More Darwinist bigotry
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/13/2008 09:36:00 PM
I'm from Missouri
This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.
About Me
- Name: Larry Fafarman
- Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.
- Judge Jones' statement about election results viol...
- Blog debate about Dover case
- More Judge Jones bashing
- Grounds for dismissal in Kitzmiller v. Dover
- This blog is really great!
- Ben Stein interview in Toronto Star
- What neo-Darwinists get wrong
- Chris Comer comes back
- My unchanged opinion of the Cit+ E. coli evolution...
- Newsweak joins Lincoln-Darwin cult
59 Comments:
Ha-ha! A pretty funny cartoon. The Darwin-to-Nazis influence is historically well-established, but of course Darwin himself was nothing like a Nazi, in his personal views: and I don't believe that I've ever heard anyone characterize him in that way.
And as David Berlinski well puts it, Darwinism was evidently a "necessary, but not sufficient, condition" for the rise of Nazism. (And he could have added, for the rise of the 20th century Communist dictatorships, with their bloody histories.)
Jim bloatedly rumbled...
>>>>>>The Darwin-to-Nazis influence is historically well-established<<<<<<
That would be the same Nazis who banned and burned books about Darwin and his theories, and the same Nazis that advanced the concept of 'racial purity' which actually sets back evolutionary progress. How, exactly, is this an 'influence' that is 'historically well-established'?
As for the cartoon, your very post indicates that, whilst amusing, it is also pretty accurate - creationists/IDiots are, indeed, trying to forge a link between Darwin, and 'Darwinism' and Hitler.
Zmidponk -- you shouldn't have said that. Now we'll get another bad poem from Jim (one that ignores all sense of poetics and that ignores historical facts and conventions for his shallow and mis-informed point of view).
Of course, you're completely correct -- but that's not the point.
Darwin-apostles who are apparently ignorant of the Darwin to eugenics to Nazis influence could read the article on Eugenics in the Encyclopedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. The introductory page reads, in its entirety:
"Eugenics: the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically with reference to humans. The term eugenics was coined in 1883 by the British explorer and natural scientist Francis Galton, who, influenced by Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, advocated a system that would allow 'the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.' Social Darwinism, the popular theory in the late 19th century that life for humans in society was ruled by 'survival of the fittest,' helped advance eugenics into serious scientific study in the early 1900s. By World War I, many scientific authorities and political leaders supported eugenics. However, it ultimately failed as a science in the 1930's and '40's, when assumptions of eugenicists became heavily criticized and the Nazis used eugenics to support the extermination of entire races."
Francis Galton, the founder of modern eugenics, was actually Darwin's cousin and disciple. And while Larry believes (and he may be right) that the Nazis didn't have a systematic policy of exterminating all Jews, the important role that Darwinist "science" or pseudoscience played in the rise of Nazism, has been clearly established by historians.
The logic underlying that connection isn't hard to see. If in fact humans arose by chance mutations and natural selection with no intelligence playing any role, it seems reasonable that humans should introduce the intelligent element by using artificial selection to improve the human species or any one of the human "races."
Incidentally, the Britannica editors are clearly disciples of Darwinist "science."
Jim wrote, "The term eugenics was coined in 1883 by the British explorer and natural scientist Francis Galton, who, influenced by Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, advocated a system that would allow 'the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.'"
So? How does any of this disprove any aspect of contemporary evolutionary theory? Especially since it has been repudiated by all worthwhile (if not all) biologists and other supporters of evolutionary theory.
Jim wrote, "it seems reasonable that humans should introduce the intelligent element by using artificial selection to improve the human species or any one of the human "races.""
Which are the good genes? How do you know that they are the ones that kids will inherit?
>>>>>>Darwin-apostles who are apparently ignorant of the Darwin to eugenics to Nazis influence could read the article on Eugenics in the Encyclopedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. The introductory page reads, in its entirety:
"Eugenics: the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically with reference to humans. The term eugenics was coined in 1883 by the British explorer and natural scientist Francis Galton, who, influenced by Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, advocated a system that would allow 'the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.' Social Darwinism, the popular theory in the late 19th century that life for humans in society was ruled by 'survival of the fittest,' helped advance eugenics into serious scientific study in the early 1900s. By World War I, many scientific authorities and political leaders supported eugenics. However, it ultimately failed as a science in the 1930's and '40's, when assumptions of eugenicists became heavily criticized and the Nazis used eugenics to support the extermination of entire races."<<<<<<
And people who blindly take the word of one source, speaking about someone who was supposedly 'influenced' by Darwin, as 'proof' of the link between 'Darwinism' and Hitler might actually read the words written by Darwin himself on the matter.
'Our naturalist would likewise be much disturbed as soon as he perceived that the distinctive characters of all the races were highly variable. This fact strikes every one on first beholding the negro slaves in Brazil, who have been imported from all parts of Africa. The same remark holds good with the Polynesians, and with many other races. It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant. Savages, even within the limits of the same tribe, are not nearly so uniform in character, as has been often asserted. Hottentot women offer certain peculiarities, more strongly marked than those occurring in any other race, but these are known not to be of constant occurrence. In the several American tribes, colour and hairiness differ considerably; as does colour to a certain degree, and the shape of the features greatly, in the Negroes of Africa. The shape of the skull varies much in some races; and so it is with every other character. Now all naturalists have learnt by dearly bought experience, how rash it is to attempt to define species by the aid of inconstant characters.
But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having inter-crossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.'
(From 'The Descent of Man')
In other words, all men are so similar, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to state a clear-cut case that one group is inferior to another, except in terms of culture and knowledge - very much different from the underlying principle in eugenics, that particular groups of man are inherently superior.
As another point, the very thing about evolution that creationists/IDiots have so much difficulty accepting is that it is a naturally occurring process with no consciousness guiding it. Now, you're proposing that eugenics, which is, in essence, a consciously guided, unnatural selective breeding of humans, quite often accompanied by the enforced sterilization/genocide of those deemd 'inferior' is a logical extension of that. Come to think of it, considering that we have evidence of creatures that are now extinct, if life was designed and created, as opposed to life arising, then dying out due to evolution, does this not suggest the possibility that the Unknown Designer/God could be, in fact, a practitioner of eugenics, and the extinct creatures are ones he has deemed unworthy of continued existance?
Oh, and, as am additional thing, Darwin did also argue against eugenics, as we call it now, in The Descent of Man in another manner too:
'The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.'
I also find it interesting that you say that Larry's Holocaust denial 'may be right'. Well, if there was no Holocaust, how can it have been 'inspired' by 'Darwinism'? This means either Larry is wrong in his Holocaust denial, or he and you ar both wrong in the 'link' between Darwin and Hitler, or both.
Oh, and I also forgot to point out that you haven't explained why, amongst other things, the Nazis banned and burned books on Darwin and his theories of they were 'inspired' or 'influenced' by him.
The point is that the Nazis were heavily influenced by Darwinist ideas, not that they were orthodox Darwinists: they certainly were not that, and they would have banned ideas of Darwinist origin that deviated from their own ideology.
The best treatment of the subject is by Darwinist evolutionary biologist Michael R. Rose, in his book Darwin's Spectre: Evolutionary Biology in the Modern World, 1998. Rose concludes:
"Through eugenics, Darwinism was a bad influence on Nazism, one of the greatest killers in world history. Darwinism probably contributed to the upsurge of racism in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and thus it helped to foment twentieth-century racism generally. Darwinism was also used to exacerbate the neglect of the poor in the nineteenth century. All things considered, Darwinism has had many regrettable, and sometimes actually vicious, effects on the social climate in the modern world." (p.210)
Rose is prominent enough Darwinist evolutionary biologists to rate two mentions in the Encyclopedia Britannica Online Academic Edition article on Evolution, on p.67 and p.71 of that article. He's also an atheist and a materialist.
My Blogger account is misfiring, and it's a waste of time to talk to clueless Darwin-buffs. Rose (above) was born in Germany in 1955, and obviously has done his research on the Nazis; he writes:
"German evolutionary biologists had considerable influence on public opinion. With regard to race, Haeckel's theories have been proposed as the template for Adolf Hitler's more famous outbursts. The 1937 edition of the Hitler Youth handbook was full of Darwinian theory and genetics...This is not to deny the long-standing racist elements in German culture. Darwinism did not bring them into being. But it was fuel for that particular demonic fire. Nor would it be true to say that all Nazis were reflective evolutionary biologists. Many of them were just thugs." (p.143)
That makes one wonder which of the Nazi leaders were "evolutionary biologists," and which were "thugs?" I'd say Hitler himself was one of the "thugs:" I doubt that he ever read Darwin, he may not have believed in human descent from lower animals, and he believed in pure races: which is hardly a Darwinist concept.
Darwin-apostles simply don't want to know about the vicious effects that belief in Darwinism has had on human history. As Rose (above)writes:
"Most evolutionary biologists don't even want to think about the degree to which Darwinism contributed to the development of racist ideologies in the modern world. They don't really deal with the historical fact that Darwin and Galton accepted the concepts of superior and inferior races, and that Galton was particularly concerned to document the inferiority of the 'Negro' and the Australian aborigine. Ernest Haeckel, one on the leading German Victorian evolutionary biologists, paved the way for the development of the elaborate system of German racism that was to develop in modern times. Haeckel was in fact a virulent Aryan supremacist and anti-Semite. Evolutionary biology and racist ideology went, for a time, hand-in-hand." (p.142)
Rose(above) treats the Nazis in his Chapter 7, entitled: EUGENICS: Promethean Darwinism. While that part of the book would make very unpleasant reading for Darwin-fans, at least they'd get a kick out of his steadfast advocacy of old-fashioned neo-Darwinism, which shows signs of being dead or dying today, even among materialists. And they'd doubtless enjoy his attacks on religion, or at any rate on all religions other than his own: atheistic materialism. On p.206 he even berates "the physicists," including Einstein, who have on occasion talked vaguely about "God," for doing so.
Jim Sherwood wrote 4 different posts (typical for Jim) and failed to answer zmidponk's valid question: why, amongst other things, the Nazis banned and burned books on Darwin and his theories of they were 'inspired' or 'influenced' by him.
Jim, you have said a lot without really saying anything. You have not explained how the Nazis could be 'inspired' by 'Darwinism' given these four facts:
1) Darwin, in setting out the original theory of evolution, made it absolutely, perfectly and utterly clear that man was all one species, indistinguishable from each other
2) The whole basis of evolution is that it was a naturally occurring, consciousless process, whereas the 'racial purification' practised by the Nazis was a conscious, unnatural process.
3) That this same 'racial purification' actually sets back evolutionary progress.
4) That, amongst the books that the Nazis banned and burned was 'Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism.'
