Declaration of Independence: Promissory Note

[coberst]

Declaration of Independence: Promissory Note

 

In the matter of slavery Lincoln was the basic politician. On this very important issue he was difficult to pin down on specifics. He was quite capable of leaving any audience with the impression that he, Lincoln, agreed with him, the voter, whatever was his view.

 

One could parse his various speeches and determine the nub of his thinking if one tried hard enough. Regarding the matter of slavery Lincoln did not favor bringing about a society wherein there was social and political equality of the races. He did not favor making voters or jurors of Negroes. Nor did he favor intermarriage.

 

Lincoln reasoned that there was a basic difference between the races. He accepted the basic prejudice of his times that the white race was superior to the black. However, he did not think this meant that the black man be denied everything.

 

Lincoln was a politician who could reason his way to a fundamental position, a position in which he knew exactly what the truly important issue was and was willing to give ground on less important issues to gain acceptance of this fundamental issue, the nub of the matter. He was noted, in his law practice, of concentrating fiercely on the main point at issue and to concede ancillary matters as required.

 

Regarding Negro intellectual ability Lincoln was an agnostic. This was a popular “liberal” view that there was no way to prove the difference in intellect between white and black and thus Lincoln refused to allow this matter to become entangled with the very practical matter of political equality. Nevertheless Lincoln was convinced that it was wrong to treat any human being as property.

 

Lincoln further reasoned that if the black man owns himself he thus is entitled to the product of his labor. Lincoln often quoted the biblical text “in sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread” as the sardonic right of the Negro. This was a telling argument because of the adherence to the bible that was characteristic of so many Americans. Lincoln constantly argued that one couldn’t own human beings and one should not be in a position to be king over human beings.

 

The Declaration of Independence became a tactical weapon for Lincoln as a means around the prejudice of the population. The population in general was prejudiced in favor of slavery and also prejudiced in favor of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln attempted to convince them, in various round about ways, that for consistency sake they must abandon one prejudice or the other. Senator Douglas argued that such a choice was not necessary. Douglas argued that the Constitution countenanced slavery and the Constitution, not the Declaration, was the law of the land.

 

It is at this point that Lincoln set up the statement that the Declaration was a statement of a permanent ideal of American democracy and that the Constitution represented a “first cut” at the practical implementation of that ideal. The Declaration was a metaphysical statement of what our democracy must strive for even though we may never exactly meet our ideal.

 

Lincoln felt that the Declaration established an ideal for all men and that all men should attempt to establish a government that attempts, even though unsuccessful, to meet that ideal. The Declaration is a pledge “to all people of all colors everywhere”.

 

Quotes from “Lincoln at Gettysburg” by Garry Wills

[modest]

Unfortunately true.

 

The 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas is a good example:

 

Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any greater length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. [Laughter.] I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

-modest

[Freddy]

Declaration of Independence: Promissory Note

 

In the matter of slavery Lincoln was the basic politician. On this very important issue he was difficult to pin down on specifics. He was quite capable of leaving any audience with the impression that he, Lincoln, agreed with him, the voter, whatever was his view.

 

One could parse his various speeches and determine the nub of his thinking if one tried hard enough. Regarding the matter of slavery Lincoln did not favor bringing about a society wherein there was social and political equality of the races. He did not favor making voters or jurors of Negroes. Nor did he favor intermarriage.

 

Lincoln reasoned that there was a basic difference between the races. He accepted the basic prejudice of his times that the white race was superior to the black. However, he did not think this meant that the black man be denied everything.

 

Lincoln was a politician who could reason his way to a fundamental position, a position in which he knew exactly what the truly important issue was and was willing to give ground on less important issues to gain acceptance of this fundamental issue, the nub of the matter. He was noted, in his law practice, of concentrating fiercely on the main point at issue and to concede ancillary matters as required.

 

Regarding Negro intellectual ability Lincoln was an agnostic. This was a popular “liberal” view that there was no way to prove the difference in intellect between white and black and thus Lincoln refused to allow this matter to become entangled with the very practical matter of political equality. Nevertheless Lincoln was convinced that it was wrong to treat any human being as property.

 

Lincoln further reasoned that if the black man owns himself he thus is entitled to the product of his labor. Lincoln often quoted the biblical text “in sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread” as the sardonic right of the Negro. This was a telling argument because of the adherence to the bible that was characteristic of so many Americans. Lincoln constantly argued that one couldn’t own human beings and one should not be in a position to be king over human beings.

 

The Declaration of Independence became a tactical weapon for Lincoln as a means around the prejudice of the population. The population in general was prejudiced in favor of slavery and also prejudiced in favor of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln attempted to convince them, in various round about ways, that for consistency sake they must abandon one prejudice or the other. Senator Douglas argued that such a choice was not necessary. Douglas argued that the Constitution countenanced slavery and the Constitution, not the Declaration, was the law of the land.

