As the left continues to embrace the valiant crusade against alleged hate speech, with leftist institutions such as Google, Twitter, and Facebook heroically (and conveniently) suppressing one supposed hater after another, the New York Times embarks on
the 1619 Project — whose central (whose sole?) purpose is to show that the American people are wicked and that the United States is an awful country synonymous with slavery.
When on Earth will these clueless (and guilty) Americans finally understand that they are no better than anyone else, that they need to become like a European country where the populace
knows thay need to be ruled by their betters?
(Welcome,
Instapundit readers: this lengthy post is divided into 5 parts, so if you don't have time to read all of it, at least check out the five sub-heads (in larger font size);
FYI, an earlier version of this lengthy examination of the antebellum era — and the leftists' Fake History —
appeared
in May 2015. In the wake of the New York Times' latest attempt
to prove to Americans how wicked they are, how wicked their ancestors
were, and how wicked their country is —
the 1619 Project — and engage in (yet) another
anger and vengeance parade, it reappears today, slightly rewritten.)
As it happens, there were similar arguments during the antebellum era.
And that is slavery itself — at
the time of the peculiar institution.
And believe me, leftists do
not come out on the right side of history.
Far from it.
Leftists
are constantly railing about "America's original sin" and about the
founding fathers' alleged support for (if not introduction of) slavery
in the nation.
What leftists don't know is that one of
the reasons that slavery persisted in the (Southern) U.S. as long as it
did is that to oppose the special institution was considered to be
practicing hate speech.
Yes, to oppose slavery was considered unbecoming, uncouth, and hate speech.
No. No! Not by all Americans!
By members of the Democrat party.
When
(conveniently) castigating our forefathers…
(Let me add a couple of parentheses: I add "conveniently", because this
allows the current generation of leftists to feel good about themselves
while engaging in self-praise and bragging how wonderful they are;
indeed, leftist "values" and
"arguments" is little more than an incessant litany of self-praise,
bragging that one is more compassionate than anyone else, bragging that
one is more intelligent than anyone else, bragging that one is more
understanding than anyone else, bragging that one is more tolerant than
anyone else, bragging that one has more humanity than
anyone else, etc, etc, etc…) When (conveniently) castigating our
forefathers (therefore) for
allowing slavery to have lasted so long, or for having slaves at all,
or for "introducing" slavery to the American continent, I wonder if
leftists realize that one of the reasons it persisted was the Democrat
Party's opposition to… (wait for it)… to… hate speech.
And
the practitioners of hate speech (the abolitionists) were considered
unethical, unrealistic, delusional crazies, who deserve little else but
the utmost disgust — you might even say that they were the equivalent of
today's demonized Tea Partiers.
Don't believe me?
Think that sounds far-fetched? Or too far-fetched?
Ask Abraham Lincoln.
Of course, the 21st-century term "hate speech" was not used, as such.
But listen to
the Sixth Debate
between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, at Knox College (full disclosure: I am working on a graphic
novel biography with artist
Dan Greenberg on
The Life and Times of
Abraham Lincoln), and ask yourself
if "hate speech" to be avoided (and opposed) at all costs is not what
Abe is referring to when he describes the travails of the Republican
Party.
Before we do read the appropriate part in
the Sixth Debate, however, let's quickly take a look at another part of that debate, something echoed in
the Seventh Debate.
1) The
Presence of Slavery at the Founding of the USA Is Always Taken by
Democrats—Either Favorably or Unfavorably—as the Founding Fathers'
Intended Support For, If Not Creation of, the Institution
Today's
Democrats would have citizens believe that America is (or was) a
horrid, wretched place because slavery was present at the founding of
the American Republic.
Yesterday's (i.e., the
nineteenth century's) Democrats would have citizens believe that critics
of slavery were horrid, wretched people because slavery was present at
the founding of the American Republic.
Are these opposite or mutually exclusive? No.