I should point out that you also seem to be undermining your own argument. If the Nazis were not, as you put it, 'orthodox Darwinists', then the only way they could be 'inspired' by 'Darwinism' is if they were 'inspired' by a complete misunderstanding of what evolution actually says.
As another additional comment, the various claims you have quoted about Darwin accepting the concept of 'inferior and superior races' is utter nonsense, as my quoted passage taken directly from The Descent of Man show. Darwin clearly made the point that, as far as he was concerned, Man was all ONE race, so there was no 'inferior' race of Man and 'superior' race of Man. The only thing that he accepted was what was seemingly apparant to him, that various different groups were at greater or lesser levels of advancement in terms of scientific knowledge, technology and culture.
Jim, upon reading what you have quoted, if you cut through all the assumptions, hyperbole and out-and-out bullshit, they all seem to actually suggest another explanation - that the Nazis used a rather loose interpretation of evolutionary theory to try to justify what they were doing. In other words, they were not 'inspired' or 'influenced' by 'Darwinism', they simply used it as an excuse. Has that possibility ever occurred to you?
Come to think of it, considering that we have evidence of creatures that are now extinct, if life was designed and created, as opposed to life arising, then dying out due to evolution, does this not suggest the possibility that the Unknown Designer/God could be, in fact, a practitioner of eugenics, and the extinct creatures are ones he has deemed unworthy of continued existance?
In my opinion, it just means that the Intelligent Designer must be really lousy. I also need to address him with regards to my appendix, tonsils, and coccyx, all of which serve little or no purpose in the modern era. Plus, he has a lot to answer for when it comes to the width of women's hips, since while their narrowness makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, it seems incredibly cruel of a Designer to inflict them and the resulting difficult childbirth on humans intentionally.
Zmidponk said (Wednesday, July 16, 2008 6:06:00 AM) --
>>>>>>1) Darwin, in setting out the original theory of evolution, made it absolutely, perfectly and utterly clear that man was all one species, indistinguishable from each other <<<<<<
I have seen the contrary claimed.
>>>>> 2) The whole basis of evolution is that it was a naturally occurring, consciousless process, whereas the 'racial purification' practised by the Nazis was a conscious, unnatural process. <<<<<<
One of the ideas behind eugenics is that there is no natural selection in human society and that artificial selection is needed as a substitute for natural selection in order to improve the human race or to prevent deterioration of the human race.
Before Darwin, people were aware that natural selection occurred in nature. But Darwin introduced or popularized the idea that natural selection is -- in combination with natural genetic variation -- a means of progress.
>>>>>>> 3) That this same 'racial purification' actually sets back evolutionary progress. <<<<<<
Not necessarily -- there can be genetic improvement within a racially pure group.
Nazi anti-semitism targeted fit as well as unfit Jews and so was not a true eugenics program. Eugenics just created the idea that it was morally OK to get rid of undesirables.
>>>>>> 4) That, amongst the books that the Nazis banned and burned was 'Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism.' <<<<<<
Darwinism influenced the Nazis indirectly if not directly. For example, the Nazis were influenced by American eugenics programs, which which were influenced by Darwinism. In 1920 in the USA, the Station for Experimental Evolution merged with the Eugenics Record Office to form the Carnegie Institution's Dept. of Genetics.
Anonymous said (Wednesday, July 16, 2008 6:18:00 AM) --
>>>>>> In other words, they were not 'inspired' or 'influenced' by 'Darwinism', they simply used it as an excuse. <<<<<<<
The Anti-Defamation League's national director Abraham Foxman, in condemning the "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" Darwin-to-Hitler TV program, said that Hitler did not "need" Darwin (my response to that was to quote from Shakespeare's King Lear: "O, reason not the need!"). I think that there are two reasons for his position: (1) he wants Christianity to take all the blame for anti-semitism in general and the holocaust, and (2) he is pro-Darwinist because he sees attempts to introduce criticisms of Darwinism into public schools as attempts to sneak Christianity into public schools. The ADL went so far as to call the Dover decision a "victory for students." I wonder why students have not demonstrated over denial of the opportunity to learn about criticisms of Darwinism.
It's a waste of time to try to reason with old-fashioned people who are still Darwin-apostles.
Jim, you do understand that this is not some cultlike personality thing? Darwin was a timid little guy, and was terrified of publishing his theories. The only reason he did was because a competitor was about to release a thesis with a similar bent.
I mean, you seem to think that thinking evolution is correct is some sort of irrational thing. Do you honestly believe that we adhere to it like a religion?
I assure you, the only reason why I believe evolution by natural selection is correct is because there is an incredible preponderance of evidence in favor of it. I think Intelligent Design is stupid because none of its supporters can put forward a testable thesis - that makes it very bad science.
Can't you honestly consider it from someone else's perspective? Intelligent Design is phrased with extraordinary similarity to previous theories of "scientific creationism," surely that's not hard to see. And the proponents of ID, without exception seemingly, all fill in the blank with "God." Combine that with something like the Wedge document, which spells out very plainly that ID is an attempt to center the USA back on a religious frame of mind... can you honestly not see why ID is not taken seriously?
ID has given us nothing. It can't give us anything, in fact, since we can't test it. Evolution by natural selection is supported by a huge amount of evidence in many fields, on the other hand. Things like the Lenski experiment are not unusual except in their starkness: there is a plethora of other support.
If the Nazis did misinterpret evolution to reach their theories - something that I don't think is true, but I am willing to think you might - does that really have anything to do with the validity of the actual science? If Pat Robertson started firebombing schools based on his belief in Intelligent Design, would that make ID wrong or would it just mean that he was a crazy asshole?
Also, why do you guys keep calling it "Darwinism," really? Do you honestly think that's what it should be called, or is it meant to be disparaging, as it appears? There is no such thing as "Darwinism" in the sense that you mean, I assure you. Schools of evolutionary thought are divided into camps like punctuated equilibrium and neo-Darwinism.
I guess for the moment I am tired of you dancing monkeys, and want to get at the meat of your thoughts. Please answer the questions, and don't take the cheap easy way out of replying with similarly-phrased questions of your own.
Larry said...
>>>>>>I have seen the contrary claimed.<<<<<<
Not by anyone who has actually read and understand The Descent of Man. As my quoted passage indicates, Darwin actually makes this point in a much detailed fashion.
>>>>>>One of the ideas behind eugenics is that there is no natural selection in human society and that artificial selection is needed as a substitute for natural selection in order to improve the human race or to prevent deterioration of the human race.<<<<<<
So, according to what you say, the only concrete connection eugenics has to evolution is that eugenics is based on an utterly unproven conjecture that, basically, evolution has stopped happening in humans.
>>>>>>Before Darwin, people were aware that natural selection occurred in nature. But Darwin introduced or popularized the idea that natural selection is -- in combination with natural genetic variation -- a means of progress.<<<<<<
...and that idea has been repeatedly confirmed by various scientific discoveries and advances.
>>>>>>Not necessarily -- there can be genetic improvement within a racially pure group.<<<<<<
True, evolution can still occur in a 'racially pure' group, but:
1) The bloodlines that evolve will become something other than what is considered 'racially pure', so may very well be killed or sterilized, and;
2) Evolution happens a lot easier in 'racially impure' groups, simply because influxes of new genes into a group of individuals is one of the ways evolution occurs - these new genes mix and combine with the genes already present in order to form new combinations. The more genetically varied a group is, the more possible combinations of genes there are, and therefore the more likely an advantageous genetic feature will arise.
>>>>>>Darwinism influenced the Nazis indirectly if not directly. For example, the Nazis were influenced by American eugenics programs, which which were influenced by Darwinism. In 1920 in the USA, the Station for Experimental Evolution merged with the Eugenics Record Office to form the Carnegie Institution's Dept. of Genetics.<<<<<<
Well, if the American eugenics programs, and eugenics in general, was 'influenced' by Darwin and 'Darwinism', the various people involved in it showed this 'influence' by utterly ignoring particular passages of his books that directly dealt with the question of the racial superiority or inferiority of particular groups of mankind, and also ignored the fact that having a 'racially pure', homogenous population gives evolution less variety to work with
Zmidponk said,
>>>>>> So, according to what you say, the only concrete connection eugenics has to evolution is that eugenics is based on an utterly unproven conjecture that, basically, evolution has stopped happening in humans. <<<<<<
Well, to some extent it has stopped happening in humans -- obviously. It is obvious that people with all kinds of genetic defects reproduce.
>>>>>> Well, if the American eugenics programs, and eugenics in general, was 'influenced' by Darwin and 'Darwinism', the various people involved in it showed this 'influence' by utterly ignoring particular passages of his books that directly dealt with the question of the racial superiority or inferiority of particular groups of mankind, and also ignored the fact that having a 'racially pure', homogenous population gives evolution less variety to work with <<<<<<
The point is that regardless of whether Darwin was right, regardless of whether Darwin has been misinterpreted, it is apparent that Darwin's ideas have had negative social consequences, and Darwinists are just pretending that these negative social consequences do not exist. And the hypocritical Darwinists pretend that these social consequences do not exist while at the same time they regard Darwinism as a worldview, a philosophy of life, and even a religion -- they celebrate Darwin Day, proclaim "I love Darwin" on T-shirts, bumper stickers, coffee mugs, etc., confer "Friend of Darwin" certificates, celebrate the Lincoln-Darwin birthdate coincidence, etc..
This comment has been removed by the author.
The preceding comment was deleted because it was posted in the wrong thread.
Phae said...
>>>>>> Jim, you do understand that this is not some cultlike personality thing? <<<<<<
Wrong -- this is some cultlike personality thing. Darwinists shamelessly celebrate Darwin Day, display "I love Darwin" items (T-shirts, bumper stickers, coffee mugs, etc.), confer "Friend of Darwin" certificates, celebrate the Lincoln-Darwin birthdate coincidence, etc..
Larry blurted...
>>>>>>Well, to some extent it has stopped happening in humans -- obviously. It is obvious that people with all kinds of genetic defects reproduce.<<<<<<
Evolution does not state that those individuals who have genetic defects will not reproduce, it says that those defects will be a detriment to the longterm continuation of that individual's bloodline.
>>>>>>The point is that regardless of whether Darwin was right, regardless of whether Darwin has been misinterpreted, it is apparent that Darwin's ideas have had negative social consequences, and Darwinists are just pretending that these negative social consequences do not exist.<<<<<<
Because they don't. At best, these 'negative social effects' come from a total misunderstanding and misapplication of evolutionary theory. To say that this is the 'consequence' of evolutionary theory is like saying the actions of David Koresh is a 'consequence' of Christianity. At worst, as Anonymous pointed out, those carrying out the 'negative social effects' simply use evolution as an excuse, nothing more.