 

It is at this point that Lincoln set up the statement that the Declaration was a statement of a permanent ideal of American democracy and that the Constitution represented a “first cut” at the practical implementation of that ideal. The Declaration was a metaphysical statement of what our democracy must strive for even though we may never exactly meet our ideal.

 

Lincoln felt that the Declaration established an ideal for all men and that all men should attempt to establish a government that attempts, even though unsuccessful, to meet that ideal. The Declaration is a pledge “to all people of all colors everywhere”.

 

Quotes from “Lincoln at Gettysburg” by Garry Wills

 

The DOI has been a dead document since 1783 when Great Britain signed the Treaty of Paris acknowledging US independence. Stephen Douglas was correct, the Constitution is the law of the US since 1789 and it did permit slavery until the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865.

 

Willis forgot to point out that Lincoln was a staunch "colonizationist" until mid-1862, a racist plan, believing freed slaves should be sent to Liberia in Africa because they would not fit within US society. Frederick Douglass helped to change Lincoln's mind in that by allowing blacks to fight for their country they too deserved to live in it!

[nutronjon]

The Declaration of Independence could also be called a Declaration of Responsibility. It says we take the responsibility of governing ourselves.

 

Now the legitimate question is, who is capable of being responsible for a government of the people? It was assumed property owners had this capability, but the vote wasn't automatically given to every hooligan, and it was a long time before women of any color got the vote, because they thought incapable of managing this responsibility well. This makes the question of Black intelligence a legitimate question.

 

The whole Republican party began as the antislavery party, and Lincoln represented a party position, not just his own. As people in new territory were applying for statehood, armed conflict over the slavery issue had already begun. Lincoln's passion was not so much the slavery issue, but holding our nation together. His actions established federal power over sovereign states, whereas before, sovereign states were more powerful than the federal government. The in the beginning all states just assumed they had right to choose to be in the federation or not. Just as Native American tribes held the right to be members of their own federation or not. Our federal government is an imitation of the Native American federation. Lincoln's action ended the true of federation of sovereign states.

 

The south was not by nature democratic, but aristocratic. Those interested in democracy, had settled in the northern states, outside the king's domain. Those who were fine with the king's rule, settled in the south, inside the king's domain. Both sides read the bible differently. The bible can be used to support slavery, and the South did. The North focused on phrases that gave them permission to throw off the rule of kings, and therefore, used the bible to give everyone the permission to be free. But the northern idea of freedom also went with a concept of responsibility that we have lost today. So actually, what you have here is a religious argument as well as a political one. Added to this is a scientific need to determine if there is a racial difference in intelligence, because democracy relies on science, not just the bible which is really a book that supports autocracy, aristocracy and slavery.

[coberst]

nutronjon

 

I think that you are right on the mark about the South being contructed on an aristocratic framework.

 

I have been a self-actualizing self-learner for more than 25 years. It began to develop into a hobby in 1980 while reading a book on the Vietnam Civil War when I decided that to understand this civil war in Vietnam I must understand our own Civil War in the United States.

 

I have since that time read many books about this important part of our history. The most enlightening book that best answered my questions was the book “The Mind of the South” by W.J. Cash. Cash says-- “With an intense individualism, which the frontier atmosphere put into the man of the South also comes violence and an idealistic, hedonistic romanticism. This romanticism is also fueled by the South conflict with the Yankee. Violence manifests itself in mob action, such as lynching, and private dealings.”

 

One question that developed early in my reading was why the ordinary white citizen of the South was such a good soldier, superior to the Union soldier. Why did the ordinary southern man fight so valiantly to preserve slavery when he was not a slaveholder himself? This valiant southerner fought with very little comfort and support from the Confederacy because the Confederacy was a financially poor institution. The rebel soldier often did not even have shoes. The rebel soldier often had to find food on his own. Very little in the form of supplies were provided to the rebel army.

 

I have over the years discovered answers to my questions. One particular aspect of this situation, which I had not considered, was how the fact of slave labor in a culture affects the culture totally. In the South there was no free labor. Slaves did virtually all labor. The effect of this reality determined to a great extent the nature of the society.

 

The white man would not work for anyone because he considered laboring for hire made him no better than the black slave and his superiority to the black man was essential to his self-esteem. There was no labor class in the antebellum south. The slaves did the labor but the slave was a capital investment just like a horse or oxen. Here was a total society without a laboring class.

 

What were some of the effects of no free labor in the South? The most important factor I suspect was that the ordinary white man felt any labor was beneath his dignity. This lack of ‘free labor’ led to many of the characteristics of the Southern man and woman that probably is a factor today in the character of the Southerner.

 

I think that the wheel might be a useful analogy for understanding the mind of the South. The spokes of the wheel represent the essential components of all societies--economy, law and culture. The hub to which all spokes focus is slavery. The antebellum South revolved around slavery.

 

This area of the United States developed as any frontier area in the US during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. The climate and the circumstance of the cotton gin invention led to the evolution of a society that never lost its frontier characteristic while becoming an agricultural economy dependent almost totally upon cotton.

 

The economy was cotton and the power controlling the society was the cotton plantation. Early in the nineteenth century South Carolina plantation owners gained complete political control of the entire state and these plantation owners became the core that moved the eleven Southern states to emulate the South Carolina system. By the 1820s the South Carolina plantation politicians determined their goal to be separation from the Union if the Union failed to allow the expansion of slavery into the developing land as the nation moved West and new states began to join the Union.

 

There were three basic economic classes—plantation owners, yeomen farmers and poor whites. I do not include slaves as an economic class—they were basically capital (objects) just as horses and oxen are capital. The plantation owners controlled the wealth and power in their particular areas and banded together to control the wealth and political power in a region of state.

 

The yeomen and poor white were primarily subsistence farmers. Some of the yeomen had a few slaves but by and large the vast majority of slaves worked the large plantations. The plantations owned the good land leaving the less desirable land for the yeomen and poor white. Basically population ringed the best lands of the plantation with each succeeding lower rung in the economic ladder existing on less and less productive land.

 

There was somewhat of a heterogeneous mixture of relatives occupying each economic sector. The plantation owner was related by blood to many of the citizens in the area. There was not a great sense of hierarchy in class sensitivities because of the interrelated blood relationships. This fact also made it easier for the plantation owners to exercise their power over the community.

 

All classes recognized the importance of slavery to the whole society. While the yeoman and poor white did not, in most cases, own slaves they were as dependent on slavery as was the owner of slaves. For the yeoman and the poor white their self-esteem depended upon their sense of superiority to the slave. For these reasons the laws and the culture took the same attitude toward the importance of slavery, as did the plantation owners.

 

------------

 

The antebellum Southerner is violent, romantic, hedonistic and indolent. The dictionary defines a romantic as marked by the imaginative appeal of what is heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious, or idealized and hedonism: the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life. All of these character traits were developed and maintained because of the culture of slavery. The yeoman and the poor white were strong white supremacists because it was a necessary component of their self-image, of their self-identity.

 

The character traits of a strong sense of honor, violence, devil-may-care romanticism and their lifetime of hard bare survival living coupled with outdoor hunting and acquaintance with guns were great assets as a soldier. The Southern officer was far superior to the Union officer and most obviously this is exemplified in the person of General Robert Lee. Also they fought for their homes and their self-identity and way of life. They managed to salvage the substance if not the form of white supremacy after defeat through the Jim Crow laws that held for one hundred years.

[nutronjon]

I googled slavery caused bad morals, and found a discussion of how not having to work, brings out the worse in us. I am not saying this is true. A man took a Native American elder to the top of a mountain and proudly waved his arm over the huge city that consumed nature in a man made world of black top and concrete, and asked the elder, "what did your people do before this". The elder replied, "We sang a lot". Not all ancient people lived in fear and not all spiritual consciousness is the product of fear. Many felt sure the Great Creator or Mother, cared for them and provided all they needed. They sang songs of appreciation for the good lives they had. In contrast is Protestantism, and the work ethic, based on a notion of sin, our evilness, and a jealous, revengeful, and punishing God.

 

The north was settled by Protestants with a strong work ethic and belief that we are born in sin. Hard work is a means of salvation. From this point of view, idleness is the devils tool and slavery left men idle. However, there is a different take on the bible.

 

God himself, told the Hebrews they could never be slaves because of their special relationship with him, but they could own slaves who were passed down from one generation to the next. Also God blessed Solomon with slaves. So God himself is okay with his favored people owning slaves, and even will bless them with slaves when they are pleasing to him.

 

While Martin Luther began the Protestant movement with its work ethic, but he also firmly believed God determined our destiny and that some were born to be masters and others were born to be servants. So this same religion that held we are born in sin and we must save our souls through work, also produced a branch that separated humans between slaves and masters. As a pharaoh was a representative of God on earth and could order people be whipped, so too, the Christian Southern was a man of God born to rule, and be served.

 

Most US citizens were illiterate, or studied only the bible. Literate people at the time, were literate in Greek and Roman classics. The Quakers (Pennsylvanian) as a group, had more literate people than other religious groups, and they were the strongest in promoting equality and ending slavery.

 

What the bible tells us of our nature and relationships with God and the rest of humanity, depends on our education and point of view when we come to the bible. Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, comes with literacy in Greek and Roman classics, and therefore, he is giving us an ideal about who we are and our relationship with God and others, that is not found in the bible, without this literacy. The God of democracy is not the God of Abraham, but the God of reason. The condition of man is not sin, but ignorance. There are reasons for him being good or evil, not supernatural forces of sin, God's curse or demons. Through discovery of this reasoning (scientific point of view) we can govern ourselves, rather than be subjects to those who were ordained by God to rule over us. It is not a God who gives us commandments, but our ability to learn and reason that gives us knowledge of Nature's Laws and Nature' s God.

 

Your conflict is a religious conflict, enhanced by region and environment. Lincoln came from the frontier where his family lived by the sweat of their brow, not slave labor, and he was a self educated man who got himself through college to become a man of law. Big religious, experience, education difference.