Why? Because in all cases, what Democrats are doing is nothing more than
engaging in their ritual litany of self-praise (19th-c leftists
praising themselves for loyally following the traditions of the American
Republic, 20th- and 21st-century leftists praising themselves for
refusing to close their eyes on the true evil nature of the American
Republic). In either case, Democrats seem to simply refuse to use their
brains and see things in context, while — deliberately or otherwise —
perpetuating what Lincoln called "historically a falsehood".
As Lincoln said in
the Sixth Debate:
… I insist that our fathers did not
make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free.
I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They
did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to
get rid of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that,
as a matter of choice, the fathers of the Government made this nation
part slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood.
More than that: when the fathers of the Government cut off the source
of slavery by the abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of
restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I
maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men
understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge
Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask
him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made
it?
What Lincoln did in preparation for the debates
was spend hours in the Illinois statehouse library and look up all the
documents from the time of the writing of the Constitution, discovering
in the process that
not a single one of the founding fathers — Northern or Southern (!) — had ever meant for, or ever expected, or ever intended for, slavery to continue unabated.
(You
understand why leftists cannot allow schoolchildren to learn (too much)
about the Lincoln-Douglas debates these days, as it would be much
harder to demonize the United States — along with Thomas Jefferson,
George Washington, James Madison, etc etc etc — all the while engaging
in unending self-laudatory remarks. No no—much better that our kids
learn of much more important things, such as the the horrific—horrific, I
tell you—situation of
gays and lesbians throughout American history, with its attendant weeping and gnashing of teeth.)
The Rail-Splitter repeats the above fact in
the Seventh Debate:
… the fathers of the Government expected and intended the institution of
slavery to come to an end. They expected and intended that it should be
in the course of ultimate extinction. … It is not true that our fathers, as Judge Douglas
assumes, made this Government part slave and part free. Understand the
sense in which he puts it. He assumes that slavery is a rightful thing
within itself,—was introduced by the framers of the Constitution. The
exact truth is, that they found the institution existing among us, and
they left it as they found it. But in making the Government they left
this institution with many clear marks of disapprobation upon it. They
found slavery among them, and they left it among them because of the
difficulty—the absolute impossibility—of its immediate removal. And when
Judge Douglas asks me why we cannot let it remain part slave and part
free, as the fathers of the Government made it, he asks a question based
upon an assumption which is itself a falsehood …
2) Considered Uncouth and Extremist, Like "Hate Speech" Today, Criticism of Slavery Was to Be Avoided and the Boorish Critics Were to Be Gagged If and When Possible
And now, back to the Hate Speech part of
the Sixth Debate;
see if what Old Abe is discussing isn't the equivalent of shocking
examples of speech that Democrats say need to be restricted.
I will say now that there is a sentiment in the country contrary to me—a
sentiment which holds that slavery is not wrong, and therefore it goes
for the policy that does not propose dealing with it as a wrong. That
policy is the Democratic policy, and that sentiment is the Democratic
sentiment. If there be a doubt in the mind of any one of this vast
audience that this is really the central idea of the Democratic party,
in relation to this subject, I ask him to bear with me while I state a
few things tending, as I think, to prove that proposition.
… If there be a man in the Democratic party who thinks it is
wrong, and yet clings to that party, I suggest to him in the first place
that his leader don't talk as he does, for he never says that it is
wrong. … I suggest to him that if he will examine the
policy proposed to be carried forward, he will find that he carefully
excludes the idea that there is any thing wrong in it. If you will
examine the arguments that are made on it, you will find that every one
carefully excludes the idea that there is any thing wrong in slavery.
Perhaps that Democrat who says he is as much opposed to slavery as I am,
will tell me that I am wrong about this. I wish him to examine his own
course in regard to this matter a moment, and then see if his opinion
will not be changed a little.
You say it is wrong; but don't you
constantly object to any body else saying so? Do you not constantly
argue that this is not the right place to oppose it? You say it must not
be opposed in the free States, because slavery is not here; it must not
be opposed in the slave States, because it is there; it must not be
opposed in politics, because that will make a fuss; it must not be
opposed in the pulpit, because it is not religion.