>>>>>>And the hypocritical Darwinists pretend that these social consequences do not exist while at the same time they regard Darwinism as a worldview, a philosophy of life, and even a religion -- they celebrate Darwin Day, proclaim "I love Darwin" on T-shirts, bumper stickers, coffee mugs, etc., confer "Friend of Darwin" certificates, celebrate the Lincoln-Darwin birthdate coincidence, etc..<<<<<<
Yes, Darwin is celebrated in much the same way as Lincoln is amongst Americans in general - in memory of something they did that is worth celebrating. Lincoln led America through a very dark time, the Civil War, and ended slavery, Darwin proposed a theory that radically changed our understanding of how modern life came about. Subsequent science has discovered that certain details of Darwin's theory were, in fact, not entirely correct, and, looking back at Lincoln's speeches, it appears he was somewhat two-faced (advocating separatism, inequality, and discrimination of the 'negroes' to some audiences, and advocating emancipation and equality to other ones). However, the fact remains that Lincoln did, indeed, lead America through the Civil War and ended slavery, and that Darwin's theory has yet to be falsified (though it has been modified and refined), and, in fact, seems to be confirmed by many discoveries and advances that have occurred since Darwin's time.
Wrong -- this is some cultlike personality thing. Darwinists shamelessly celebrate Darwin Day, display "I love Darwin" items (T-shirts, bumper stickers, coffee mugs, etc.), confer "Friend of Darwin" certificates, celebrate the Lincoln-Darwin birthdate coincidence, etc..
Well, some of that is as Zmidponk pointed out: Darwin was a prodigiously brilliant man despite his timidity and he made one of the most remarkable insights, expressed clearly, that we have had in science to date.
Another aspect of it is that it's pushing back against the resistance of the religious right that have been trying to eliminate good science for so long. With so many intellectual gymnasts contorting for so long to try to justify creationism in the face of much contrary evidence, it's only to be expected that people who resent it are going to adopt the moniker spat at them - "follower of Darwin" - in their own way and make it a point of pride that they think science works.
And the Lincoln-Darwin thing is just a cool coincidence.
I just find it hard to believe, Larry, that you honestly think this is a personality thing.
Jim Sherwood said...
>>>>> It's a waste of time to try to reason with old-fashioned people who are still Darwin-apostles. <<<<<
Exactly, Jim. The Darwinists don't just need to be spoon-fed -- they need to be tube-fed while being tied down to prevent them from pulling out the tube. They quibble and prevaricate endlessly about what should be non-controversies, and as a result there is little or no time to address the real controversies. Consider, for example, Judge Jones' statement to a newspaper that the school board election results would not affect his decision. First that supertroll Voice In the Urbanness cluttered up this blog by repeating over and over again that Jones told the newspaper that he was going to follow the law, and I finally got so sick of his lies that I started censoring them despite my no-censorship policy. Then the Darwinists kept arguing that it was not possible to interpret Jones' statement as implying that repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision. Then there was the Darwinists' denial that Judge Jones said in his Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions. The Darwinists just can't understand plain English and they don't have the reasoning ability of a three-year-old.
"they don't have the reasoning ability of a three-year-old."
Whereas you do.
Sometimes.
Isn't it interesting to note that the same 'Darwinists' who have the reasoning ability of a three-year-old, according to Larry, can make arguments that prove him utterly wrong?
Zmidponk said (Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:59:00 PM) --
>>>>>> At best, these 'negative social effects' come from a total misunderstanding and misapplication of evolutionary theory. <<<<<<
Actually, those negative social effects are entirely consistent with Darwin's ideas of survival-of-the-fittest and progress by means of culling the unfit.
>>>>>> Yes, Darwin is celebrated in much the same way as Lincoln is amongst Americans in general - in memory of something they did that is worth celebrating. <<<<<<
Lincoln is not "celebrated"much today. His putative birthday (we probably don't even know his real birthday because he was born on the frontier, where people tended to lose track of dates) is no longer a holiday. There are "I love Darwin" things, "Friend of Darwin" certificates, etc., but nothing comparable for Lincoln. I don't think that the USA is any different today than it would have been if there had been no Lincoln and no Civil War. The primary effect of the Civil War was to create the greatest legend of American folklore.
Phae said (Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:48:00 PM) --
>>>>>>> Well, some of that is as Zmidponk pointed out: Darwin was a prodigiously brilliant man despite his timidity and he made one of the most remarkable insights, expressed clearly, that we have had in science to date. <<<<<<<
What insights? Darwin said that random mutations happen (duh) and that fit organisms are more likely to survive than unfit organisms (duh again). What is remarkable or brilliant about that?
>>>>> And the Lincoln-Darwin thing is just a cool coincidence. <<<<<<<
It is a very uncool coincidence. Lincoln and Darwin have nothing in common. One was a scientist, the other was a politician and lawyer.
>>>>> I just find it hard to believe, Larry, that you honestly think this is a personality thing. <<<<<
Darwin is worshipped not just as a personality, but also because he represents a worldview, a philosophy of life, and even a religion.
Larry excessively eructates...
>>>>>>Actually, those negative social effects are entirely consistent with Darwin's ideas of survival-of-the-fittest and progress by means of culling the unfit.<<<<<<
Really? They're consistant with something that Darwin never proposed? OK, I'll accept that. You see, evolution does not state, and has never stated or suggested that the 'unfit' be 'culled' - it states that they die out naturally. Another way that evolution is misapplied in these 'negative social consequences' is that when considering 'survival of the fittest', the question needs to be asked 'according to what criteria?' In evolution, the answer is 'whatever criteria are there at the time'. In these 'negative social consequences', the answer is 'whatever criteria those carrying out the negative social consequences impose'. A third way in which evolution is misunderstood and misapplied is in the concept that 'more evolved = better = more worthy of life/being allowed to breed/whatever'. It actually doesn't, it simply means 'more adapted to particular circumstances'. For example, compare human beings to the jellyfish. Are human beings 'more evolved' than jellyfish? On land, certainly. Take a human being and a jellyfish into an ocean, though, and it is the jellyfish that is the 'more evolved' one.
>>>>>>I don't think that the USA is any different today than it would have been if there had been no Lincoln and no Civil War.<<<<<<
Then, amongst your other failings, you're a poor student of history.
>>>>>>What insights? Darwin said that random mutations happen (duh) and that fit organisms are more likely to survive than unfit organisms (duh again). What is remarkable or brilliant about that?<<<<<<
And he put that together, along with various observations of many different creatures and fossils, and came up with a cohesive explanation as to how life today came about. His theory, along with the evidence presented in support of it, revolutionized practically the whole of the biological sciences at the time (and, indeed, was the basis for the creation for entirely new ones), as the prevailing explanation at the time was that an omniscient, powerful being designed and created all life. Hang on, that seems familiar from somewhere...
>>>>>>Darwin is worshipped not just as a personality, but also because he represents a worldview, a philosophy of life, and even a religion.<<<<<<
Really? By who? You see, I've seen and heard Darwin praised all over the place - as a good scientist. I have NEVER heard him even praised as a 'philosophy of life', a 'worldview' or a 'religion', far less worshipped as one.
>>>>>> You see, evolution does not state, and has never stated or suggested that the 'unfit' be 'culled' - it states that they die out naturally. <<<<<
In other words, they are culled.
>>>>>>I don't think that the USA is any different today than it would have been if there had been no Lincoln and no Civil War.
Then, amongst your other failings, you're a poor student of history. <<<<<<<
No, you are. How is the USA different today from what it likely might have been had there been no Lincoln and no Civil War? The area of the lower 48 states has the exact same boundaries today that it had before the Civil War. The addition of new territories -- Alaska, Hawaii, etc. -- had nothing to do with the Civil War. Our Constitution today is close to the same as it was before the Civil War, and the changes in the Constitution since the Civil War likely would have happened without the Civil War. Slavery probably would have disappeared quietly as it did in almost all of the rest of the Western world. Blacks probably would have been given citizenship anyway, as Indians were given citizenship in 1924. The growth of federalism -- e.g., the federal income tax, Social Security and other federal programs and bureaucracies -- had nothing to do with the Civil War. People had the same beliefs and attitudes after the Civil War as they had before it. Lincoln and the Civil War have not greatly influenced Americans' views of the USA and the world, let alone foreigners' views of the USA and the world. All of this Lincoln stuff is a lot of crap.
>>>>>> And he put that together, along with various observations of many different creatures and fossils, and came up with a cohesive explanation as to how life today came about. <<<<<<
Evolution theory is really mickey mouse compared to some other scientific ideas, e.g., Maxwell's equations and the theory of relativity.
>>>>>> His theory, along with the evidence presented in support of it, revolutionized practically the whole of the biological sciences at the time <<<<<<
Wrong -- a lot of biology has nothing to do with evolution.
>>>>>> I have NEVER heard him even praised as a 'philosophy of life', a 'worldview' or a 'religion', far less worshipped as one. <<<<<<
There are the Darwin Day celebrations, the "I love Darwin" items (T-shirts, stickers, coffee mugs, etc.), the "Friend of Darwin" awards, etc..
I don't think that the USA is any different today than it would have been if there had been no Lincoln and no Civil War. The primary effect of the Civil War was to create the greatest legend of American folklore.
Wow, that is so weird! I was just saying that to my slaves the other day before I sent them out for the cotton. Weird coincidence.
What insights? Darwin said that random mutations happen (duh) and that fit organisms are more likely to survive than unfit organisms (duh again). What is remarkable or brilliant about that?
This is called "hindsight." It seems obvious now because it's so simple and we can see so much evidence of it around us and in science. But Darwin was the first person to have the clear insight that evolution occurs by natural selection of the fittest organisms from a species, and to tie this in to a conclusion about common descent.
I mean, Demokritus' notions about those "atom" things seem obvious to me, too, but that's just because I am familiar with the science supporting them.
It is a very uncool coincidence. Lincoln and Darwin have nothing in common. One was a scientist, the other was a politician and lawyer.
...yes, they have little in common. That's why it is a coincidence.
Darwin is worshipped not just as a personality, but also because he represents a worldview, a philosophy of life, and even a religion.
I suppose some people may have tried to make him represent that from both sides, although that seems to be overwhelmingly more the opinion of theists. Darwin and evolution have comparably little to do with why I am an atheist or a rationalist, for example. I think the viewpoint you are expressing is incredibly in the minority... even if vocal atheists like Hitchens or Dawkins say as much, I doubt that most scientists treat evolution as a religion. You would need to back up such an assertion.
Not to me, but too interesting to ignore:
How is the USA different today from what it likely might have been had there been no Lincoln and no Civil War? The area of the lower 48 states has the exact same boundaries today that it had before the Civil War.
West Virginia is pissed at you now.
