But we easily accept the proposition that just because R. P. Feynman and L. D. Landau understand the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, we don’t expect Bricker or Diogenes the Cynic to understand them; we don’t say you or I are idiots for not comprehending the intricacies of vorticity and quantized vortex lines.
Yes, some people in 1860 were getting the idea that slavery was evil. In fact, more than “some” – as you obliquely point out, there was a widespread abolitionist movement. But does that mean we can safely say it was unreasonable, in 1860, for every single person to comprehend this moral truth?
OK, let’s say you’re correct: in 1860, it was unreasonable for an ordinary person to think slavery was OK.
So when did that happen? Obviously I’m not asking you for a radar-like zeroing in; I know you’re not saying that on Monday, November 5th, 1523, at 6:18 PM, the scales tipped… but generally, when in human history should a reasonable person have known slavery was evil?
The un-American part was the South’s attacking federal property and unilaterally dissolving the Union. The criminally stupid part was that there was no federal attempt to end southern slavery to make such action imperative in the minds of slaveholders.
And yes, rebellion in 1861 pursued with the intent of preserving slavery was and is viewed far more dimly than rebellion over the issues of unfair taxation and other abuses on the part of the British in the 1770s.
“Give me liberty or give me death” has a more impressive ring to it than “We will fight to the death to preserve our right to enslave people”.
Bricker, I’m asking you this sincerely: Why do you think it matters whether an ordinary person knew that slavery was bad back in the 1800s? This is a question you’ve raised before in a thread you started a while back GD, and for some reason you’ve raised it in this thread. So it seems you think this issue is pertinent in some fundamental way, but it eludes me as to why.
Few people act in ways that they know are evil. Our psychology doesn’t really permit that, which is why our brains are experts in rationalization. Do you think all those Germans who stood by and let Hitler slaughter millions knew they were aiding and abetting an immoral genocide? Of course not. Somehow they found a way in their heads to justify their actions. Jews and Gypsies are inferior, they told themselves. They deserve to die.
The days of slavery were really no different. The only difference is that this pattern of rationalization was older, more deeply entrenched and widespread across society than it was in Nazi Germany. All the raping, whipping, killing, breaking up families, prohibiting literacy, denying people their humanity…all of this was part and parcel of slavery as it was practiced in the South, and this was what the Confederates were fighting for. And it’s not because they were clueless and ignorant. It’s because they chose not to see the cruelty of their actions because they were convinced in their own goodness and rightness.
But here’s the thing. Even it these people were just clueless and ignorant, what does this change? We have bishops in the Africa telling people that condoms don’t prevent HIV. Does the fact that they are being stupid rather than actively malicious change how we regard them? Does it make it any less appalling and exasperating?
And the typical dance begins. To avoid your typical dodging and gameplaying, I’ll simply state that Jefferson wrote words that he himself, and his country, could not live up to. He wrote broad, widely defined words, that were meant to be not just for 1783, but for all time. And when he wrote “all men” or “due process” or “equal protection” or “cruel and unusual punishment” or any of the dozens of other phrases, he was laying the foundation and guide for the future. So, I agree with you, “all men” means “all persons” of every race, color, creed, gender, sexual orientation, and political persuasion. And there are those of us who are still trying to get these rights that are for “all men” to include “all men”, including same sex marriage, due process, and many more. But some people prefer to dress themselves up as “textualists” and argue against them. Such is life.
And the American colonists didn’t unilaterally dissolve the union between themselves and the Kingdom of Great Britain? Didn’t they fire on British troops attempting to remove illegal munitions hidden at Concord?
Really? The Northern states were already actively violating the Constitution by refusing to extradite escaped slaves (required by Art IV Sec 2) and the nation had just elected a President who had made plain his belief that the nation could not continue to remain half slave-holding, and half free.
If the colonies could legitimately respond to Parliament’s legally-enacted “Massachusetts Government Act,” by firing on those seeking to enforce its terms, why can’t South Carolina fire on troops seeking to enforce a similar scheme on them?
It comes down to this: you believe the underlying cause – slavery – was evil, and so the extreme actions taken in support of it are indefensible. But you believe the American colonists’ actions were perfectly fine, because slavery wasn’t really involved… even though the American colonies had and supported keeping slaves.
So… I guess some time between 1776 and 1860, it became clear to all reasonable people that slavery was bad, eh?