Then where is the
place to oppose it? There is no suitable place to oppose it. There is no
plan in the country to oppose this evil overspreading the continent,
which you say yourself is coming. …
… turn it
in any way you can, in all the arguments sustaining the Democratic
policy, and in that policy itself, there is a careful, studied exclusion
of the idea that there is any thing wrong in slavery.
3) American Slavery and Abolitionism in the Context of World History
Of
course, some might say that slavery existed for 5,000, for 10,000 years
previously, so perhaps rooting it out in the space of some 73 years
ain't in the final analysis all that bad.
To use
Instapundit's regular quote of Robert Heinlein's,
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man.
(The science-fiction author goes on to say that: "Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now
and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently
despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all
right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from
creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the
people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.” ")
So,
for centuries, for millenia, grinding poverty was the normal condition
of mankind, with the vast majority of people throughout the world living
a life of poverty and ennui,
doing little more than working their farms to feed themselves, and
rarely subsisting on more than the equivalent of $3 a day.
Next to that, how bad was slavery?
Compared to the bane of poverty that most people lived in, how terrible was it to be a slave, how immoral was it to own slaves?
Seriously.
Now,
the spittle-flecked will scream that I am a racist with no empathy defending Southern plantation-owners. And a number of conservatives might join their chorus.
But it is time that we own up to one basic fact:
Slavery — like poverty — in the past was ubiquitous.
Both
started coming to an end (some places faster than others, but certainly
all over the West) after the American Revolution and the advent of
capitalism (which some of us prefer to call, simply, the free market),
along with the industrial revolution in the land of their
English-speaking cousins.
I.e., slavery started coming to and end in, and thanks to, the English-speaking nations.
And
yet, the only slavery the nitpickers (American or foreign) condemn,
revile, and wail and gnash their teeth over is slavery in the US of A.
South American slavery of Africans? No, not so much. White slavery of
whites (from Rome to the 19th century)? No. Arab slavery of Christians?
No. Arab slavery of (other) Arabs? No. Black slavery of blacks? No.
Slavery today, from the Arab world to the African continent? No. The
only slavery that is rendered in apocalyptic tones—the most apocalyptic
tones possible ("America's original sin"!!)—is America's. (Is it any
wonder that I conclude that we are living in
the era of the drama queens?)
(When
Amazon banned the sale of all items bearing the Confederate flag in the
wake of the nine black churchgoers killed in Charleston by a white
racist, Breitbart's
Katie McHugh (képi tip to
Sarah Hoyt) pointed out that the giant retailer had no compunction to continue selling all sorts of communist
merchandise—with not a word concerning the millions of enslaved laborers on the gulag, not to mention the
94 million deaths world-wide—"featuring the
hammer and sickle,
Joseph Stalin’s mustache, all things
Che Guevara,
Vladimir Lenin and other colorful revolutionaries".)
And
conservatives jump on this bandwagon. Even conservatives as diverse as
Scott Rasmussen, Milton Friedman, David P Goldman (alias Spengler), and
Onan Coca buy into this. Ben Stein refers to "the horrors of slavery"
while the Washington Examiner speaks of the "long-festering wounds that
were the terrible national legacy of slavery."
In the Prager University video
Don't Judge Blacks Differently,
Chloe Valdary refers to racism as "a stain so deeply
ingrained in our culture" while bemoaning "the disparity between the
races". Saying "America made grave and profound moral errors with regard
to race", Jonah Goldberg calls slavery "an evil institution" that "will
always remain a stain on America’s honor."
See, I am not defending slavery, but what
the drama queens
are doing, and getting conservatives to go along with, is perpetuating
historical falsehoods, along with false comparisons, such as comparing
the life of a slave (but only a black slave in the United States, you
understand by now, not any others) to life in today's modern world
(which truly would be nothing but atrocious) while ignoring the dreary
poverty that life was for most people, black as well as white, in the
West as throughout the rest of the world, up until the 18th and 19th
centuries.