Our Constitution today is close to the same as it was before the Civil War, and the changes in the Constitution since the Civil War likely would have happened without the Civil War.
If you're going to say that the results of occurrances from Lincoln or the Civil War "likely would have happened anyway," you can say such about most historical events. Your definition would make any individual occurrance meaningless. "Pericles is not important because Athens' superior positioning and resources would have meant they would have risen to that level anyway."
Slavery probably would have disappeared quietly as it did in almost all of the rest of the Western world.
Even though the South's economy was built on it and it was a neverending source of conflict when it came to places like Kansas? Even though, as it turns out, they were willing to secede from the Union and go to war over it? Are you actually serious?
Blacks probably would have been given citizenship anyway, as Indians were given citizenship in 1924.
Even WITH the Civil War, it took decades before blacks were granted full rights and the brutal Jim Crow laws were overturned.
Lincoln and the Civil War have not greatly influenced Americans' views of the USA and the world, let alone foreigners' views of the USA and the world. All of this Lincoln stuff is a lot of crap.
It's hard to even take this seriously. I reread this several times, waiting for the punchline.
Larry, it seems like you are just predisposed to disagree with the consensus on any issue. I am going to take a stab in the dark here and say that you loved The Bell Curve? I also bet you are one of those guys who secretly says, "Well, if black people are really equal, then why is it rocky Europe came to prominence in the world instead of lush and resource-rich Africa?" But I also bet that not even you can cross that line in public. But come on... admit it. You have said that.
In which case, incidentally, you should read Jared Diamond's work.
>>>>>> Wow, that is so weird! I was just saying that to my slaves the other day before I sent them out for the cotton. Weird coincidence. <<<<<<
Just when you were putting on your high-button shoes and picking up your buggy whip to go out for a ride.
>>>>>> I think the viewpoint you are expressing is incredibly in the minority... even if vocal atheists like Hitchens or Dawkins say as much, I doubt that most scientists treat evolution as a religion <<<<<<
Just look at the Darwin Day celebrations, the "I love Darwin" stuff, the "Friend of Darwin" certificates, etc..
>>>>>> West Virginia is pissed at you now. <<<<<<<
Just one state! One lousy state! Amd it was carved out of another state -- it did not add any territory! Is that any reason to worship Lincoln?
>>>>>> Even though the South's economy was built on it and it was a neverending source of conflict when it came to places like Kansas? <<<<<<<
The economies of a lot of places were built on slavery.
>>>>>> Even though, as it turns out, they were willing to secede from the Union and go to war over it? Are you actually serious? <<<<<<
Yes, I am serious. Secession hurt rather than helped the interests of the slaveowners. Congress even submitted to the states for ratification a proposed irrevocable constitutional amendment which would have forever barred the federal government from interfering with slavery in the states. The slavery issue was just a pretext for secession.
>>>>>> Even WITH the Civil War, it took decades before blacks were granted full rights and the brutal Jim Crow laws were overturned. <<<<<<<
You think that racism was just a Southern thing? Here are some excerpts from Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas's first debate with Lincoln:
Do you desire to strike out of our State Constitution that clause which keeps slaves and free negroes out of the State, and allow the free negroes to flow in, ("never,") and cover your prairies with black settlements? Do you desire to turn this beautiful State into a free negro colony, ("no, no,") in order that when Missouri abolishes slavery she can send one hundred thousand emancipated slaves into Illinois, to become citizens and voters, on an equality with yourselves? ("Never," "no.") . . . . . . For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any and every form. (Cheers.) I believe this Government was made on the white basis. ("Good.") I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity for ever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians, and other inferior races. ("Good for you." "Douglas forever.")
>>>>> You have said that. <<<<<
No, I have not said that, dunghill. Stop putting words in my mouth.
>>>>>> In which case, incidentally, you should read Jared Diamond's work. <<<<<<
Who in the hell is Jared Diamond?
Just when you were putting on your high-button shoes and picking up your buggy whip to go out for a ride.
So... what's your argument here? That because some things have changed independent of the Civil War, then the Civil War must not have caused any changes? You are aware that it ended slavery as an institution in America, right?
Just look at the Darwin Day celebrations, the "I love Darwin" stuff, the "Friend of Darwin" certificates, etc..
Okay. So what does expressing approval for evolution by natural selection as opposed to the efforts to get rid of it have to do with your point? Are you seriously suggesting that "Darwin Day" means that people are worshipping him?
Just one state! One lousy state! Amd it was carved out of another state -- it did not add any territory! Is that any reason to worship Lincoln?
I was just pointing out the most glaring and amusing flaw in your statements. I accept your concession that you were wrong.
Your implications are interesting. Is the only reason a historical event can be memorable is if it adds on more territory? And who is "worshipping" Lincoln? He is revered, certainly.
The economies of a lot of places were built on slavery.
Sure. Places like the West Indies. But luckily they never had wars about it either ohshitnevermind.
Yes, I am serious. Secession hurt rather than helped the interests of the slaveowners.
Support this, please, since it's fairly hilarious.
Congress even submitted to the states for ratification a proposed irrevocable constitutional amendment which would have forever barred the federal government from interfering with slavery in the states. The slavery issue was just a pretext for secession.
That is a claim made by many Confederate apologists. It is interesting on how they try to bear it out, especially considering how the deep south states all issued secession statements identifying slavery as a main cause of the break, and in the Confederacy's declaration of independence, slavery and slaves are mentioned many times and "tariffs" (often given as an alternative) are not mentioned once.
Please supply some sort of evidence for your assertion that slavery was not a main cause of the war.
You think that racism was just a Southern thing? Here are some excerpts from Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas's first debate with Lincoln:
...I never said racism was a Southern thing. That is absurd. But Jim Crow and its brutal legacy was a Southern thing. Do you not know what the Jim Crow laws were? For that matter, do you know what Reconstruction was? And if so, how do you explain its immense effects absent the Civil War?
No, I have not said that, dunghill. Stop putting words in my mouth.
I was speculating. And, in fact, I don't actually believe your denial. It just seems unlikely you think the Holocaust wasn't real, that evolution isn't true, that the Civil War wasn't about slavery... but that you don't believe black people are inferior somehow. But that's okay, I guess it's possible.
Who in the hell is Jared Diamond?
He wrote one of those "book" things you hate. Never mind, don't worry about it. It has all kinds of words, so it's not your style.
>>>>>> So... what's your argument here? That because some things have changed independent of the Civil War, then the Civil War must not have caused any changes? <<<<<<
No -- what I am saying is that slavery probably would have ended without the Civil War.
>>>>>> Are you seriously suggesting that "Darwin Day" means that people are worshipping him? <<<<<<
Darwin Day is bad enough, but there are also the "I love Darwin" stuff, the "Friend of Darwin" certificates, etc..
>>>>>> I accept your concession that you were wrong. <<<<<<
You better watch what you say -- putting words in my mouth is a censoring offense here.
>>>>>> And who is "worshipping" Lincoln? He is revered, certainly. <<<<<<<
The Darwin-Lincoln cultists worship Lincoln, of course. But he is not a big hero to a lot of people.
>>>>>Yes, I am serious. Secession hurt rather than helped the interests of the slaveowners.
Support this, please, since it's fairly hilarious. <<<<<<<
You are hilarious, dunghill. Supposedly the two biggest issues were: (1) expansion of slavery into the territories and (2) fugitive slaves. Secession hurt slaveowners on both counts (I don't know why fugitive slaves were even an issue, because I figure that once they were gone, they were usually gone for good). Also, secession split the slave states when they needed to stay together. Slaveowners in slave states that remained in the Union (initially over half of the slave states) were left in an especially bad position.
Many abolitionists were in favor of secession of the slave states -- and that was not because secession benefited slaveowners.
>>>>>> That is a claim made by many Confederate apologists. It is interesting on how they try to bear it out, especially considering how the deep south states all issued secession statements identifying slavery as a main cause of the break, <<<<<<<
Have you ever heard the expression, "actions speak louder than words"? By ignoring this proposed amendment, the Confederates showed that slavery was not the sole issue or even the primary issue.
>>>>>> Confederacy's declaration of independence, slavery and slaves are mentioned many times and "tariffs" (often given as an alternative) are not mentioned once. <<<<<<
Was there a Confederate "declaration of independence"? I am not aware of one.
Do you think that politicians always tell the truth? If you do, you are very naive.
Even Confederate V.P. Alexander Stephens' oft-quoted "slavery-is-the-cornerstone-of-the-Confederacy" speech discusses tariffs and unequal federal spending before it discusses slavery.
IMO Confederates emphasized the slavery issue because the argument could be made that the Republicans' and Northern Democrats' policies on slavery in the territories violated the Constitution as interpreted by the Dred Scott decision -- in contrast, no constitutional argument could be made against high tariffs. This alleged constitutional violation was used as a pretext for secession.
>>>>>> But Jim Crow and its brutal legacy was a Southern thing. <<<<<<
Wrong -- there was plenty of racial discrimination in the North and West. I grew up in California in a neighborhood that had a "restrictive covenant."
>>>>> I was speculating. <<<<<<
Your "speculation" often goes too far, dunghill.
Larry pompously proclaimed...
>>>>>>In other words, they are culled.<<<<<<
No. You see, for example, when a farmer selects certain of his cows to die because they aren't producing enough milk, that is culling. When a colony of meercats die out because they can't find enough food to survive, that is that colony dying out in an entirely natural process. You see the difference?
>>>>>>No, you are. How is the USA different today from what it likely might have been had there been no Lincoln and no Civil War? The area of the lower 48 states has the exact same boundaries today that it had before the Civil War. The addition of new territories -- Alaska, Hawaii, etc. -- had nothing to do with the Civil War. Our Constitution today is close to the same as it was before the Civil War, and the changes in the Constitution since the Civil War likely would have happened without the Civil War. Slavery probably would have disappeared quietly as it did in almost all of the rest of the Western world. Blacks probably would have been given citizenship anyway, as Indians were given citizenship in 1924. The growth of federalism -- e.g., the federal income tax, Social Security and other federal programs and bureaucracies -- had nothing to do with the Civil War. People had the same beliefs and attitudes after the Civil War as they had before it. Lincoln and the Civil War have not greatly influenced Americans' views of the USA and the world, let alone foreigners' views of the USA and the world. All of this Lincoln stuff is a lot of crap.<<<<<<
So, basically, what you're saying is that, if the same things that Lincoln caused to happen had happened anyway, then the USA would be the same as it is now if Lincoln had not been born. I think that comes under the heading of, 'no shit, Sherlock'.
