Slavery and it's "progressive," philosophical underpinnings...

[billc]

Found this today...funny how the defenders of slavery in American history sound so much like defenders of big government today...well...not really funny...but interesting...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/06/The-Pro-Slavery-Roots-of-the-Modern-Left

Conservatives and liberals alike may be surprised to find that in reality John C. Calhoun, a South Carolina antebellum statesman and political theorist, and his pro-slavery allies, stand firmly as the intellectual forebears of the political philosophy of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and the modern left. Calhoun and the antebellum thinkers behind the positive defense of slavery in the nineteenth century represent the first major criticism of American founding principles – principles the American conservative movement seeks to preserve – as well as the intellectual seed for the later Progressive movement and what is considered modern-day liberalism.

The ideas Calhoun and others in his school introduced in the defense of slavery contrast sharply with those of the Founding Fathers and certainly modern free-market economics. Specifically, three of the core ideas Calhoun’s pro-slavery school embraced continue to resonate on the left.

First, the slavery defenders challenged the Founder’s emphasis on the Lockean social contract, arguing that government – and natural rights – grow organically out of community.

Second, the antebellum pro-slavery school repudiated the Founders’ view of slavery as a necessary but fading evil, and instead defended the system as a “positive good,” both for slave holders and for the slaves themselves. The benevolence of the slavery system was juxtaposed against an uncaring capitalism.

Lastly, slavery’s defenders rejected the principle of equality in the Declaration of Independence and argued instead for a society based on a principle of human inequality, resting their controversial beliefs on new “scientific” ideas about both human nature and the organization of government.

Rights From Government, Not God
The antebellum slavery defense mounted the first real challenge in America to the idea of the Lockean social contract, which was embraced at the Founding (only the Bible and Blackstone were referenced more than the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke in early American political writings). Calhoun and his fellow slavery advocates openly disagreed with Enlightenment social contract theory and instead saw rights as developing organically within society and government. Consequently, liberty for the Calhounites did not exist in a pre-government state of nature, to be protected from government incursion, but rather grew organically out of a communitarian society, including government. Calhoun wrote:

Under the vision of the antebellum slavery defenders, a paternalistic system – masters caring for and managing the lives of their slaves – would take the place of true free-market competition. Capitalism would survive only under the highly regulatory and watchful eye of government.
William Sumner Jenkins wrote in Proslavery Thought in the Old South, “The system made the indolent do their share of the work along with the industrious. And it provided a diversion from the unproductive to the productive consumption. Instead of the wealthy spending their profits upon superfluities, they were taxed with the comfortable support of the laboring class.”
In other words, everyone must do their “fair share” as President Obama would say, and instead of freely spending their own money, the rich should “spread the wealth” to the laboring classes and “benignly” manage their lives.

 

[Steve]

It doesn't take much creativity to reframe history so that tenuous, very general comparisons can be drawn to a group with whom you disagree. It's a shame that modern "conservatives" are so gullible.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Flying Crane]

It doesn't take much creativity to reframe history so that tenuous, very general comparisons can be drawn to a group with whom you disagree. It's a shame that modern "conservatives" are so gullible.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Does anybody here pay any attention to Billc anymore? Just wondering.

 

[elder999]

Does anybody here pay any attention to Billc anymore? Just wondering.

Would you like me to, Michael? Just for a week or so?

If I had more time, it might be kind of entertaining......but my time is especially precious these days, including my time for posting.

I'd rather post about beauty and truth, or have truly absurd arguments about the origin of the word :"machine," than have any kind of discussion with Bill, these days.

Mind, I wouldn't mind demonstrating how simply wrong some of his posts are, but there's no point in even trying to convince him......I'd as easily convince a concrete wall that insisted the sky was green that it was, in fact, blue, for all the good it might do. :lfao:

Short answer: no. :lfao:

 

[Steve]

Well, frankly, I didn't mean for this to be a billc slamfest. I was thinking more generally, that articles like this are more of a poor reflection upon modern pseudo-conservatives than on the modern progressives they are attempting to vilify.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Flying Crane]

Well, frankly, I didn't mean for this to be a billc slamfest. I was thinking more generally, that articles like this are more of a poor reflection upon modern pseudo-conservatives than on the modern progressives they are attempting to vilify.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

oh that was not lost on me.

 

[elder999]

Well, frankly, I didn't mean for this to be a billc slamfest.

]

And yet.......

I was thinking more generally, that articles like this are more of a poor reflection upon modern pseudo-conservatives than on the modern progressives they are attempting to vilify.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

......somehow it is. :lfao:

 

[Flying Crane]

it's just this constant, incessant political nonsense, it gets quite old to be frank. Honestly, I am surprised that anyone bothers to respond to anything he writes. OK, let him talk to the air, if he wants. i'm amazed that anyone still tries to engage in real discussion with him.

I still think he needs to take up a hobby, something to occupy his time. Like martial arts perhaps. Or he might consider getting a job. That takes a few hours out of the day. Too much time on one's hands, coupled with an internet connection, leads to a lot of wasted time.

 

[Makalakumu]

Wanna blow your mind? Dig out what Lysander Spooner had to say about slavery and the founding ideals of the United States.

