network access from Europe.

I was right.:)
Jones
-- 
Jones M Murphy Jr                                        (212) 602-4375
NatWest Investment Bancorp, National Westminster Bank PLC
100 Wall Street, New York, NY10005                   FAX (212) 269-0113
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa