Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery

[Alizia Tyler]

In other words, your tantrum over the fact that nobody is buying the Lost Cause drivel you spew just keeps going on....and on...and on.

It’s truly amusing that you actually seem to genuinely believe that people pointing out the fact that no, there was no “dozens or hundreds of benefits” to slavery are “coercing” you by forcing you to face reality.

Your posts reek, as usual, of pseudo intellectual babbling. You seem to be under the impression that if you comb through the thesaurus and find every seven dollar word you can think of that it provides your vile claims with some extra form of legitimacy. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t.

You are the one weeping because people pointed out how vile the Lost Cause bullshit you spewed is. All of the hysterics about imaginary “coercion” and sobbing about fantasy “zealotry” is laughable.

The sheer level of ignorance you have displayed CERTAINLY makes it clear why you celebrate the slavers’ revolt.

And no amount of pseudo intellectual babble can change the fact that your claims are flat out, complete and utter....garbage.

Here is the essential list of what is communicated:

Tantrum​

Buying the Lost Cause​

Drivel​

Amusing​

Reek​

Pseudo-intellectual​

Babbling​

Seven-dollar words​

Weeping​

Lost Cause Bullshit​

Sobbing​

Fantasy​

Sheer ignorance​

Garbage​

 

[Tigerace117]

Here is the essential list of what is communicated:

Tantrum​

Buying the Lost Cause​

Drivel​

Amusing​

Reek​

Pseudo-intellectual​

Babbling​

Seven-dollar words​

Weeping​

Lost Cause Bullshit​

Sobbing​

Fantasy​

Sheer ignorance​

Garbage​

You literally claimed there were “dozens or hundreds of benefits” to southern slavery. You haven’t been able to even list one, but that sheer ignorance of your claims— an ignorance you have doubled and then tripled down on— makes your claims worthless.

And that’s not even getting into the fact that you think the US defending itself against the slavers’ revolt was a “tremendous evil”or your silly attempt to equate the Civil War to the Spanish American War.

 

[Jezcoe]

That is, to reduce alternate or competing historical interpretation into the convenient label that they are 'Conservative'

In the video that you posted of the Confederate apologist.... that guy 100% has an ideological axe to grind.

He frames the Confederacy as the fight to reestablish the “Jeffersonian” small government/heavy on State’s rights regime when the very reason that the succession crises happened was because of political fights over the expansion of slavery into the territories... not an abolition of slavery in the existing states.

He starts with “Federal Government bad” and attaches his biases against the Federal Reserve, the Warren Supreme Court, taxation and other bugaboos and frames the Confederate government as being the opposite of all of that. It is supremely stupid to attach all of that baggage to a regime that lasted four years and was created for the preservation of slavery without acknowledging that slavery was THE main issue of the first half of the 19th century

It is completely fine to have an “alternate” view of history.... but when one has to ignore a ton of the details and only delve into specific broad strokes... that is not an effort to understand history. That is using history as propaganda.

 

[Jezcoe]

You literally claimed there were “dozens or hundreds of benefits” to southern slavery.

To be fair... people did benefit from slavery. It was a terrible deal for the slaves... and black people in general... even those who were “free”.

 

[j brown's body]

I disgree very strongly. In the coming months and possibly years there will be more and more discussions about critical theory.

It is not navel gazing. The critique of critical theory is highly practical.


I completely agree.

A few disclaimers, then a comment.

1. I think slavery is an evil, one of the worst institutions created by humans

2. I think that the primary purpose of the Confederacy was the preservation of slavery. Even if they may have been in the right about some things (or may have been wronged by the North in some ways), they were dreadfully wrong about slavery. I'm glad the Confederacy lost the war.

3. I disagree strongly with Alizia Tyler on some things (unless I have misunderstood her), most particulary the legitimacy of race as a source of social cohesion (although I readily admit the reality that it's widely used as such).

At the same time, I think she has done a brilliant job of illustrating her original point in this thread. And that was NOT, despite the huge number of words expended on the topics, defending slavery or defending the Confederacy. Not once, not at any point.

It was pointing out a phenomenon that seems to be on the increase these days, which is the framing of complex issues into simplistic, binary terms, backed by moralistic, emotional fervor against even the consideration of questions that exist within the low-resolution conceptual blocks that are constructed by idealogies. Barack Obama has commented recently that some mistakenly think they are serving the cause of good by just yelling at people. I think she is absolutely right that this trend is significantly informed by post-modernist critical theory in its activist mode. If anyone was looking for examples of this kind of thing, this thread is a pretty good place to start.

Reality is pretty complex and nuanced. Shutting down discussion with gales of righteous indignation does not, despite what many seem to think, forward the cause of justice, nor the cause of reason.

The Lousiana lawmaker in the link in the OP, as far as I can tell, was simply advocating not starting educational dialogues with a binary roadblock like "America is racist", which is every bit as absurd as "America has never done anything wrong". He was advocating looking at issues in detail and made the mistake of using the phrase "the good, the bad, and the ugly" in reference to slavery, which enable the immediate "gotcha" that there was nothing good about slavery. And of course he immediately stated that the were "no good parts" to slavery. Of all human affairs, current or historical, slavery surely comes as close to any to having no good in it, but starting from the position that any hypothetical good cannot be discussed is unproductive. It's better to consider what aspects might have been considered good and rebut those, instead of closing down discussion from the beginning.

Mostly, I think the legislator, along with Republican legislators across the country are seeking to ban the teaching of the history of racism in this country. They don't want to say this, but they use "Critical race theory" as the whipping boy. They have generalized this as "America is racist."

Well, we have a racist history. It seems impossible to teach history and avoid this important fact. The purpose of education is to present this information to students and allow them to draw their own conclusions. The Republicans have a curriculum in mind that writes all of this out of it.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

It was pointing out a phenomenon that seems to be on the increase these days, which is the framing of complex issues into simplistic, binary terms, backed by moralistic, emotional fervor against even the consideration of questions that exist within the low-resolution conceptual blocks that are constructed by idealogies. I think she is absolutely right that this trend is significantly informed by post-modernist critical theory in its activist mode. If anyone was looking for examples of this kind of thing, this thread is a pretty good place to start.

There you have it. The one-paragraph version!

 

[Master Debator]

There you have it. The one-paragraph version!

That begs the question, what aspect of the Confederacy are we failing to give nuance to? Did they probably love their wives and children? Sure. Does that change who they ultimately were what they fought for? Seems to me you want to complain for complaints sake but you can't manage to pick out a specific beef. What are we getting wrong about the Confederacy? How are we bring unfair to them?

 

[j brown's body]

There was not much fight to 'end slavery'. There was a war to 'keep the Union together' and to stop secession. The end of slavery was a consequence and not the stated purpose of the war.

Lincoln pointed out in his first Inaugural Address: "One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute."

The key part being about extending it, for it could not survive if it couldn't be extended.

The southern states were well aware of this:

"Southerners themselves clearly identified slavery as the cause of the war, which one can see by taking a look at a variety of primary sources. A good place to start is with the Ordinances of Secession. ...You can read them here.

Note that Alabama claimed Lincoln’s election was “avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions” of the state. Virginia objected to “the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States.” Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas each issued a supplementary “Declaration of Causes” that all specifically (and extensively) mentioned slavery."

Link

Slavery would appear to have played a pretty big role as the cause of the war.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You literally claimed there were “dozens or hundreds of benefits” to southern slavery.

That it gave to the African Nation a foothold in the New World -- the life they now have. That is certainly a benefit. In the same sense I can say that the Roman conquest of the European tribes brought about European civilization. A 'bad' event had, also, 'good' results. See?

The way I put this is, I admit, strange and runs contrary to the standard narrative (as Angela Davis says "We were ripped from the shored of Africa...") and I do this for an even more unpopular reason. Because I refer to a statement I once read "Africans forced to labor in the Empire of the White Man's will".

To me this points to discomfiting truth. That African destiny in America (and possibly in the Americas) is fraught and complex and there is nothing simple or easy about it. But it is uniquely African (that is, Black).

The Black Race is 'non-compatible' with the "white man's will". Because it was a forced project. Because it involved the 'ripping out' Angela Davis refers to and then being 'forced to labor' in a reality not one's own. It still exists as a 'project'. The project is on-going.

These are 'problematic zones' and territories that come to bear on the status of American identity right now, in our present.

What I do -- and this is not appreciated -- is to hold to my position that all of this is complex and *laden* as I often say.

Also, that I do not allow other people to intrude their perspectives into those that I have gained through my own (hard) work.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

What are we getting wrong about the Confederacy? How are we bring unfair to them?

You are going to have to undertake your own *intellectual journey* there sailor!

I do not go in for this "I am interrogating you so answer my questions right now" thing.

When I read The Southern Tradition at Bay I discovered, a result of my engagement with his work, that he had some reason on his side. I think that the man who gave the talk in the video above is aware that, in a sense, the South is a more original America, and the North an off-shoot, or a deviation/evolution. That is some part of why I consider Weaver's perspective to have been relevant and considerable.

From just one of the reviews of Weaver's book at GoodReads.

The Civil War was about much more than slavery. This book explains.

An excellent book that deserves much more attention. Weaver composes a summary of Southern literature from the Civil War to the early 20th century. He pulls out the main themes, and tries to describe the spirit of the South. It is essentially a literature review of Southern culture. In describing the mind of the South and explaining why they fought, Weaver does a masterful job. Weaver is definitely sympathetic to the southern cause, and I think it's fair to say that he writes this volume almost as a defense or apologia of the southern mind. Even so, he is level-headed, and acknowledges the good and bad. The manuscript was originally his dissertation in the early 1940's, and was only published posthumously in 1968, yet it remains timely. This book is extremely well put together.

Weaver describes the South as hierarchical; respecting nature, goodness, and authority; chivalrous; gentlemanly; deeply pious and religious; laid-back, passive, and unorganized. All of these traits are in contrast to the North, which could be described as egalitarian, progressive, and efficient. Above all, the difference is one of traditional vs. anti-traditional.

Following the introduction, Weaver lays out cultural factors that produced the South: a feudal system, a code of chivalry, and a particular type of education and religion. He then describes how the Southern intellectual leaders defended themselves, all the way to the point of war, legally and philosophically. This is followed by a section on the mind of the southern soldier - why did he fight? Plenty of excerpts from diaries are included. Weaver then describes the literature produced in the decades following the Civil War: periodicals and fiction. Finally, Weaver steps back and puts the Southern tradition in a broader context.

Overall a very good read for understanding the South, pre and post Civil war.

 

[Master Debator]

That it gave to the African Nation a foothold in the New World -- the life they now have. That is certainly a benefit. In the same sense I can say that the Roman conquest of the European tribes brought about European civilization. A 'bad' event had, also, 'good' results. See?

Not really. If you snatched a homeless child off the street and put them in a home and gave them their own room from which to pimp them out of you wouldn't claim that child should be grateful they now have a roof over their heads.

The only reason black Americans enjoy any freedoms today or are even considered Americans to begin with is because the Confederacy and the racists were defeated. They don't then get credit for black prosperity. Blacks don't benefit here in America because of racist slavers, we benefit here in spite of them. That isn't a complex notion, you're just trying to make it one to apologize for racist slavers.

 

[pamak]

You literally claimed there were “dozens or hundreds of benefits” to southern slavery. You haven’t been able to even list one, but that sheer ignorance of your claims— an ignorance you have doubled and then tripled down on— makes your claims worthless.

And that’s not even getting into the fact that you think the US defending itself against the slavers’ revolt was a “tremendous evil”or your silly attempt to equate the Civil War to the Spanish American War.

I see many idiots here trying to find benefits in slavery by abusing basic logic.

For example, the idea that slaves were not starving is NOT a benefit of slavery. Freed slaves also would not starve and would have worked less for their food.

Perhaps we need to start a thread to discuss the benefits of ANTIFA assaulting Confederate-loving idiots who make stupid claims about the benefits in slavery [sarcasm intended]

 

[Master Debator]

You are going to have to undertake your own *intellectual journey* there sailor!

I do not go in for this "I am interrogating you so answer my questions right now" thing.

When I read The Southern Tradition at Bay I discovered, a result of my engagement with his work, that he had some reason on his side.

Did he have reason on his side? Are positive affirmations about how gentlemanly slavers were considered reason by you? If you're going to hide behind Weaver then let's hear one of his arguments you find particularly convincing.

 

[compote_tom]

I grew up in Louisiana in the fifties until 1964 when we left the state.

I grew up with the popular (then) Southern Myth that the slaves were happy being slaves and it was the cruel "Yankees" that forced freedom on these poor individuals. The fact that at that time Jim Crow was the law of the land shows that these people weren't completely "free". I remember "Whites Only" signs as late as 1972 and I think I saw the first black police officer in 1978 when I was in Louisiana to attend a funeral.

To somehow "whitewash" slavery and the Jim Crow South is intellectual BS. As it is to pretend that racism doesn't exists in The U.S. It amazes me when Southerners try to pretend that all is well and it has been for a long time.

The other Myth I grew up with was that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Really?? If there were no slaves there wouldn't have been a Civil War period. The other issues certainly could have been resolved without War.

The fact that slavery existed from the beginning of history doesn't excuse anyone, neither does that fact that the master 20 miles away was worse. Owning another human is wrong period. History is full of one group,tribe,nation rising up to destroy another group,tribe,nation and enslaving the surviving women and children. However, that doesn't make it excusable. Murder,rape,torture,ethnic cleansing, ect, has existed forever, that fact excuses no one.

I can't believe that we're having these conversations in 2021

 

[Alizia Tyler]

It is completely fine to have an “alternate” view of history.... but when one has to ignore a ton of the details and only delve into specific broad strokes... that is not an effort to understand history. That is using history as propaganda.

Both versions of history, inevitably, will contain 'tons of details' and 'blind spots'. I did not say that his version is an 'alternative' version as you use the word, but that it involves alternative or perhaps suppressed or dismissed views and interpretations.

Clearly, if he 'ignores tons of details', it is also likely that the other side does the same or similar.

I think this is my position, basically.

I agree with what you say about the South having designs on Cuba. I do not believe that the South was, in its essence, less prone to expansionist motive or a protectionist motive against French or British.

But in fact my 'critical view' of the invasion of the Philippines came from readings of decidedly Left-Progressive material. That the invasion and occupation of the Philippines went diametrically against the declared values of Americanism as supporting liberty and sovereignty.

But this ties to my view that America, today, suffers this conflict of interests. It has an Empire and manages an Empire (globally) and this is protected by sheer force. There are many contradictions in American power, but there are infinite contradictions in any power-system.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Did he have reason on his side? Are positive affirmations about how gentlemanly slavers were considered reason by you? If you're going to hide behind Weaver then let's hear one of his arguments you find particularly convincing.

Look into them yourself and . . . report back.

My encounter with Weaver led to months and months -- years even -- of thought and adjustment.

Give yourself time Mr Fight The Power! Go slowly . . .

 

[Master Debator]

Look into them yourself and . . . report back.

My encounter with Weaver led to months and months -- years even -- of thought and adjustment.

Give yourself time Mr Fight The Power! Go slowly . . .

Right. You spend all that time complaining that people won't give the Confederacy a fair shake and when someone offers to hear this nuance you claim we're all desperately lacking you fail to provide any yourself.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I can't believe that we're having these conversations in 2021

They are having that conversation. I have proposed no such conversation.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Right. You spend all that time complaining that people won't give the Confederacy a fair shake and when someone offers to hear this nuance you claim we're all desperately lacking you fail to provide any yourself.

Read what I write. Or go back over things that I have written. Maybe my perspectives and ideas will appear differently now that you have calmed down to a degree.

I develop full ideas in my favorite form -- the essay. The ideas that I have I have worked to have. I never used the term 'give the Confederacy a fair shake'. How absurd. I suggest that you can, if you want, examine the other side of cultural and historical arguments or perspectives.

I suggest you do this by continued reading.

Spoon feed an embittered, contentious Jamaican? Are you crazy! I want to keep all my fingers.

 

[j brown's body]

I grew up in Louisiana in the fifties until 1964 when we left the state.

I grew up with the popular (then) Southern Myth that the slaves were happy being slaves and it was the cruel "Yankees" that forced freedom on these poor individuals. The fact that at that time Jim Crow was the law of the land shows that these people weren't completely "free". I remember "Whites Only" signs as late as 1972 and I think I saw the first black police officer in 1978 when I was in Louisiana to attend a funeral.

To somehow "whitewash" slavery and the Jim Crow South is intellectual BS. As it is to pretend that racism doesn't exists in The U.S. It amazes me when Southerners try to pretend that all is well and it has been for a long time.

The other Myth I grew up with was that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Really?? If there were no slaves there wouldn't have been a Civil War period. The other issues certainly could have been resolved without War.