 

[elder999]

I still think he needs to take up a hobby, something to occupy his time. Like martial arts perhaps. Or he might consider getting a job. That takes a few hours out of the day. Too much time on one's hands, coupled with an internet connection, leads to a lot of wasted time.

Two words: girl......friend

Or even: boy........friend,,,,,,,or, I suppose, knife-making. :lfao:

 

[Flying Crane]

Two words: girl......friend

Or even: boy........friend,,,,,,,or, I suppose, knife-making. :lfao:

I can't top that one.

 

[granfire]

I can't top that one.

Yes you can: Move out of the basement....

I shall return to Azeroth now....

 

[billc]

Hmmm...I don't believe I attacked eiither you flying crane or you elder...and yet...I didn't even mention either one of you by name or reputation...and yet the personal attacks happen...well, I will leave it to the moderators to deal with whatever you two are doing...

And it is always the guys on the other side of my posts that start the personal attacks...it never fails and it is always the case...

A little more of the article...for those who didn't read it...

Charles Merriam, who was among the leading lights of the early Progressive movement in the twentieth century, wrote about Calhoun’s conception of liberty in his A History of American Political Theories:

Calhoun and his school… maintained that liberty is not the natural right of all men, but only the reward of the races or individuals properly qualified for its possession. On this basis, slavery was defended against the charge that it was inconsistent with human freedom, and in this sense and so applied, the theory was not accepted outside the South. The mistaken application of the idea [through the policy of slavery] had the effect of delaying recognition of the truth in what had been said until the controversy over slavery was at an end.

​

Further, on the conclusions of the political science of his own day, Merriam wrote that "Liberty, moreover, is not a right equally enjoyed by all... the inseparable condition between political liberty and political capacity is strongly emphasized."

Merriam, like Calhoun, rejected the Lockean ideas of the Founders and substituted a “positive rights” view of government in which rights are secured essentially as privileges, at least for those deserving of them, through positive law. Rights derive not from God and nature, but from the government, and are inseparable from and subject to it.

Charles Merriam, who was among the leading lights of the early Progressive movement in the twentieth century, wrote about Calhoun’s conception of liberty in his A History of American Political Theories:

Calhoun and his school… maintained that liberty is not the natural right of all men, but only the reward of the races or individuals properly qualified for its possession. On this basis, slavery was defended against the charge that it was inconsistent with human freedom, and in this sense and so applied, the theory was not accepted outside the South. The mistaken application of the idea [through the policy of slavery] had the effect of delaying recognition of the truth in what had been said until the controversy over slavery was at an end.



​

Further, on the conclusions of the political science of his own day, Merriam wrote that "Liberty, moreover, is not a right equally enjoyed by all... the inseparable condition between political liberty and political capacity is strongly emphasized."



Merriam, like Calhoun, rejected the Lockean ideas of the Founders and substituted a “positive rights” view of government in which rights are secured essentially as privileges, at least for those deserving of them, through positive law. Rights derive not from God and nature, but from the government, and are inseparable from and subject to it.

 

[elder999]

Hmmm...I don't believe I attacked eiither you flying crane or you elder...and yet...I didn't even mention either one of you by name or reputation...and yet the personal attacks happen...well, I will leave it to the moderators to deal with whatever you two are doing...

And it is always the guys on the other side of my posts that start the personal attacks...it never fails and it is always the case...

Pretty sure I haven't "attacked" you-just stated an opinion. Didn't call you names. Just speculated, and answered Flying Crane's question-sorry you don't like the direction your thread has taken, but you are the one who often says that they don't care what direction thread drift takes, ironically enough.

I mean, why would I bother "attacking" someone who has been carrying on what is, essentially, a 50-odd page conversation with themselves for the last year? :lfao:.

 

[Steve]

Bill, just so that I'm clear, my opinion on this article is pretty simple. The article equates the structure of an argument with the intent of an argument, and that's pretty obviously a misguided way to look at things. It's like a mad lib, where the structure of the story is set, and you just replace the nouns, verbs, and adjectives with literally anything you want. Granted, these are good for a laugh, but that's about it.

 

[MJS]

Numerous posts reported folks. Lets take a deep breath, and keep things civil please.

Thank you.

 

[aedrasteia]

Thanks to Sukerkin, we can apply analysis of arguments:

#11, fallacy of false equivalence, re: enforcement capability (among other issues)

I knew it would be relevant very soon.

 

[ballen0351]

it's just this constant, incessant political nonsense, it gets quite old to be frank. Honestly, I am surprised that anyone bothers to respond to anything he writes. OK, let him talk to the air, if he wants. i'm amazed that anyone still tries to engage in real discussion with him.

I still think he needs to take up a hobby, something to occupy his time. Like martial arts perhaps. Or he might consider getting a job. That takes a few hours out of the day. Too much time on one's hands, coupled with an internet connection, leads to a lot of wasted time.

Or you can not be a flaming A hole and just ignore him. You don't want to comment on his topic but have no problem commenting about him. Maybe you need a hobby since internet tough guy is already taken by elder

 

[Flying Crane]

Or you can not be a flaming A hole and just ignore him. You don't want to comment on his topic but have no problem commenting about him. Maybe you need a hobby since internet tough guy is already taken by elder

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!

thanks Ballen. Funny stuff.

 

[elder999]

since internet tough guy is already taken by elder

"Internet tough guy?"
:lfao: