Skip to content

Biweekly Discussion - Slavery & Pseudohistory

Photo of Brian B.
Hosted By
Brian B.
Biweekly Discussion - Slavery & Pseudohistory

Details

We're currently hosting our discussions at Café Walnut, near the corner of 7th & Walnut in Olde City, just across the street from Washington Square Park. The cafe's entrance is below street level down some stairs, which can be confusing if it's your first time. Our group meets in the large room upstairs.

Since we're using the cafe's space, they ask that each person attending the meetup at least purchase a drink or snack. Please don't bring any food or drinks from outside. If you're hungry enough to eat a meal, they have more substantial fare such as salads, soups & sandwiches which are pretty good and their prices are reasonable.

The cafe is fairly easy to get to if you're using public transit. With SEPTA, take the Market-Frankford Line & get off at the 5th Street Station (corner of 5th & Market), and walk 2 blocks south on 5th and then turn right on Walnut Street and walk 2 blocks west. With PATCO, just get off at the 9th-10th & Locust stop and walk 3 blocks east & 1 block north. For those who are driving, parking in the neighborhood can be tough to find. If you can't find a spot on the street, I'd suggest parking in the Washington Square parking deck at 249 S 6th Street which is just a half block away.

----------------------------------------------
THE CONUNDRUM OF SLAVERY IN "THE LAND OF THE FREE"

ANALYZING HOW AMERICAN SLAVERY HAS GIVEN RISE TO PSEUDOETHICS, PSEUDOLAW, PSEUDOHISTORY & PSEUDOECONOMICS

INTRODUCTION:

America's history of slavery has received several spikes in news coverage over the past few years. Some of this dates back to the 2015 church shooting in Charleston by Dylan Roof, which was partly attributed to Roof's fascination with the Confederacy since his manifesto contained photos of him posing with the Confederate battle flag. This led to calls for Southern states to rid themselves of the public display of this flag, and to remove statues of Confederate generals from public as well. This proved controversial with many white Southerners, who argued these were about "heritage not hate" and that removing them would be "erasing history". This led several far-right groups to plan the "Unite the Right Rally" in August of 2017. It started as a protest of the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from Lee Park in Charlottesville, NC, and ended in a massive brawl between white supremacists & Antifa activists and the death of Heather Heyer when James Alex Fields Jr. rammed his car into a group of counter-protestors.

As many will remember, Trump commented on the fallout from the Unite the Right Rally shortly thereafter. He argued against efforts to remove the Confederate monuments, saying it would be “changing history” and that if the monuments were removed, figures like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson could be next, due to their ownership of slaves. Trump also created a firestorm of controversy when he said that "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides" and it wasn't immediately clear whether he meant both sides of the overarching debate about Confederate monuments or both sides of the clash between the white supremacists attending Unite the Right rally and the counter-protestors.

The comments after the Unite the Right Rally weren't the first or last comments from the Trump administration on the subject of slavery and the Civil War in 2017. Earlier in May of 2017, Trump mused in an interview that the Civil War could have been avoided if only Andrew Jackson had been around to stop it. Then in October of 2017, Trump's chief of staff John F. Kelly stirred controversy when he called Robert E. Lee “an honorable man” and said that “the lack of an ability to compromise” led to the avoidable tragedy of the Civil War. Many critics of the Trump administration argued that this sounded almost like the "Lost Cause" apologetics for the Confederacy which had emerged among white Southerners in the late 19th century, where the conflict was reframed as the "War of Northern Aggression".

There's been some provocative arguments about slavery emanating from the political left as well. Just before the 4th of July in 2015, Dylan Matthews stirred up controversy with an article at Vox that argued that the inhabitants of the 13 American colonies would've been better off if we'd either never declared our independence from Britian or lost the war. One of the reasons he gave was that this would've meant that slavery in the American colonies would've been abolished in 1833, three decades earlier and without a bloody & enormously costly Civil War.

More recently, in the summer of 2019, the New York Times ran a series of articles on slavery as part of its "1619 Project" which commemorated the arrival of the first Africans to the mainland of North America, brought by English privateers who seized them from Portuguese slave ship and sold them to the settlers at Jamestown. There's some debate about using 1619 as the date for the beginning of slavery in the future United States since these Africans were treated more like indentured servants, being freed after a prescribed period and given the use of land & supplies by their former masters. But what really sparked debate was an essay by Matthew Desmond that drew upon the work of historians Sven Beckert & Seth Rockman and argued that American capitalism is "uniquely severe and unbridled" and the reason for this can be found in America's history of plantation slavery.

AS SKEPTICS, HOW SHOULD WE EVALUATE THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS?