The fact that slavery existed from the beginning of history doesn't excuse anyone, neither does that fact that the master 20 miles away was worse. Owning another human is wrong period. History is full of one group,tribe,nation rising up to destroy another group,tribe,nation and enslaving the surviving women and children. However, that doesn't make it excusable. Murder,rape,torture,ethnic cleansing, ect, has existed forever, that fact excuses no one.

I can't believe that we're having these conversations in 2021

Yeah, I was always taught that the war had nothing to do with slavery and that the brave southern generals and their amazing fortitude in battle were the most important aspects. And then, of course, Reconstruction was a mistake.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

The only reason black Americans enjoy any freedoms today or are even considered Americans to begin with is because the Confederacy and the racists were defeated. They don't then get credit for black prosperity. Blacks don't benefit here in America because of racist slavers, we benefit here in spite of them. That isn't a complex notion, you're just trying to make it one to apologize for racist slavers.

Here is a hard truth for you: the reason they have whatever they have, and also what they don't have, is because freedom was granted to them, like a gift. *They* did not earn it, they did not fight for it, it was provided to them.

So what this means, in respect to 'the Empire of the White Man's will' is that the 'freedom' given was a continuation of the historical and cultural processes that brought them, against their will, into the Americas and into America.

So what I say is that this fact, these truths, are highly problematic for the American Republic. These are two very different and in many ways 'incompatible' peoples and cultures forced to subsist together.

Blacks don't benefit here in America because of racist slavers, we benefit here in spite of them.

You exist in America because of the specific history. And you continue to define what you are, what this all means.

That is what I took away from my rather involved reading of African-American literature.

These things have especially come to the fore in our present.

 

[Master Debator]

Read what I write. Or go back over things that I have written. Maybe my perspectives and ideas will appear differently now that you have calmed down to a degree.

Your patronizing words are a poor mark for your weak arguments.

I develop full ideas in my favorite form -- the essay. The ideas that I have I have worked to have. I never used the term 'give the Confederacy a fair shake'. How absurd. I suggest that you can, if you want, examine the other side of cultural and historical arguments or perspectives.

I suggest you do this by continued reading.

Spoon feed an embittered, contentious Jamaican? Are you crazy! I want to keep all my fingers.

Weaver is an apologist for slavers his claims as a defense for the Confederacy is silly. Calling slavers gentlemen who believed in natural hierarchy and self sufficiency is like pirates trying to rebrand themselves as coastal entrepreneurs who believe in the proactive repatriation of natural resources.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Reconstruction was a mistake.

A trillion dollars later -- to draw a historical parallel -- America is withdrawing from Afghanistan. You get my point, right?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Your patronizing words are a poor mark for your weak arguments.

We have an expression in Spanish: "Pagar con la misma moneda": Comportarse con una persona de la misma mala forma como esta se comportó con uno.

Would you love the thought of getting on polite terms with me? We could sketch some 'rules of engagement' and sign them in official ceremony.

 

[Tigerace117]

That it gave to the African Nation a foothold in the New World -- the life they now have. That is certainly a benefit. In the same sense I can say that the Roman conquest of the European tribes brought about European civilization. A 'bad' event had, also, 'good' results. See?

The way I put this is, I admit, strange and runs contrary to the standard narrative (as Angela Davis says "We were ripped from the shored of Africa...") and I do this for an even more unpopular reason. Because I refer to a statement I once read "Africans forced to labor in the Empire of the White Man's will".

To me this points to discomfiting truth. That African destiny in America (and possibly in the Americas) is fraught and complex and there is nothing simple or easy about it. But it is uniquely African (that is, Black).

The Black Race is 'non-compatible' with the "white man's will". Because it was a forced project. Because it involved the 'ripping out' Angela Davis refers to and then being 'forced to labor' in a reality not one's own. It still exists as a 'project'. The project is on-going.

These are 'problematic zones' and territories that come to bear on the status of American identity right now, in our present.

What I do -- and this is not appreciated -- is to hold to my position that all of this is complex and *laden* as I often say.

Also, that I do not allow other people to intrude their perspectives into those that I have gained through my own (hard) work.

Lol what? What “African nation”? Enslaved African Americans had no particular attachment to any African “nation”, as shown by their unwillingness to go “back” to Liberia even in the face of the brutal tyranny imposed on them by former Confederates in the aftermath of the war. To try and claim that just showing up in America was a “benefit” of slavery is absurd.

As usual, you are far more interested in clinging to pseudo intellectual fairy tales than facing the hard historical facts.