This is a principle that is deeply ingrained in our society. If you shut down the circuit breaker to change a bad light switch, you’ve committed no crime. If shut down the circuit breaker to power off life support to a person so that he’ll die, you’ve committed a crime.
But that same circuit breaker may be at issue in both cases! We don’t say of the electrician, “Hey, someone died. Regardless of what your intentions were, you killed them!” On the contrary, we understand that we punish intentional acts far more severely than careless acts, and we punish innocent acts not at all.
You’re right, of course, in that all but the most depraved villains don’t see themselves as villains. But we don’t rely only on how they see themselves. We craft a hypothetical “reasonable person,” and we ask ourselves not only what our subject believed, but was it reasonable for him to hold that view?
It’s hard to imagine holding Copernicus in contempt for not being LGBT-friendly, isn’t it? I suppose he could have been insightful enough to reach the conclusion that transgendered people are just as deserving of respect as others, but we don’t think of him as bigoted and evil for not realizing this. Why? Because it wasn’t reasonable for him, in his society, in his age, surrounded with messages to the contrary, to explore that idea.
On the other hand, today, in the United States, you can make a very compelling case for bigotry or evil in thinking that transgendered people are perverse or beneath dignity. Because, even though the message is far from universal, there’s much more dialog in this society that invites the examination of those issues.
So why does it matter?
The whole discussion arose from the rejection of the idea that there was anything honorable or to be respected about Confederate war soldiers or leaders. That even thought their acts, if made in the service of some other cause, would be regarded as heroic, they aren’t in this because they served the Confederacy, which supported human slavery.
I say that’s not fair. I say that we cannot fairly judge Jubal A. Early by the standards of 2010 when he was born in 1816 and died in 1894. I say it’s perfectly possible to say that Early was wrong in his cause but heroic in his actions.
Sure. Madison wrote words that he knew were completely fluid in meaning; that would mean only whatever a future cabal of a five-judge majority would decide they meant.
Garbage. If Madison knew that you were going to come along and say that “equal protection,” meant two men could marry each other, and “due process” meant that states couldn’t criminalize abortion, he’d have chosen more specific words, and you know it.
Madison and his brethern would have approved of women getting the vote, since they did so not by twisting the words they penned, but by using them: they amended the constitution, a process the constitution itself provides for. He and his cohorts would have been happy to see how slavery ended – by amending the constitution. They would have been stunned to learn that at some point, amending the constitution was going to be viewed as merely getting some judges to agree with your grand social experiments and designs instead of securing the will of the people.
This is like saying Al-Queda’s act, if made in the service of some other cause, would be regarded as heroic.
This is like saying Hitler’s act, if made in the service of some other cause, would be regarded as heroic. And so true it is. If he’d roasted a 11 million demon spawn who’d been conspiring to blow up the planet–instead of, you know, the 11 million innocent human beings that he did kill–he’d be more than a hero all right. He’d be better than Jesus H. Christ. Except he didn’t do that, now did he?
You can’t regard an act as heroic without taking into account the cause. Because the cause is what defines it as heroic!
I have no idea why Frank thought it necessary to pat you on the back, by the way. It’s was a back-handed compliment against conservatives. Were you insulted? I would have been.
Thanks for getting those nits. The point had little or nothing to do with who actually wrote the words, but rather how they are interpreted. The limitations on who gets to benefit from those words, whether “all men” doesn’t mean “all men” and certainly doesn’t mean slaves, or that the “right to marry” only means heterosexuals (and yes, I know “right to marry” isn’t in the Constitution, thanks for that), is the century old battle of our country.
Going to the strawman so soon? I know it’s one of your old standbyes, but you couldn’t make actual effort at a reasoned response before dragging it out? Que surprised.
And you completely miss the point. For approximately the 200th time when we debate this. Again, I’m shocked. Of course, I don’t know why I would expect you to finally pay attention long enough now rather than the dozens of other times, but it was worth a shot.
Madison and his brethern deliberately chose to use broad language so that the country they were creating wouldn’t stagnate, tied to only what was appropriate in 1783. Madison (and others like him) himself didn’t want the records of debate, etc. to be used to limit the meaning of the words to what one or two people at the debate wanted. He realized the inherent problems with divining “original intent” when he helped wrote a document that was ratified by thousands of people in 13 different states.
But we’ve danced this dance before, with the same old results. You go on with your same old tired bullshit, and nothing changes. I anticipate nothing different this time either.