X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:28:00 EDT
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.BITNET>
Subject: Course for T. Kidd: History 530: Research & Methodology

        Travis has taken quite a buffeting from the soon-to-be-appointed Logic
Czar.  Since politics is historical and history is political, let me make some
comments concerning the Kidd Interpretation of Antebellum South Carolina.
Sorry if these are tangential, but since the list limit has been raised to 300
messages per day, it shouldn't cause any problems.  (By the way, in the
tradition of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., I offer my services as historical
counsel to the winners of the virtual campaign.)

        The main thesis of Travis's posting concerning the South Carolina Court
of Appeals during the period 1820 - 1840 was that since this court nullified
some restrictions on emancipation, the members of this court were
pro-emancipation.  By extension, since the South Carolina state legislature did
nothing to remove nor censure these justices, they by implication accepted the
pro-emancipation tone of the decisions.  There are a few of problems with
these arguments.

        First, although cotton was indeed growing in importance starting in
1820, it had not yet reached the economic significance that it would in the
1850s and 1860s.  Did the Court maintain this seemingly enlightened
attitude throughout the antebellum period?  If not, I would argue that,
although the Court might have attempted to mollify harsh restrictions on
emancipation between 1820 and 1840, it abandoned this stance once the
economic importance of cotton outweighed in its eyes the value of an entire
race of human beings.

        Second, what specific reasons did the Court offer for its opinions?
Did it appeal to arguments concerning the worth of African-Americans, or were
its decisions based instead on other concerns, for example property rights and
the rights of slave owners to dispose of their property as they saw fit, even
if such disposal involved emancipation?  This relates to point three below.

        Third, while the Court's opinions might have been a little more
compasionate than the prevailing attitude, they hardly threaten the legitimacy
of the system of human bondage.

        Fourth, I find the assertion that the state legislature must have
agreed with the Court's pro-emancipation attitude since it took no action to
remove the judges remarkably weak.  By extension, Reagan and Bush must accept
the Supreme Court's decision in _Roe v. Wade_ and other cases because they have
not attempted to impeach the Court.  Also, if the legislature was so
pro-emancipation, why did they pass the restrictions in the first place?

        Fifth, you seem to be generalizing from the specific.  Even ignoring
the reservations I enumerate above, you seem to have given little support to
the suggestion that this one instance weakens the contention that the South
vehemently protected its perceived right to subjugate certain human beings.
You must realize the limitations of microhistory.

        Finally, you end your post by claiming that the South was not
"up-in-arms pro-slavery," but yet in the sentance concluding your previous
paragraph you contend that the proslavery forces seemed to be justified at the
time in the imposition of repressive laws because of their fear of
abolitionists and slave insurrections.  So, was the South pro-slavery, or not?
If not, why did these states inact the repressive laws that you yourself
mention?

        Please note the methodogical lessons contained in the points above.  As
an historian you need to pay attention to things such as alternate
explanations.  As a polemicist, you need not.

-------------
Mike McCarthy                   "It is a principle that shines impartially on
Marshall Univ. History Dept.    the just and on the unjust that once you have
Huntington, WV 25755, USA       a point of view all history will back you up."
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.EDU               -Van Wyck Brooks
YEA003@MARSHALL                          AMERICA'S COMING OF AGE (1915)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU