"The 'Other' Side of the Slavery Question" Topic

"Mark Levin" came up, because out of the blue, doc said he agreed with him. I couldn't be bothered going back and doing heavy lifting to see why he brought that up. A cursory glance didn't turn anything up, so I let it slide. Of course, this being TMP, I forced myself to opine. It's a character flaw I have. I admit it. I can't abide praise of dumb people.
Frankly, I think Mark Levin is a dangerous horse's ass. I pity those who think he's brilliant.

Once again, I bring up the perennial clickbait whine, "What does any of this nonsense have to do with AWI or ACW wargaming?"
Standard reply is "If you don't like it, don't click on it."
Sorry. But it's a direct challenge to reply to ridiculous Lost Cause posts. If it looks like Lost Cause, if it smells like Lost Cause…
If I don't reply, it can be argued that I agree with asinine "facts". But as Steve Goodman sang, "Sometimes it seems so useless to remain."

NOT David Allen Coe. Steve Goodman.

Unless I have missed it, the first mention of Levin on the thread was this by Tortorella. I think he was responding to Parzival:

Somehow this has come up – the whole Marxist thing does not click for me. I don't know anybody who talks about it or promotes it, I never hear anything about it – except on right wing TV. I have no clue what Mark Levin is talking about, never heard of him before now. I plan to stay away from both him and Marxism forever.

At any rate, OFM, I didn't drop Levin's name in out of the blue.

Addendum: it occurs to me, there has been some overlap with one or two other threads, and Levin may have been mentioned there. Dunno, but he is peripheral to this topic and this thread. But he does provoke some heated reaction, doesn't he?

Ok. Like I said, I didn't feel like expending any energy tracking it down. I'm not in a good mode after watching a Penn State backup quarterback be totally unprepared by the coaching staff. Not his fault. The entire offense was out of whack after Clifford went down. That's on the coaches.

John, yes, I sympathize. My wife is a Longhorn and is NOT HAPPY this evening.

Oh, and I can sort of agree with this:

Mark Levin is a dangerous horse's ass

I find his style off-putting, and my wife does not like to watch him, even though we mostly agree with him. But he does know a great deal and often challenges me with his arguments.

I brought Levin up because Parzival was talking about Marxism, which I associate with Mark Levin making money – that's all.

I have similar thoughts about "Don't click on it if you don't like it." I do not always feel I can let some things slide, hard as I try. We get sucked into these things. Some of the LC narrative can be pretty subtle.

There is a connection to gaming. I started out with the ACW for gaming following the Centennial years. I read all of Catton, played Avalon Hill, bought Airfix.

But then I began to read more deeply and lost my appetite for the whole era. It was tough to realize who we were in 1860. It did not work for gaming anymore. It was an ugly era and there was no fun to be found in gaming it. I read McPherson and David Blight, Sears.

It was too close to today's issues. I returned to gaming the ACW not long ago. It has a new feel to it for me, deeper. I have a new understanding of the Army of the Potomac and feel a bond I did not have in my youth.

Growing up in east Texas, we never played cowboys and indians but rather Yankees and Rebs. And the big kids always made the younger ones be the Yankees, who always got beat.

Seventy years later I have matured a bit, and learned about a million times more, read a thousand books and primary documents on the subject (that is probably literally true, as I did a major research paper than relied on regimental histories and the OFFICIAL RECORDS), and UNDERSTAND things a lot better. However, I remain convinced that the best single book is still Benet's JOHN BROWN'S BODY, if you want to understand ALL of what it was about.

Let us look at her now, let us see her plain,
She will never be quite like this again.
Her house is rocking under the blast
And she hears it tremble, and still stands fast,
But this is the last, this is the last.

This is the last, this is the last.
Hurry, hurry, this is the last.
Drink the wine before yours is spilled,
Kiss the sweetheart before you're killed.
She will be loving and she will grieve
And wear your heart on her golden sleeve
And marry your friend when he gets his leave.
Pluck the flower that hands can pluck;
Touch the wall of your house for luck.
Eat of the fat and drink of the sweet;
there is little savor in dead men's meat.
It does not matter that you once knew
Future and past and a different you,
that went by when the wind first blew.
There is no future, there is no past,
there is only this hour and it goes fast,
Hurry, hurry, this is the last,
this is the last, this is the last.

Nice doc. I was going to add some original lyrics from "Oh Susanna" but they would probably be frowned on.

We're massively over due for a rewrite of the Constitution.

Levin is presenting a program for conservatives, religious fanatics, racists and garden variety ignoramuses who want to believe that the Constitution is only about what THEY want\ and that it doesnt really give rights to people they're afraid of and/or hate.

Just like on this thread, you'll see him hop around from "Strict interpretation" to "Framers intent" whenever an inconvenient clause needs to go his way. He's basically a conservative performance artist.

It's alright to have an opinion on the Constitution but he hides key parts of what he is trying to cram into watchers' heads.

And Tortorella is right, his audience must live in fear of the Marxists because according to Levin, they're always taking over.

Oh, and News Flash, the Civil War was about slavery.

Charge, what in the Constitution would you change? I want to restore the senate being elected by the state legislatures.

Levin is presenting a program for conservatives, religious fanatics, racists and garden variety ignoramuses

Well, I'll claim one of those identities.

Are you sure it is MY side who lives in fear?

I'm down for a complete rewrite.

I'm sure it's your side that lives in fear of Marxists.

I think progressives feel that the Constitution is the only thing shielding them from being picked on and conservatives see it as proof society is supposed to be frozen in time. If there is a difference, progressives tend to not misquote the Constitution as much.

I would also say that conservative elites hate the constitution and social conservatives love it. Maybe it's the reverse for progressives.

The Constitution is fine as it is.

Reverting to the non-election of US Senators is a non-starter. That's regressive and would definitely remove the US from the democracy column.

Kevin, being less directly democratic is a feature, not a problem. That is what a republic is. If we had an educated populace, maybe, but not while most people are indoctrinated in government schools. Civics is not much or well taught these days.

"Just like on this thread, you'll see him hop around from "Strict interpretation" to "Framers intent" whenever an inconvenient clause needs to go his way. He's basically a conservative performance artist."
This is not hypocritical. "Strict interpretation" is the opposite of the "rubber band" argument, where the constitution can be bent to mean whatever the arguer wants it to. I still remember a junior high school teacher saying the meaning constitution can be stretched to accommodate modern social thought (or words to that effect). I think she was talking about Roe vs. Wade.
"Framers intent" is used to modernize the language so the original meaning of the constitution can be understood. "A well regulated Militia" Is often said to mean the national guard, but the national guard did not exist when the constitution was written, nor anything like it. The definition of 'militia' at the time was all able bodied men with weapons. And 'regulated' meant trained, not dictated by law.
I don't listen to Levin, BTW. Screamers don't appeal to me.

My side is in the middle and I am not afraid of Marxists, having been unable to locate a single one

Blamer culture. Propoganda, spin, fear, outrage, scapegoats, bogeymen, personality cult leadership, hyper-nationalism. Isolationism. Really big lies. This leads in only one direction. Hint: it's not to the left.

A repeat of the ACW? Bill asked recently if folks had interest in wargaming things like insurrection. A good question. For me, it is tthe same problem I have had with the ACW. too close, too real.

What could we wargame about all this? Where can I get some figs who look like that guy in the horn hat on 6Jan.? Some 28mm right wing media outrage leaders? Left wing pie in the sky politicians?

Doc, you may want to think about that last post.

Kevin, being less directly democratic is a feature, not a problem. That is what a republic is. If we had an educated populace, maybe, but not while most people are indoctrinated in government schools. Civics is not much or well taught these days.

So, it's all the fault of the Common People, eh?
Having the States select the Senate is a remnant of the thinking that we needed proper aristocrats to rule and guide us. 😄
By the way, I also believe that the notion of "amateur status" comes from the same attitude. Athletes should be from the Upper Class who have independent means and don't work for a living. This will keep the Irish and Blacks from ruining Gentlemen's pursuits.

What could we wargame about all this? Where can I get some figs who look like that guy in the horn hat on 6Jan.?

Oh, a Jacob Chansley/QAnon shaman figure? That's surprisingly easy. Search Warlord Games FIW range, or Old Glory's Plains Indian range. You can find Native American figures with the Buffalo cap with horns. Then, you have some converting ahead of you. I gave mine to a friend for just that purpose. Painting the Nazi tattoos on the body might be difficult, so you can just saw off the head (see "Razor Saw" thread) as a starter. Put it on a bare chested open handed figure in trousers. Perhaps a Lamming Gaul.
TMP also has a lot of advertisers who do modern rioting figures.

The only thing in the Constitution that I would change is to add term limits. That can be done with a Constitutional Amendment. But no politician would ever vote for it.

I think that it's charming that only Congress can issue Letters if Marque and Reprisal, and not the President. Lord knows, Presidents can get into enough mischief as it is.

John, I'd like term limits as well. And have you been watching that "English Game" soccer series on Netflix? I stoped halfway through it.

As to gaming, there's video up of yesterday's street fighting in Rome. link Watch both videos: looks like the police used a line with heavy vehicles support and water cannon and tear gas and a lot of baton hitting. The second video looks like a mob assault on some building; you can see when the cops inside used pepper spray. Then the cops seem to be in retreat, backing down the street as the crowd advances. Including an attempt to overturn a police vehicle.

You could make a good game, in terms of escalating techniques of both sides (water cannon, pepper spray, etc, vs bricks, hands-up, umbrellas and masks vs tear gas. etc.) with higher levels of violence a loss of points for the government side -- at least in a democracy with a free press.

Out of the blue, no reason?

Of course there was a reason: Jeff Davis wanted to force the undecided borders states to choose sides, thinking, of course, that they would choose his side.

My point is, that up until Beauregard's guns opened fire, secession had been a political crisis. After that, it was war.

don, yes and no. And the fact that the upper south did not secede until after Lincoln called for volunteers DOES tend to undercut the slavery-only thesis. Why would the upper south be more reluctant to leave? Partly because the upper south exported surplus slaves into the lower south, and had less interest in expanding slavery into the west. (Not none, but less.) And the border states came close to seceding (Md was only prevented by Union troops) but were even more divided (e.g. Kentucky).

I don't think Davis was in full control of events in re Fort Sumter; he was quite aware of the political danger of firing the first shot, but finally could not resist the SC firebreathers. Lincoln shrewdly outmaneuvered Davis into firing the first shot, which united the north, but Lincoln's call for troops united the south. So yes, the outbreak of violence was a key moment, but the secession impulse varied a great deal from deep south to upper south to border states. Why?

Another problem with the slavery-only thesis is that in the 1830s civil war was a real possibility in two neighboring states, Georgia and SC, with neither crisis related to slavery, but to Indian removal and the protective tariff (which would have been a grievance to a staple crop exporting section even if their labor system had been something else). Jackson's actions in both crises were aimed at averting a war which almost certainly would have involved those two states joining to resist, and the rest of the south at best neutral. It is not at all clear that the US government could have prevailed in such a war. No railroad network yet, for one thing. So as bad as the Trail of Tears was, the alternative was probably far far worse, with Georgia warring on the Cherokees and the US warring on at least Ga and SC. And quite possibly losing.

@Murvihill

I don't follow some of what you're saying. I brought up conservatives sometimes talking out of both sides of their you-know-whats when it comes to Constitutional interpretation and you are saying it's to countermand liberals?

Framers or Original intent is more like legislative history.

Interestingly, although I find Levin personally offensive and a dishonest creep on his show, I did read one of his books and agree with most of his Constitutional reform proposals.

Kevin, being less directly democratic is a feature, not a problem. That is what a republic is. If we had an educated populace, maybe, but not while most people are indoctrinated in government schools. Civics is not much or well taught these days.

This is a truly puzzling.

We have more educated people now than at any time in our history.

Indoctrination? Is this the whole all faculty are Marxists crap?

Just because racist families send their children to college and they come back less racist and it freaks them out doesn't mean the faculties are Marxist. Instead, it means the parents suck and rather than reconcile their own shortcomings, they're looking to rationalize their bad behavior with a scapegoat; not dissimilar to Lost Cause fantasies.

Charge, are you now or have you ever been a high school teacher? Based on 50 years at it, as well as comparing experiences with many colleagues at the hs and also undergrad college level (where I taught mostly freshmen and sophomores in introductory courses in history and poli sci, for 25 years as an adjunct) the deterioration in students' abilities to think critically, as well as their willingness to be open to new ideas, is striking. A few are genuinely convinced that their nation is evil, but most are afraid to speak up on ANY subject lest they draw unwelcome attention from their censorious peers.. And the radicals in many cases go on to become professors. Our education system is a shambles and a disgrace and a present danger.

Charge, indulge me, if you will; what is your reaction to the lyrics of "Imagine"? Agree or disagree with the sentiments?

"Imagine"
(from "Imagine: John Lennon" soundtrack)

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today… Aha-ah…

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace… You…

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world… You…

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

I say "Strawberry Fields forever…mon"

Heh. Of course, the reason I ask is thta "Imagine" is pure Marxism. NOT Marxism-Leninism (i.e. Communism) but Marxism-Lennonism, which is the utopian dream that never seems to be realized.

But DO imagine all the people living for today. It is our poorest citizens who tend to do that, isn't it? And it is difficult to help them unless they can be persuaded to take a longer-term view of life.

And nothing to kill or die for means nothing to live for, either.