Related:
The Confederate Flag: Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History
4)
The Arguments Southerners Used to Defend Slavery in the 19th Century
Sound Strangely Similar to Those of Leftist Heroes the World Over in the
20th and 21st Centuries
Indeed, when
Southerners defended slavery, they brought out what was hardly an
unreasonable argument; they said that that "freedom" among the Yankees
was a mirage—that the only freedom the workers had there was the freedom
to croak—and that they (the Southerners), at least, were taking care of
their blacks, taking care of them from the cradle to the grave no less.
And ain't that generous of them?!
You think that
sounds ridiculous? Alright; so do I. Am I defending slavery? Am I
defending the Southerners who practiced it? Am I "ridiculously" enamored
of the image of ante-bellum plantation life? Not at all.
Au contraire:
notice how the Southern defense of slavery (we are taking care of our
blacks/of the people/of our citizens) is not a conservative position; in
no way is it so.
This is the liberal, the progressive,
the smiley face position of the left, with all their good intentions
and all their central plans, from LBJ to Barack Obama, from Allende and
Che Guevara to Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong, from Scandinavia's
"we-enlightened-people-support-all-members-of-society" nations to
Western Europe's incomparably glorious health care systems. Coupled with
their outraged condemnation of the Yankees' evil capitalism (Yankees
here meaning all American citizens and not just, as among 19th-century
Southerners, American citizens from North of the Mason-Dixon line).
You
may wonder (whether you lean left or right), really, is there no
difference? There are a couple of differences, actually. First of all,
the Southern plantation owners are private citizens, businessmen, while
the others all embody the state and its armies of bureaucrats.
Right
there, our leftist friends have an additional reason to attack slavery,
with a fit of anger: wasn't slavery private business, after all, the
affair of ruthless capitalists? (Actually, no it was
not the free
market, since the blacks had no freedom and no say in the matter.) In
any case, compare this with the non-committal, neutral response to the
far
more cruel societies of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot ("Sure, sure, of
course we condemn the Soviet Union and China's millions of dead … but…
at least… we have to admit… that… they had good intentions").
What
19th-century Democrats were telling their castigators, in effect—to
return to the hate speech point—was "at least we have good intentions
(and if you have the outrageous gall not to believe that, you must be a
worthless, ridiculous, laughable excuse of a human being with no values
of empathy who ought to be shut up)".
Second
difference, the goal of the statists seems to be to create a playground,
one in which they tell the citizenry: "Don't worry, we support you,
society supports you, just use your earnings (what's left after taxes)
to make your life pleasant and comfortable, and we'll take care of the
rest—your protection, your safety, your health care, your lot in life,
everything." What the Southern plantation owners demanded, of course,
was that their slaves work, work hard, and indeed engage in
back-breaking, exhausting work. Question: are today's leftists more
concerned with the freedom of the citizen or with the fact that his
overlords do not provide him with a playground but ask him to work
(admittedly, back-breaking work)?
Ben Carson is attacked for saying Obamacare is akin to slavery.
During the Obama years, I kept getting emails from Barack Obama in which he tells me he wants to continue fighting for the American people.
In that sense, he truly succeeded in "fundamentally transforming the United States".
For
wasn't the American Dream the dream to get money, and thereby to get
riches, and thereby to get power, and thereby to get independence?
Wasn't
the American Dream the freedom from having to look and to appeal (just
like in Europe) to our betters, to our leaders, to our smiley-face
bureaucrats, to our "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you"
politicians, to intervene in our lives (with the bestest of intentions,
natch)?
5) Republicans in the 19th Century Were As Castigated, As Ridiculed, and As Demonized As Today's GOP Members Are—If Not More
You
can hardly find a description of the Garland's Jihad Watch Muhammad Art
Exhibit and Cartoon Contest, pro or con, without the writer (again, pro
or con) feeling the necessity to have no choice but vilify
Pamela Geller in the harshest of terms, as a human being of the most horrid of sorts (from
shrill and obnoxious to
possibly outright racist).