>>>>>>Evolution theory is really mickey mouse compared to some other scientific ideas, e.g., Maxwell's equations and the theory of relativity.<<<<<<
The idea that evolution is 'mickey mouse' shows that you are utterly ignorant of how much evolution changed our understanding of the world, and how many scientific advances and discoveries are directly or indirectly connected with evolution. As to your comments about Maxwell's equations and the Theory of Relativity, what's your point? Other things in other scientific fields are also important scientific discoveries. So?
>>>>>>Wrong -- a lot of biology has nothing to do with evolution.<<<<<<
Well, sorry, most of modern biology can be connected or traced to evolution in some way. Hell, even some fields completely outside biology are being influenced by evolution (Robotics, for example).
>>>>>>There are the Darwin Day celebrations, the "I love Darwin" items (T-shirts, stickers, coffee mugs, etc.), the "Friend of Darwin" awards, etc..<<<<<<
None of which show anyone 'worshipping' Darwin as you describe.
No -- what I am saying is that slavery probably would have ended without the Civil War.
And what is your evidence that slavery was somehow winding down? I have a bit of evidence to the contrary: they fought a war over it.
Darwin Day is bad enough, but there are also the "I love Darwin" stuff, the "Friend of Darwin" certificates, etc..
I don't know about you, but to me stickers and certificates stop somewhat shy of "worshipping." You might be able to make "revere" with that.
You better watch what you say -- putting words in my mouth is a censoring offense here.
You implicitly admitted you were wrong, and I accepted your concession. If you have to start censoring me because you're looking bad again, it's not my fault.
But just to recap for you: you said that the boundaries of the lower 48 states remained the same after the Civil War, by way of "evidence" that the war wasn't important. I pointed out a glaring factual error in that statement, inasmuch as the boundaries of Virginia changed rather dramatically when it split. Your response indicated that you accepted my correction.
Ergo, I accept your concession on the point.
The Darwin-Lincoln cultists worship Lincoln, of course. But he is not a big hero to a lot of people.
Please provide evidence of worship, since that's rather a tall order. Are you using it metaphorically?
And I am well aware that he is not a big hero to some people... I grew up in the Deep South, after all, with a lot of you folks.
You are hilarious, dunghill. Supposedly the two biggest issues were: (1) expansion of slavery into the territories and (2) fugitive slaves.
Those were big issues before the war, yes. But in point of fact, the existence of slavery as an institution was the most prominent one on this.
Secession hurt slaveowners on both counts (I don't know why fugitive slaves were even an issue, because I figure that once they were gone, they were usually gone for good). Also, secession split the slave states when they needed to stay together. Slaveowners in slave states that remained in the Union (initially over half of the slave states) were left in an especially bad position.
And you don't think they might have thought it would help the cause of slaveowning to belong to a country that wasn't trying to make it illegal?
Many abolitionists were in favor of secession of the slave states -- and that was not because secession benefited slaveowners.
Support this statement, please. I am interested in its accuracy.
Have you ever heard the expression, "actions speak louder than words"? By ignoring this proposed amendment, the Confederates showed that slavery was not the sole issue or even the primary issue.
So an amendment that failed to pass overrules the secession statements of seven states, the Cornerstone Speech, and the declarations of secession? That is an... interesting interpretation.
Was there a Confederate "declaration of independence"? I am not aware of one.
You're not aware of much. There were multiple such, ranging from many states.
Do you think that politicians always tell the truth? If you do, you are very naive.
No, you're right, it's totally believable that the most fractious issue that had divided the nation infamously for decades - an issue spoken of in the ordinances of secession and the declarations of independence in the deep south seceding states - an issue almost universally acknowledged to be at the heart of the conflict... yes, they're lying about it. You have seen through the matter in a miraculous way, free of any constraints of reason or proof. Bravissimo, good sir.
Even Confederate V.P. Alexander Stephens' oft-quoted "slavery-is-the-cornerstone-of-the-Confederacy" speech discusses tariffs and unequal federal spending before it discusses slavery.
You're right. Shame on me for thinking slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy. Thank you for pointing to the "slavery-is-the-cornerstone-of-the-
Confederacy" speech to prove me wrong. You're on a roll.
IMO Confederates emphasized the slavery issue because the argument could be made that the Republicans' and Northern Democrats' policies on slavery in the territories violated the Constitution as interpreted by the Dred Scott decision -- in contrast, no constitutional argument could be made against high tariffs. This alleged constitutional violation was used as a pretext for secession.
It's a brave man who makes bold and stupid statements without a single shred of support or proof. And for that, I salute you.
Wrong -- there was plenty of racial discrimination in the North and West. I grew up in California in a neighborhood that had a "restrictive covenant."
Jim Crow laws were almost exclusive to the South. Obviously such a restriction is not absolute. But I would be interested to see anything you could provide to indicate that Jim Crow was not overwhelmingly a Southern institution. You have been whirling around with a great many fumbletongued statements without any support at all.
Your "speculation" often goes too far, dunghill.
I still don't believe you.
As I said, stop putting words in my mouth, dunghill. When I have not conceded something, I have not conceded it.
>>>>> I have a bit of evidence to the contrary: they fought a war over it.
As I said, slavery was the pretext for the war. The real issues were tariffs and states' rights.
>>>>> I don't know about you, but to me stickers and certificates stop somewhat shy of "worshipping." You might be able to make "revere" with that. <<<<<<
It's worship -- it is far greater and more extensive than what is done for other scientists. Other scientists may have awards or medals named after them, but that is about it.
>>>>>> You implicitly admitted you were wrong, and I accepted your concession. <<<<<<
I implicitly admitted nothing, dunghill. If you say that again, I will censor your comment for lying about an objective fact.
>>>>>> Many abolitionists were in favor of secession of the slave states -- and that was not because secession benefited slaveowners.
Support this statement, please. I am interested in its accuracy. <<<<<<<
Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison are good examples.
>>>>>> But just to recap for you: you said that the boundaries of the lower 48 states remained the same after the Civil War, by way of "evidence" that the war wasn't important. <<<<<<<
Well, that's true so far as territory is concerned. Other wars have dramatically changed maps.
>>>>>> I pointed out a glaring factual error in that statement, inasmuch as the boundaries of Virginia changed rather dramatically when it split. <<<<<<
As I said, that is trivial. Massachusetts was split when Maine was created. Kentucky was once part of Virginia's territory.
>>>>>> Ergo, I accept your concession on the point. <<<<<<
I said to cut that out, dunghill. This is the final warning.
>>>>> Please provide evidence of worship, since that's rather a tall order. <<<<<<<
The mere celebration of the birthdate coincidence is a sign of worship, since the two men had nothing else in common.
>>>>>> Those were big issues before the war, yes. But in point of fact, the existence of slavery as an institution was the most prominent one on this. <<<<<<
That is begging the question.
>>>>>> And you don't think they might have thought it would help the cause of slaveowning to belong to a country that wasn't trying to make it illegal? <<<<<<
How is offering a constitutional amendment forever barring federal interference with slavery in the states an act of trying to make slavery illegal? As for Lincoln, he said that he had no objection to the proposed amendment (though presidents have no official role in the adoption of constitutional amendments). He also said that he had neither the power nor the inclination to interfere with slavery in the states.
>>>>>>> So an amendment that failed to pass overrules the secession statements of seven states, the Cornerstone Speech, and the declarations of secession? That is an... interesting interpretation. <<<<<<
As I said, actions speak louder than words.
I'll bet there are some things that you didn't know about Alexander Stephens, the author of the "cornerstone" speech:
(1) He was a leading Unionist of Georgia for many years. Even after the election of Lincoln, he gave a speech against secession.
(2) He was well-liked by his slaves and other blacks. His slaves stayed with him through the Civil War and afterwards. He was in favor of education of slaves and recognition of slave marriages.
(3) He supported the presidential candidacy of Stephen Douglas. Slaveowners generally opposed Douglas because of his popular sovereignty policies on slavery.
>>>>>> You're not aware of much. There were multiple such, ranging from many states. <<<<<<
You're the one who is not aware of much, dunghill. When you say "Confederate declaration of independence" in the singular, that means just one.
>>>>>> No, you're right, . . . . yes, they're lying about it. You're right. . . .You're on a roll. <<<<<<<
Who is the one who is conceding error here?
Why would the Confederates admit that they were trying to deceive people about the real reasons for secession? The North called the Confederates' bluff by offering an irrevocable constitutional amendment that would have forever barred the federal government from interfering with slavery in the states, and the Confederates exposed their big lie by ignoring the amendment. And as I said, secession did nothing for the slaveowners and actually hurt their interests. As I said, the Confederates believed that the slavery issue made a stronger case for secession because they could argue that the Republicans' and Northern Democrats' policies on slavery in the territories were in violation of the Constitution as interpreted by the Dred Scott decision -- the Confederates could not make a constitutional argument about high tariffs. Also, the middle and upper slave states were less concerned about high tariffs than the states of the deep South and so making slavery a big issue broadened secession's appeal. However, no slave state outside the deep South seceded until after the outbreak of the Civil War.
Also, the Confederates were not just opposed to high tariffs but were also opposed to the fact that the tariffs disproportionately cost the South while the collected revenues disproportionately benefited the North.
>>>>> It's a brave man who makes bold and stupid statements without a single shred of support or proof. <<<<<
No proof is needed -- I just put two and two together. I can't directly prove that the Confederates were lying about their reasons for secession. And many Confederates were not defending slavery or freedom from tariffs but were defending states' rights and their home states against an invader.
>>>>>> But I would be interested to see anything you could provide to indicate that Jim Crow was not overwhelmingly a Southern institution. <<<<<<<
I just provided something -- excerpts from Stephen Douglas's speech in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. This was before the Civil War, but it still shows the extreme racial intolerance in the North. Here they are again:
Do you desire to strike out of our State Constitution that clause which keeps slaves and free negroes out of the State, and allow the free negroes to flow in, ("never,") and cover your prairies with black settlements? Do you desire to turn this beautiful State into a free negro colony, ("no, no,") in order that when Missouri abolishes slavery she can send one hundred thousand emancipated slaves into Illinois, to become citizens and voters, on an equality with yourselves? ("Never," "no.") . . . . . . For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any and every form. (Cheers.) I believe this Government was made on the white basis. ("Good.") I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity for ever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians, and other inferior races. ("Good for you." "Douglas forever.")
Larry wrote, "As I said, slavery was the pretext for the war. The real issues were tariffs and states' rights"
Yes, the key issue was the states' right to own slaves. Read the constitution of the CSA.
Larry wrote, ">>>>>> Many abolitionists were in favor of secession of the slave states"
Larry's actually right about this (perhaps the first time on his blog!), at least according to wikipedia: "By 1860 many abolitionists welcomed the formation of the Confederacy because it would remove the Slave Power from its stranglehold over the United States government"
I believe Phae wrote, quoted by and "answered" by Larry, ">>>>>> But I would be interested to see anything you could provide to indicate that Jim Crow was not overwhelmingly a Southern institution. <<<<<<<
I just provided something -- excerpts from Stephen Douglas's speech in the Lincoln-Douglas debates."
In which Larry demonstrates that he confuses Jim Crow laws and racism. Larry, do you even know what a Jim Crow law is (was)?
As I said, stop putting words in my mouth, dunghill. When I have not conceded something, I have not conceded it.
Oh? Then you're not conceding the point? Then please tell me how you manage to reconcile the statement that "the boundaries of the lower 48 states remained the same" with the fact that Virginia and West Virginia split into two, clearly changing their boundaries? See, because to me that looks like an obvious and explicit error (one of many) upon which you were graciously corrected by myself.
If you're not conceding the point, pray tell: explain.
As I said, slavery was the pretext for the war. The real issues were tariffs and states' rights.
Yes. You did say that. Do you have any EVIDENCE to support it? I have given mine: ordinances of secession, for example. Do you think repeating something multiple times makes it true?
It's worship -- it is far greater and more extensive than what is done for other scientists. Other scientists may have awards or medals named after them, but that is about it.
Your statement doesn't even make sense. I agree that respect for Darwin is expressed far greater and more extensively than for most other scientists, but that does not imply "worship." Instead, it implies (as I have said) that it is traction against anti-science people like you, and respect for a brilliant man's breakthroughs.
I implicitly admitted nothing, dunghill. If you say that again, I will censor your comment for lying about an objective fact.
You can censor all you want, but you should probably explain why. How exactly were you not admitting you were wrong?
Oh, and no need to worry: I have all these responses sent to my inbox, so there's no chance my reply might be lost if you deleted it.
Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison are good examples.
I was not aware they supported secession. Could you link me to your source?
Well, that's true so far as territory is concerned. Other wars have dramatically changed maps.
It's true then? Good.
As I said, that is trivial. Massachusetts was split when Maine was created. Kentucky was once part of Virginia's territory.
It was the creation of a new state. You said that state boundaries remained the same. You are obviously, wholly wrong.
I said to cut that out, dunghill. This is the final warning.
Are you going to explain why you are not obviously wrong, or are you going to just try to censor this and make me repost it on every one of your blog entries?
The mere celebration of the birthdate coincidence is a sign of worship, since the two men had nothing else in common.
...how is it worship? Inasmuch as I can see, it is celebration of the coincidental birth of two very different but great men. It's just fun, is all. Look up "fun," you could learn from this.
How is offering a constitutional amendment forever barring federal interference with slavery in the states an act of trying to make slavery illegal? As for Lincoln, he said that he had no objection to the proposed amendment (though presidents have no official role in the adoption of constitutional amendments). He also said that he had neither the power nor the inclination to interfere with slavery in the states.
Oh, did the amendment pass? Oh, wait. No. It didn't.
As I said, actions speak louder than words.
I agree. Secession and war is a pretty big action, especially when the stated causes are mostly slavery.
I'll bet there are some things that you didn't know about Alexander Stephens, the author of the "cornerstone" speech:
(1) He was a leading Unionist of Georgia for many years. Even after the election of Lincoln, he gave a speech against secession.
I thought actions spoke louder than words? Like secession, despite what speeches he might give. Remember the other day, when you snidely asked me if I believed everything politicians say? It's interesting how quickly your approach changes.
(2) He was well-liked by his slaves and other blacks. His slaves stayed with him through the Civil War and afterwards. He was in favor of education of slaves and recognition of slave marriages.
I bet you have a black friend, so you're not racist, either! He must have been a swell guy if the people he held in bondage liked him so much.
(3) He supported the presidential candidacy of Stephen Douglas. Slaveowners generally opposed Douglas because of his popular sovereignty policies on slavery.
Um, great. I guess. What do his views on slavery matter, again? He was speaking in his official capacity when he said slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy.
You're the one who is not aware of much, dunghill. When you say "Confederate declaration of independence" in the singular, that means just one.
Yup. I phrased it wrongly. Sorry. There were actually many more.
See, this is where I notice a factual error you have pointed out, and say that I was wrong: there wasn't one such declaration, there was one for many states (most of which state slavery, and all of the deep south ones). This is very different from your strategy, which would be to refuse to admit it and threaten to censor you.
Who is the one who is conceding error here?
Clearly not you. But you aren't a very quick study, so it may take some time.
Why would the Confederates admit that they were trying to deceive people about the real reasons for secession? The North called the Confederates' bluff by offering an irrevocable constitutional amendment that would have forever barred the federal government from interfering with slavery in the states, and the Confederates exposed their big lie by ignoring the amendment. And as I said, secession did nothing for the slaveowners and actually hurt their interests. As I said, the Confederates believed that the slavery issue made a stronger case for secession because they could argue that the Republicans' and Northern Democrats' policies on slavery in the territories were in violation of the Constitution as interpreted by the Dred Scott decision -- the Confederates could not make a constitutional argument about high tariffs. Also, the middle and upper slave states were less concerned about high tariffs than the states of the deep South and so making slavery a big issue broadened secession's appeal. However, no slave state outside the deep South seceded until after the outbreak of the Civil War.
Wow, that's a whole lot of unsupported allegations. So you're claiming the Southern states lied in their ordinances of secession and declarations of independence. It sure would be swell if you had any support for that. Any at all. Or even just your reason for such an irrational belief.
Also, the Confederates were not just opposed to high tariffs but were also opposed to the fact that the tariffs disproportionately cost the South while the collected revenues disproportionately benefited the North.
That is true, and it was part of the causes of the war. Less so than slavery, of course.
No proof is needed -- I just put two and two together. I can't directly prove that the Confederates were lying about their reasons for secession. And many Confederates were not defending slavery or freedom from tariffs but were defending states' rights and their home states against an invader.
Well, if you think no proof is needed for your claim, then I suppose it should be taught in history classes? Since that's the same standard you apply for ID in science classes.
I just provided something -- excerpts from Stephen Douglas's speech in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. This was before the Civil War, but it still shows the extreme racial intolerance in the North. Here they are again:
That is RACISM. Not JIM CROW. Do you know what the Jim Crow laws even were, you complete moron? How stupid can you possibly be?
>>>>> Then please tell me how you manage to reconcile the statement that "the boundaries of the lower 48 states remained the same" with the fact that Virginia and West Virginia split into two, clearly changing their boundaries? <<<<<<
I was obviously talking about national boundaries, idiot. Many of the lower 48 states had not even been created at that time. I referred to the "48 states" to exclude Alaska, Hawaii, and maybe some overseas territories. Duh.
>>>>>> If you're not conceding the point <<<<<<
It's OK to say that you think I am wrong -- just don't say that I have conceded anything unless I say I have.
>>>>>>As I said, slavery was the pretext for the war. The real issues were tariffs and states' rights.
Yes. You did say that. Do you have any EVIDENCE to support it? I have given mine: ordinances of secession, for example <<<<<<
And I have given evidence that those ordinances of secession were full of lies.
>>>>> I agree that respect for Darwin is expressed far greater and more extensively than for most other scientists, but that does not imply "worship." <<<<<
I have showed why it is worship -- Darwin Day, "I love Darwin" stuff, "Friend of Darwin" certificates, the Lincoln-Darwin cult, etc..
>>>>> I was not aware they supported secession. Could you link me to your source? <<<<<<
Look them up on Google.
>>>>>It was the creation of a new state. You said that state boundaries remained the same. <<<<<<
I said that Maine was carved out of Massachusetts, just like West Virginia was carved out of Virginia.
>>>>> Oh, did the amendment pass? <<<<<
Yes, dunghill, I said it passed Congress -- and it was a Congress that was totally dominated by Northern states because of secession. The seceded states could have helped ratify the amendment by returning to the Union. Duh.
>>>>>> He was speaking in his official capacity <<<<<<
At the time, Stephens was not Confederate V.P. -- and he couldn't speak for everyone, and maybe he couldn't even speak for himself because he may have been lying. And as I said, he was a leading Unionist in Georgia for many years and he gave an anti-secession speech after the election of Lincoln, so why should he be considered a spokesperson for the secessionists?
>>>>>Wow, that's a whole lot of unsupported allegations. <<<<<<
Wrong -- those statements are all historically accurate. The support for your allegations are probably lies.
>>>>>> Less so than slavery, of course. <<<<<<
You have not shown anything that secession did to help the slaveowners.
>>>>>> Well, if you think no proof is needed for your claim, then I suppose it should be taught in history classes? <<<<<<
Well, some of it is taught in history classes. And it doesn't have to be taught in history classes to be a fair interpretation. And this blog's banner says, "This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here."
>>>>>> That is RACISM. Not JIM CROW. <<<<<<
What in the hell do you think Jim Crowism is, you stupid beetlebrain?
Phae knows more about history than I do, so I'm going to let him address most of your 'arguments' (to use the term in it's loosest possible sense), but I do have to address two.
>>>>>>I was not aware they supported secession. Could you link me to your source?
Look them up on Google.<<<<<<
Why should Phae have to do research to back up YOUR 'argument'? If you are trying to say something, it is up to YOU to back it up, not telling Phae to do so.
However, upon doing as you say, I get hit after hit telling me both men were abolitionists, which I knew already, but the only reference I can see to either of them supporting secession is, on the Wikipedia entry for Wendell Phillips, there is a statement made, in passing, that, 'By 1860 many abolitionists welcomed the formation of the Confederacy because it would remove the Slave Power from its stranglehold over the United States government.' However, even this does not say that Phillips was one of these abolitionists.
>>>>>>What in the hell do you think Jim Crowism is, you stupid beetlebrain?<<<<<<
Well, it is obvious you don't know. Jim Crow refers to a system of state and local laws that mandated a segregation of blacks and whites in all public places, schools and transportation. It was the system of laws that supposedly made black people 'separate but equal', but, in fact, led to discrimination by the simple fact that the 'black version' of these facilities was inferior, in many ways, to the 'white version'. Phae stated that this system was predominantly enacted in the Southern states, and, so far, you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Phae's statement is untrue, only indicated that people in the north were also racist, and, from my own knowledge of what 'Jim Crowism' is, it is, in fact, true.
I decided to investigate the above further. Using only the information you have given, the only evidence that can be obtained is a passing reference to it from an unsourced sentence on Wikipedia that doesn't actually state the direct calim you made that Wendell Phillips was a pro-secession abolitionist.
However, from my own investigations, whilst some abolitionists did, indeed, support secession, the vast majority did not (for example, the abolitionist Lysander Spooner is often described as 'standing almost alone' in support of secession, and Ezra Heywood is often described as one of the few abolitionists who did not abandon the anti-violence stance that abolitionists had at the time, and thus defended the Southern secession by simply arguing that to go to war over it was wrong). So, it seems, you are technically correct in that some abolitionists did support secession, but they were the exception, not the rule, and it was for reasons directly connected with the Civil War, thus backing up Phae's statement that the Civil War was, indeed, about slavery.