It is utter folly, and I guarantee -- I used to do it regularly when teaching world ideologies in my WORLD POLITICS course -- that if you just give the lyrics to a class, at least half of them will agree. These days, maybe 3/4.

So I fear you are being an ostrich as regards marxism.

Interestingly, although I find Levin personally offensive and a dishonest creep on his show, I did read one of his books and agree with most of his Constitutional reform proposals.

Fair enough, Charge, but watch out, they will kick you out of the club!

I once got into a terrible argument with a girl I had the hots for when I told her that I thought that John Lennon was full of himself.
I blew any chances I may have had, but at least I got to tell her that "Imagine" was crap. I never thought of it as Marxist. Just pretentious "I'm smarter than you are" twaddle. When I could see that I blew it, I doubled down. I told her that Ringo was the best Beatle.
Today, I think it was George.

John, yes. No possessions. No religion. No countries. Pure Marxism.

I have a good friend, a PhD in English and excellent teacher, who is a huge Beatles fan, and who simply refuses to believe imagine is Marxism. But the comparison is almost one to one.

Style trumps substance.

…being less directly democratic is a feature, not a problem. That is what a republic is. If we had an educated populace, maybe, but not while most people are indoctrinated in government schools. Civics is not much or well taught these days.

No, it is a great problem.

I taught civics when I taught history and my son who graduated from high school two years ago had an excellent civics and government teacher.

Supporting demagogues and screamers is not my idea of civil discussion or debate.

So I fear you are being an ostrich as regards marxism.

Oh I didn't realize it was a test to detect Marxists. Your talents are wasted here, have you considered working for the anti-indoctrination agency?

Marxism is the new witchcraft and the same type of people want to believe in the same type of mass hysteria.

Ah, but Kevin, don't forget, Davy Crockett was a screamer.

I do not believe witchcraft was responsible for the murders of tens of millions of people. Marxism has been. Or do you challenge that fact?

link

Communism is the serial child molester and killer; Marxism is the fictional puppy in the van that the child is invited to play with.

I'm sincerely puzzled that someone with such a high awareness of the evils of slavery would dismiss the (numerically even greater) evils of Marxism and its political masters. Is it that they have so far happened only outside of the US? I wouldn't have thought you would subscribe to American exceptionalism.

Does Marxism advocate murder?

Witchcraft was responsible for huge numbers of killings in Europe over centuries. It's part of why some of the nuttier denominations finally got booted out. They then came here with their same bigotry combined with the never ending mewling that they were escaping persecution. Persecution apparently meant they were no longer allowed to dominate everyone else with their ignorance and their zeal. A feeling that seems to be still strong in some circles here.

If someone is an ideological fanatic, then they see the enemy constantly and everywhere. Paranoia is not a legitimate baseline for righteousness.

What did Marx REALLY say? We've all heard "Religion is the opium of the masses".
But what's the context of that one sentence? Was it a condemnatory sneer?

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

From Marx's "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right."
link
Marx was far too complex for Lennon's simple drug addled mind.
As the article suggests, almost everything "we know" about Marx is hearsay. Why? Well, in my mind it's dense prose that makes your eyes glaze over. To actually study Marx brings up surprises. It's not what we were told. Yeah. I've tried to read Marx, but it's a struggle.
Marx was all about the evolution of society. I'm not at all sure that what he thought it was evolving towards was all that good.
But he does say that every stage of history was an improvement over the previous. Thus, even feudalism AND capitalism, with all their faults, were better than what came before.

You can argue the validity of the above until the cows come in. All I'm saying is that Lennon's brain was not complex enough to encompass that, right or wrong. He was a writer of ditties, some better than others. John and George wrote better songs.
"Imagine" is all about how Lennon thought he was better than anyone else, because they were not Lennon.

Marxism has killed, during the 20th century, well more than 100 million people. Whoops, sorry, that isn't what we intended. Again, how CAN you excuse something so evil?

"

Oh yes ….. Hi Cleburne.

Still awaiting your response to my questions posed to you about a week ago. Do you plan to respond? Or can I quit looking for one?

B"

I would, if you were responding to the correct thread. I haven't posted on this one at all. We've been in the "Why do people believe myths about the Confederacy?" thread.

I'm not sure what question you want me to answer? To clarify what I mean by "just cause?" No, I'm not. Its your personal opinion. If you can't come up with a personal opinion on the justness of the Confederate cause after, I presume, decades of study, then I have to question your intellectual ability. If you can't even come up with a simple personal opinion, how can anybody on this forum take any of your other responses on this forum seriously?

So Blutarski, do you think the South fought for a just cause?