Guess
what, Democrats! That is exactly (as we have seen) how your party
treated abolitionists in the 19th century. As the lowest, and as the
vilest, of human beings.
It is often said that Abraham
Lincoln was a racist (the—few—times he used the N word, he actually
appears to have been quoting Stephen Douglas's words back to him) — or
that he had no choice, willingly or otherwise, but to appeal to the
common racism of the American people. (Thus the modern-day leftist has
history conveniently written down, once again, in a way in which
America's forefathers are all demonized, as bigots, while modern
leftists like he or she appear wise and humanistic.)
As
John Nolte writes,
When you are dealing with the mainstream media, it is always difficult
to tell if you are dealing with willful ignorance or just plain old
ignorance-ignorance. There are plenty of moronic savants in the national
media who have cracked the “hot take” code to please their left-wing
masters but have no fundamental grasp of history, or much of anything
much of else.
Leftists have again twisted history, as
Jonah Goldberg notes in
Liberal Fascism, to condemn Americans en masse while leaving
the Democratic party unscathed.
…In the liberal telling of America's story,
there are only two perpetrators of official misdeeds: conservatives
and "America" writ large. Progressives, or modern liberals, are never
bigots or tyrants, but conservatives often are. For example, one will
virtually never hear that the Palmer Raids, Prohibition, or American
eugenics were thoroughly progressive phenomena. These are sins America
itself must atone for. Meanwhile, real or alleged "conservative" misdeeds — say,
McCarthyism — are always the exclusive fault of conservatives and a sign
of the policies they would repeat if given power.
What
Lincoln had to do, rather, was less "appeal to the common racism" per
se of the average American per se than to distance himself from those
demonized abolitionists.
In the very same manner that Republicans, today, are constantly being asked, requested, to differentiate
themselves from "far-right" "extremists" of such groups as the Tea Party.
That's
right: the abolitionists of the 19th century were as demonized and
ridiculed (today's castigators of slavery will be happy to know) as the
members of the Tea Party are today.
And how about members of the nascent Republican Party? How were they treated in the 1850s? Can you imagine?
Well, less than 10 years ago,
James Carville referred to (modern-day) Republicans as "reptiles".
And 150 years ago, when an Illinois Republican felt the necessity to address himself to Southerners and Democrats (during
his Cooper Union speech in 1860), guess which term Abe Lincoln reached for:
…when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as
reptiles [!], or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a
hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to [Republicans].
In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an
unconditional condemnation of [Republicanism] as the first thing to be
attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an
indispensable prerequisite — license, so to speak — among you to be
admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be
prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to
us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and
specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or
justify.
"
Reptiles,
outlaws, pirates, murderers"… How often have Republicans been called
terrorists in the past decade? (And in the years, in the decades,
before that?)
So maybe we should take with a pinch of
salt all the alleged decrees that the Democratic and Republican parties
have switched positions between them and how, today, Lincoln would
"obviously" be a Democrat.
You might be tempted to
dismiss such (self-serving) musings — along with comparisons of the
likes of Barack Obama to such illustrious predecessors as Abraham
Lincoln and Ronald Reagan — as not the fruit of intellectual
investigation, analysis, and arguments but—again—as part of its
incessant litany of self-congratulation.
(Is it any wonder that I assert that
The Leftist Worldview in a Nutshell can be summarized as
A World of Deserving Dreamers Vs. Despicable Deplorables ?)
Indeed, debate over the causes of the Civil War veer between the
South's defense of slavery and the South's (alleged) fight for state
rights.
How about a much simpler solution?
Isn't the truth looking at us from the center of the room?
Isn't
the main reason that, then as now, Democrats (ever "fighting for the
American people") did not want to be ruled by such low-life scum
(reptiles, outlaws, pirates, murderers, terrorists, haters, etc) as
Republicans, as abolitionists, as Tea Partiers?
Wasn't Abraham Lincoln as reviled as Donald Trump, George W Bush, and Ronald Reagan?
Sally Jewell.