Zmidponk, thanks for the additional research regarding the abolitionists and secession. I was worried that the universe was about to collapse given that Larry was right about something. Nothing to worry about now.
All this proves is that the civil war was about slavery -- or, if you (Larry) prefer, about the rights of states to keep slavery legal.
>>>>>> Zmidponk, thanks for the additional research regarding the abolitionists and secession. I was worried that the universe was about to collapse given that Larry was right about something <<<<<<
I was right about more than that. Those abolitionists who were in favor of the secession of the slave states were leading abolitionists. And I read in books (though not yet on the Internet) that there were abolitionist meetings that favored secession.
You guys have not given a single example of how secession helped the slaveowners, but I have examples of how secession hurt the slaveowners:
(1) Secession made it much less likely that the pro-slavery policies of the federal government would be maintained.
(2) Secession split the slave states when they needed to stick together.
Lincoln bent over backwards to show that he was not trying to free the slaves. He fired two Union generals who tried to free slaves.
You still haven't explained why the Confederate states ignored the Corwin amendment, which would have forever barred the federal government from interfering with slavery in the states. The Confederates also ignored the Crittenden compromise and the Emancipation Proclamation, where Lincoln told the slave states that they could keep their slaves if they returned to the Union immediately.
I also pointed out something that could help explain why the Confederates emphasized the slavery issue -- so they could argue that the Republicans' and Northern Democrats' policies about slavery in the territories were violating the Constitution as interpreted by the Dred Scott decision. They could not make a constitutional argument about the issue of the disproportion of the collection of tariffs and the benefits of federal spending.
And as I pointed out, the Illinois state constitution once barred all blacks from immigrating to the state.
I was obviously talking about national boundaries, idiot. Many of the lower 48 states had not even been created at that time. I referred to the "48 states" to exclude Alaska, Hawaii, and maybe some overseas territories. Duh.
Well, it wasn't obvious. See, it seemed to me like you were making a sweeping statement about how the borders of the states were all the same, and that statement was obviously and hilariously incorrect. Obviously some states did not yet exist, but that is hardly relevant: you were making a farcical claim that the states boundaries prior to the Civil War were not affected by the war. And even though that's hardly a conclusive point, it was still hilariously wrong.
And I have given evidence that those ordinances of secession were full of lies.
No... you have made unsupported assertions that they were full of lies. Are you aware that your opinion is not evidence? If you want to prove that the states all lied in their official statements, you're going to need rather more than your own guess.
I have showed why it is worship -- Darwin Day, "I love Darwin" stuff, "Friend of Darwin" certificates, the Lincoln-Darwin cult, etc..
You haven't shown it is worship... that's laughable. You have just repeated it several times. A day to honor someone is not worship, nor are items honoring them... especially in such a benign fashion. No one prays to Darwin, no one asks for his intercession, and no one thinks he was anything more than a brilliant and timid Englishman. Your claim that anyone "worships" him is ludicrous.
Look them up on Google.
Nah. I'll just assume you're lying. It's the easier course, rather than doing research on your bidding.
Yes, dunghill, I said it passed Congress -- and it was a Congress that was totally dominated by Northern states because of secession. The seceded states could have helped ratify the amendment by returning to the Union. Duh.
The amendment did pass? That is an interesting claim. Which amendment is it; what number?
At the time, Stephens was not Confederate V.P. -- and he couldn't speak for everyone, and maybe he couldn't even speak for himself because he may have been lying. And as I said, he was a leading Unionist in Georgia for many years and he gave an anti-secession speech after the election of Lincoln, so why should he be considered a spokesperson for the secessionists?
Because he was their Vice-President and that speech was considered a landmark statement of policy?
Yet you want to discount it because... he might have been lying?
Wrong -- those statements are all historically accurate. The support for your allegations are probably lies.
So you can't back up your statements with any evidence. And even though I can (ordinances of secession, cornerstone speech, etc.), you are going to assume that my evidence is false just because it suits you to believe so?
You have not shown anything that secession did to help the slaveowners.
That would be a difficult standard, considering how the Civil War ended slavery, now wouldn't it? But it seems fairly clear they thought it would serve their interests. As evidence for this, I can point to the fact that THEY DID IT.
What in the hell do you think Jim Crowism is, you stupid beetlebrain?
...you really don't know! HAHAHHAHA! You have been arguing about something and you don't even know what it is! That is amazing!
Jim Crow was not just "racism," you hilarious idiot. It was the systematized attempt to relegate blacks back to antebellum conditions, by disenfranchising them from their civil rights and segregating them into pseudo-slavery positions. While there were occasional examples of it other than in the south, most of these occurred in the west, where southern values had spread and already come into conflict on the matter ("Bloody Kansas"). Only rarely was it ever in the north, because the north lacked the slave-dominated cultural mores necessary to inspire systematic degredation.
I can't believe you have been shrieking about this and you were so wholly ignorant of the difference between Jim Crow and racism.
I was right about more than that. Those abolitionists who were in favor of the secession of the slave states were leading abolitionists. And I read in books (though not yet on the Internet) that there were abolitionist meetings that favored secession.
I read in an unnamed book that Jesus was Chinese and spent those three days in Hell playing Go with Beelzebub. Is that equally true?
However, I am sure there were probably some abolitionists' groups that favored secession. But that was clearly not anything like the main drive of the movement. Otherwise they would be "secessionists," not "abolitionists." Abolition was the elimination of slavery, not secession from it.
You guys have not given a single example of how secession helped the slaveowners, but I have examples of how secession hurt the slaveowners:
Secession and the ensuing war ended slavery. It destroyed the slaveowners. No one has claimed that it ended up helping them, that would be as stupid as thinking racism and Jim Crow were identical.
Lincoln bent over backwards to show that he was not trying to free the slaves. He fired two Union generals who tried to free slaves.
Your first statement is true, although your latter is pretty badly hyperbolized. Lincoln didn't intend to free the slaves, as he thought initially that union was more important than abolitionism. When it became clear that union would only be achieved through total war, however, his priorities changed. This is the only element of your arguments that bears a semblence of truth, interestingly, but it's worth noting: Lincoln himself did not go to war over slavery. He desperately wanted to avoid war above all.
Blahblahtariffsblahblahcorwin
You are entirely missing the point. I will be the first to say that economic interests were also very important, but that interest was tied up inextricably with the more primary purpose of slavery.
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the Corwin amendment. It was proposed AFTER the Confederacy had already formed. The seceding states were committed.
And as I pointed out, the Illinois state constitution once barred all blacks from immigrating to the state.
That is interesting. Please explain its relevance? No one has argued that racism was restricted to the south. You absolute moron.
>>>>>The amendment did pass? <<<<<
The Corwin amendment passed Congress. It just needed ratification by the states.
>>>>>> Because he was their Vice-President and that speech was considered a landmark statement of policy? <<<<<
Does Dick Cheney make "landmark" statements about US policy? Does Cheney speak for everyone? Does Cheney never lie about his real beliefs and intentions?
>>>>> I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the Corwin amendment. It was proposed AFTER the Confederacy had already formed. The seceding states were committed. <<<<<<
They were not committed to anything, idiot.
There has been no answer to my question about how secession helped the slaveowners. There has been no answer to my question about why the Confederates ignored the Corwin amendment, which would have permanently barred the federal government from interfering with slavery in the states.
I have won the debate. I now declare victory.
Larry boasted, "I have won the debate. I now declare victory."
That's because you're an idiot.
Larry wrote, "There has been no answer to my question about how secession helped the slaveowners."
Historically, it didn't. Secession led to the Civil War which led to the destruction of the South and the end of the slavery.
Had they stayed in the Union, Lincoln wanted all new states to be free states, meaning that southern slave states would eventually (and in short time) be a minority, a position that could lead to the abolition of slavery.
Forming their own country, slave owners wrote a constitution that made slavery a right and posited a certain ethnic/racial group as inherently inferior, suitable only for slavery and (the women) being used as a breeding ground by lascivious white men. Since it was in the constitution, it was something that could not be repealed. Of course, they lost the war, putting an end to their government and their constitution. So yeah, they saw their own country as being a better place for being a slave owner, even if history shows it was a bad idea.
The Corwin amendment passed Congress. It just needed ratification by the states.
So the amendment didn't pass (which would mean "was ratified" to most people) and you were wrong. Okay, just wanted to make sure.
Does Dick Cheney make "landmark" statements about US policy? Does Cheney speak for everyone? Does Cheney never lie about his real beliefs and intentions?
Cheney has not made any landmark statements on policy. Are you somehow trying to imply that Vice-Presidents of entities cannot make important statements on policy? You do realize that they weren't even in the same office: one is the U.S. VP, and the other was the Confederacy VP?
The list of things wrong with your argument is really too long to even go into at length. The fact that Cheney might (and almost certainly did) lie does not mean that every statement given by every vice president must be a lie. You have to SHOW how it is a lie, through evidence. You just keep repeating it, hoping it will be true.
They were not committed to anything, idiot.
Hahaha.... so even though the southern states had already seceded and already formed a new government called the Confederacy... they weren't committed to anything? Yeah, sure, it was probably just a passing fancy. Hahahahha!
There has been no answer to my question about how secession helped the slaveowners.
It's an insipid question you set up for yourself. It's a question of fact, not of intent. The South lost, so obviously secession ended up damaging their interests massively. You seem to be, bizarrely, demanding that I show that secession was a good thing or a wise thing in order to make my argument. But that's moronic of you. I never argued secession was good for them or could have worked - it was a lousy and foolhardy mistake. I just argued that the Civil War was very important and changed America an enormous amount, and that slavery was the primary cause as an economic and social institution. There is "no answer" to your above question because it's a straw man you have set up.
There has been no answer to my question about why the Confederates ignored the Corwin amendment, which would have permanently barred the federal government from interfering with slavery in the states.
Because it was offered so late that the Confederacy had already formed? They didn't consider themselves part of the U.S. at that point. I told you this already, so I don't know why you are trying to declare that there was no answer.
I have won the debate. I now declare victory.
Ah, the Larry Declaration... if you say it, it must be true?
I point to the ordinances of secession and declarations, and you say they must be full of lies. I ask for your proof, and you just repeat yourself. I think it's fairly obvious to all that you have failed hilariously on virtually every point in this long discussion. You have failed to demonstrate "worship" of Darwin, failed to demonstrate a Nazi-Darwin causal link, and failed in an incredibly amusing manner to argue that the Civil War and Lincoln were not important or that the war was not about slavery.