Those who practiced Communism, or at least called themselves "Communists", were as close to Marx as the Crusaders were to the Sermon on the Mount.
The man Marx never killed 100,000,000 people. But as that great "Marxist" Stalin observed "One man's death is a tragedy. Millions are a statistic."

I'm not arguing for the validity of Marxism. Not at all. What I am arguing is that John Lennon was too shallow a mind to grasp "true Marxism".
"Imagine" may be pseudo intellectual bs, but it's not Marxist. It's the writings of a small mind who thinks he's intellectually superior to the proletariat. If it's Marxist, it's the Classics Comics version, spiced with weed and LSD.

Speaking of "not answering what was asked", doc.
I asked you "Why didn't tariffs lead to secession?" You seem to have said that tariffs were more decisive than slavery in the 1830s.

John, okay, fair enough. But if you want to understand Marxism, Sowell makes it very clear:

link

I've taught from the book and high schoolers have no trouble with it. (More homework!)

I asked you "Why didn't tariffs lead to secession?" You seem to have said that tariffs were more decisive than slavery in the 1830s.

Not sure what "decisive " means there, but the Nullification Crisis did not proceed to war because Clay put together a compromise and both sides backed off, sort of. (SC nullified the Force Bill.) The differences are two, I think: first, if the argument is about money, people will generally split the difference to avoid something everyone agrees is worse, like a war; and second, the cultural differences had not yet fully metastasized into galloping mutual paranoia, as they would do over the next 25 years.

Thomas Sowell is an interesting man but that doesn't mean Marx is responsible for 100,000,000 deaths.

How come you fight over civil war factors to the umpteenth degree purposefully conflating comparisons to try to win your vision of the past and all for for the sake of HS students (who might hate their country if not taught to love the old south via 5 minutes of civil war history) but it's alright to make a statement that Marx is a mass murderer and anyone who doesn't agree supports mass murder?

If I say chicken soup is the ultimate form of human food, and then somebody three decades from now comes along and implements a diet of chicken soup upon the world and causes 100 million deaths on those who do not eat it or oppose the tyranny of the Chicken Soup Diet, does that make me responsible for those 100 million deaths?

Okay, the question of to what extent the originator of an idea is responsible for actions taken in the name of that idea is a fair one. Don't know your view of human nature, but mine is orthodox Judeo-Christian: man is fallen, with a nature corrupted by sin, and is INCAPABLE of being good for any length of time. So even the best idea, or ideal, may be, nay WILL BE perverted and used to justify bad actions that are really motivated by, e.g., greed or hatred or ambition, etc.

HOWEVER, any argument that no idea has ever brought evil upon the world must logically also require that no idea has ever brought good upon the world. Before we continue, would you agree, or not, that ideas DO have consequences?

I would highly recommend this entire thread to a high school senior looking for examples of logical fallacies to get "extra credit" in an English class he or she is failing. It's a gold mine.
Hint to "Becky Sue", or "Da-cron". Find all the "If you think X, you must believe Y."
Also "appeals to authority".

Communism is the serial child molester and killer; Marxism is the fictional puppy in the van that the child is invited to play with.

Nice metaphor doc! Harsh, but it drives the point home. I think I'll steal it, if you don't mind.

…mine is orthodox Judeo-Christian: man is fallen, with a nature corrupted by sin, and is INCAPABLE of being good for any length of time. So even the best idea, or ideal, may be, nay WILL BE perverted and used to justify bad actions that are really motivated by, e.g., greed or hatred or ambition, etc.

And where is this 'version' of 'orthodox Judeo-Christianity' to be found?

Are you now going to inundate us with your views of the Judeo-Christian ethic? As has been stated before, Christianity is not monolithic and should not be lumped together as the various Christian religions are different.

And while Christianity has its theological base in Judaism, they are not the same.

I would suggest to keep religion out of the discussions, unless there is historical value in the subject, and not to preach.

Marx made some very nice toy soldier sets in the late 50's and early 60s. I have kept them all these years.

This came after he realized that none of his earlier work writing fantasy made any sense. And then some bad guys pretended that he did make sense, setting up fake communist countries for dictators using his name, killing people, and keeping the best goods for themselves.

The Marx American Revolution set contains figures of the Founding Fathers. You use these to set up a democracy. I also have the Civil War set, slavery not included.

Kevin, everyone has a view of human nature, consciously if they are aware, otherwise just assumed. What's yours? Because it is the basis of much of the rest of one's ideology/world view/whatever you wish to call it.

Is human nature plastic? Can man be molded into whatever the moldmakers desire? If not, why not? If so, does that mean "good" or 'right" is whatever the moldmakers decree?