You are a calamity of failure, and my dancing puppet. Thanks for playing.
"Otherwise they would be "secessionists," not "abolitionists." Abolition was the elimination of slavery, not secession from it."
Point well taken. Even as "secessionists but not wanting to be on the seceding side", there is indeed a big difference.
"The seceding states were committed."
"They were not committed to anything, idiot."
Wherein Larry flaunts his historical insensitivity. This is of a piece with his complaining about Judge Jones not changing his decision after the school board election. (No one is ever committed to anything, in Larry's view.)
This article about the faux 13th Amendment's history sheds much light on the dynamics of the situation. The Missouri Compromise had broken down, especially after the Dred Scott decision. It's clear why James Buchanan is widely considered one of the worst U.S. presidents ever (at least until Jimmy Carter).
"There has been no answer to my question about how secession helped the slaveowners."
There's an assumption here that people acting in their own perceived interests never make horrible blunders. But consider: France under Napoleon, all the European nations in WWI, Germany under Hitler, Japan under Tojo. Shot themselves in the foot, indeed they did!
"The fact that Cheney might (and almost certainly did) lie"
And what is Cheney alleged to have lied about? I'm tired of him being a strawman for far more truth-challenged leftists.
"I am getting tired of repeating the same questions over and over again."
(File under "Larry Facts".)
OK, here's a new one for you: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
How was slavery supposed to help the slaveowners? Secession hurt the slaveowners -- (1) the slave states lost influence in Congress regarding policies on slavery in the territories and fugitive slaves (not a real issue because once they were gone, they were probably gone for good), and (2) the slave states were separated when they needed to stick together.
...this is just bizarre. Why do you keep trying to argue this point? No one is saying it helped them as a matter of fact... they lost the war! But they did INTEND for it to help their interests as slaveowners. Are you capable of recognizing the distinction?
There was no near-term threat to slavery in the Union. An anti-slavery amendment to the US Constitution would have required ratification by three-fourths of the states and nearly half of the states were slave states. The Corwin amendment would have permanently removed any threat of an anti-slavery amendment to the US constitution. Lincoln said that he had neither the authority nor the inclination to interfere with slavery in the states.
The Corwin amendment, as has been pointed out to you several times, came way too late. The states had already seceded and the actual Confederacy had already been formed... they were committed.
You are a total ignoramus. Here again is a quotation from Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas's speech in his first debate with Lincoln:
Just to get this clear: you still don't understand the difference between racism and Jim Crow? Even after it has been explained to you in minutae, several times?
It passed both houses of Congress -- which was dominated by Northern states because of secession -- by at least two-thirds majorities, as required by the Constitution. There was not enough time to ratify it because the Civil War started just a few weeks later. If slavery was the sole issue, then why didn't the Confederate states return to the Union to help ratify the amendment? I am getting tired of repeating the same questions over and over again.
Slavery wasn't the "sole issue," as you so cleverly try to slip in. No one has claimed it was. It was, however, the dominant issue for both economic and social reasons. I notice you have not tried to claim that the Corwin amendment "passed," again, which is good. You seem to be learning, albeit with agonizing slowness.
It is hard to tell why the Confederate states didn't return to the Union at that point; I am not well-enough educated on the matter to say. I would speculate that they would view it as a capitulation or beneath their dignity, considering they had just formed their own country.
What I am saying is that V.P.'s cannot speak for everyone, idiot. How would you like it if it were assumed that Cheney or some other politician could speak for you?
They can't speak for all individuals, that is true. But they can make statements on official national policy. You are attempting to conflate the two, but that is absurd. Vice-President Cheney certainly never spoke for me, but when he approved illegal warrantless wiretapping, he was nonetheless establishing an official policy.
Why did Lincoln try to get them to return to the Union voluntarily, you stupid fathead, if they were committed to secession?
Because he thought maybe he could convince them otherwise. Clearly he was wrong. Are you actually arguing this point? I feel like I'm kicking a three-year-old, it's that piteous.
You stupid beetlebrain, why did the slaveowners think that secession would help them, if they thought it would help them?
Because they would be able to govern their own economic and social interests, eliminating tariffs and most importantly making slavery the "cornerstone" (in the words of the Confederate VP) of their nation.
They thought that going to war would help them acquire or protect territory. But how was secession supposed to help the slaveowners? I am getting tired of asking the same questions over and over again.
Trust me, I'm getting tired of answering it over and over again.
There has also been no answer to my question as to why the Confederate states did not return to the Union to help ratify the Corwin amendment.
Actually there has been. Several times. They were already committed... they had already formed a government! The Corwin amendment was a desperate last-ditch attempt to appease them, and even assuming that it would have made it past the states, the Confederates were already too committed to their course of action. How could they have remained dignified if they seceded, formed a government, and then asked to be let back in to vote? It would be tantamount to admitting that the secession never took place, which would imply a lack of power to secede. And the Union certainly couldn't admit them "back in," since that would admit that they had seceded in the first place, which was not something they could acknowledge as being within the power of a state.
Before you shriek about how you don't understand, pause and re-read that. Try to get it, even though it's hard for you.
I again declare total victory.
That is amusingly optimistic.
>>>>> No one is saying it helped them as a matter of fact... they lost the war! <<<<<<
Idiot, I asked how was it supposed to help them? How did they expect or hope secession would help them?
>>>>>> The Corwin amendment, as has been pointed out to you several times, came way too late. The states had already seceded and the actual Confederacy had already been formed... they were committed. <<<<<<
No -- they were not committed! Lincoln and Congress tried to get them to return to the Union voluntarily!
You are just a troll! This discussion is over. You can rant and rave all you want, but I won't be here to answer you.
Idiot, I asked how was it supposed to help them? How did they expect or hope secession would help them?
I have answered that. Many times. In fact, let me just quote myself from my last reply, which apparently had too many of those long "word" things you hate for you to read: "Because they would be able to govern their own economic and social interests, eliminating tariffs and most importantly making slavery the "cornerstone" (in the words of the Confederate VP) of their nation."
No -- they were not committed! Lincoln and Congress tried to get them to return to the Union voluntarily!
Yes... Lincoln and Congress did try that. And they didn't return because they were already committed to secession and their newly-formed Confederacy.
How exactly does your mind work? Do you think that simply declaring "they were not committed" makes it so? It seems fairly self-evident that seceding from a country and creating a new one is a rather momentous action that implies a high level of commitment, but you seem to be implying otherwise. It is very amusing.
You are just a troll! This discussion is over. You can rant and rave all you want, but I won't be here to answer you.
Ah, the standard Larry Declaration. "I declare victory" and "this discussion is over," as if you have a unilateral grasp on objective truth.
Let's sum up your declarations:
*Vice Presidents cannot make statements of policy, so the VP of the Confederacy's statement that slavery was the cornerstone of that nation doesn't matter.
*Everyone involved in the seven or so southern states who drafted Ordinances of Secession and Declarations of Cause were lying when they pointed to slavery as a primary cause, although of course you can't prove this.
*The secession from the United States and forming of the Confederacy was not at all any kind of commitment, and the fact that the Confederacy did not immediately dissolve and "rejoin" the U.S. to ratify it somehow means that the Confederate states didn't care about slavery.
Oh, yeah. You won, all right.
>>>>>>> "Because they would be able to govern their own economic and social interests, eliminating tariffs and most importantly making slavery the "cornerstone" (in the words of the Confederate VP) of their nation." <<<<<<<
I was obviously referring to how they expected secession to help slavery, idiot, so you can forget the stuff about "tariffs" and general "economic and social interests."
They didn't need to make slavery a "cornerstone," idiot, they just needed to be allowed to have slavery. Sheeeesh. And dammit, if you wrote a school history paper basing the whole history of the Confederacy on what the Confederate V.P. said, you would flunk.
>>>>>> Yes... Lincoln and Congress did try that. And they didn't return because they were already committed to secession and their newly-formed Confederacy. <<<<<<<
Wrong, dunghill. The West Virginians voluntarily returned to the Union, even though they had to break away from the rest of the state to do it. You need to be "committed."
Drop dead and go to hell already, you lousy troll, and stop cluttering up my blog with your crap.
Oops, I forgot. I said I wasn't going to respond to your crap anymore, but I already wrote this, so I might as well post it.
I was obviously referring to how they expected secession to help slavery, idiot, so you can forget the stuff about "tariffs" and general "economic and social interests."
You want to know how secession would have helped the general institution? I suppose it would have made returning slaves easier, and would have helped set laws to consolidate the practice's ease. But that's really not the issue, since you asked how secession would have helped the interests of slaveholders. I'm terribly sorry to be answering the question you asked rather than the irrelevant one you were thinking, but I am mere mortal flesh.
They didn't need to make slavery a "cornerstone," idiot, they just needed to be allowed to have slavery. Sheeeesh. And dammit, if you wrote a school history paper basing the whole history of the Confederacy on what the Confederate V.P. said, you would flunk.
I guess they didn't "need" to do so. Tell you what, you go back in time and tell them that. Because it doesn't change the fact that the VP said that is what they were doing, even if he was being somewhat hyperbolic. I'm not really sure what your argument is here... is your opinion on their best course of action really relevant?
And yes, if I wrote a history paper about the Confederacy based solely around what the VP said, I would flunk. To my great good fortune, that is just an elaborate strawman scenario you created. Let me explain:
What I did: Quoted the Confederate VP, who presumably was somewhat of an authority on the Confederacy, when he said slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy.
What you did: Found you couldn't really refute that, so you began comparing my action somehow to basing all of my knowledge of the Confederacy on the VP. This is hilariously fallacious.
Wrong, dunghill. The West Virginians voluntarily returned to the Union, even though they had to break away from the rest of the state to do it. You need to be "committed."
Virginia split into two states, one of which declared it had never left the Union.
Wait... do you actually think they did secede? When secession is spoken of, it is usually with the implication that it was illegal and did not really occur; to wit, that states do not have the power to secede whenever they please. Do you differ, and think states can secede at will, lawfully?
This just got a lot better, thanks to the Holocaust denier and Confederate apologist Larry.
Summing up again, though:
*Vice Presidents cannot make statements of policy, so the VP of the Confederacy's statement that slavery was the cornerstone of that nation doesn't matter.
*Everyone involved in the seven or so southern states who drafted Ordinances of Secession and Declarations of Cause were lying when they pointed to slavery as a primary cause, although of course you can't prove this.
*The secession from the United States and forming of the Confederacy was not at all any kind of commitment, and the fact that the Confederacy did not immediately dissolve and "rejoin" the U.S. to ratify it somehow means that the Confederate states didn't care about slavery.
As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls.
Larry always decides that he doesn't want to talk anymore exactly after he starts losing really badly.
Post a Comment
<< Home