The skeptic movement typically deals with pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, but occasionally skeptics also evaluate historical arguments. Often, skeptics focus their debunking efforts on the most preposterous historical claims - like the oft-heard speculations on the History channel that "ancient aliens" had a role in the construction of the Egyptian pyramids and various other ancient architectural marvels. Skeptics have also gone after Holocaust denialism, where certain people (typically although not always anti-Semites) claim that Nazi "death camps" didn't exist and that the numbers of Jews killed by the Nazis in WWII are vastly overstated due to a conspiracy between historians, Jewish activists & the Israeli government.

More recently there's been some skeptic focus on debunking the pro-Confederate historiography that portrays the Confederates as kindly slavemasters and gallant soldiers who fought for a "Lost Cause" that was ultimately defeated by "Northern aggression". This is a bit different than debunking Holocaust deniers however, since the Lost Cause historians don't claim that slavery didn't exist, merely that slaves weren't treated any worse on average than Northern laborers, and many of the arguments are focused not so much on historical facts as on the moral significance of various events. This means that as we discuss this issue, we're not merely arguing about how historians should source their facts and draw inferences about past events, but we're also almost inevitably arguing about ethical questions. And to the extent that we're addressing claims about the importance of slavery for the antebellum economy of the US, we're also going outside the domain of history and into economics.

In the first section of this discussion, we'll look at the debates that atheists have been having with Christians over the past several years about whether or not the Bible provides a justification of slavery. Several prominent atheists, including Sam Harris & Matt Dillahunty, have feuded with Christians over this issue recently, but it's also important for our historical analysis because the Bible formed a major part of the ethical worldview of Americans in the 18th & 19th century who were debating the morality of slavery. We don't have enough evidence to suggest how the ancient Hebrews treated their slaves, so we'll mostly focus on the text of the Old & New Testaments and the question of whether or not it presents a coherent view on slavery.

In the second section, we'll look at the Founding Father's views on slavery and how it figured into the writing of the Constitution. Unlike the 1st section, we've got enough historical evidence to suggest how the Founders treated their slaves, so we can compare this with their writings on slavery and see whether or not they were hypocrites. We'll consider whether or not the Constitution presents a clear legal justification for or against slavery or if it's ambivalent, as well as how various legal interpretations of the Constitution might constitute an untenable form of "pseudo-law". We'll also consider the hypothetical scenario where the US lost the Revolutionary War and consider whether that would've led to a quicker & more peaceful end to slavery in Britain's North America colonies.

In the third section, we'll dive into the Neoconfederate "Lost Cause" apologetics for Southern slavery & secession. We'll consider the extent to which this narrative amounts to "pseudohistory" and "historical negationism" by distorting or denying well-sourced historical facts. We'll also consider whether slavery would've eventually been abolished if the Southern states had been allowed to peacefully secede.

In the final section, we'll look at some recent argument about whether slave-based cash-crop agriculture was such a major part of the antebellum economy of the US that it can fairly be said that the US economy would've never grown so rapidly without it. Historians & economists have argued back & forth about whether considering slavery a necessary (if not sufficient) cause of the America becoming one of the wealthiest nations in the world is a sound argument or a muddled form of "pseudo-economics".

It's worth pointing out that all 4 of these issues are controversial because they tie into many people's sense of religious, political & national identity, and the arguments in these debates are often formulated with sweeping generalizations & false dichotomies, for example:

  1. The Bible completely supports (or completely condemns) slavery.
  2. The Constitution is fundamentally pro-slavery (or fundamentally pro-freedom).
  3. The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery (or was only about slavery).
  4. Southern slavery had nothing (or everything) to do with why America became a wealthy nation.
    It may be worth reviewing why Sweeping Generalizations & False Dichotomies are fallacious, and how they tie into several other fallacies that often crop up in debates over history, such as the Genetic Fallacy, the Intentional Fallacy, and the Reification Fallacy. Please refer to the Wikipedia entries for a brief overview:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
    https://www.britannica.com/art/intentional-fallacy
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

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

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of the major debates over the ethical, historical & economic issues raised by America's history of slavery. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about about 50 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. As you can see, I've listed some questions under each section to stimulate discussion - we'll do our best to answer most of them. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

----------------------------------------------
I. THE DEBATES OVER BIBLICAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR SLAVERY:

  • EVEN IF SOME ELEMENTS OF EXODUS ARE MYTHICAL, IS THERE SOME HISTORICAL TRUTH TO THE STORY OF HEBREWS BEING SLAVES IN EGYPT AND SOMEHOW BEING FREED & EMIGRATING EN MASSE TO THE LEVANT C. 1300BC?

  • DOES THE OLD TESTAMENT/TORAH ONLY ENDORSE A VOLUNTARY & TEMPORARY FORM OF DEBT BONDAGE? OR IS TEMPORARY BONDAGE ONLY FOR HEBREWS & LIFE-LONG CHATTEL SLAVERY FOR NON-HEBREWS PER LEVITICUS 24:44-46? WHY DOES LEVITICUS SAY THIS, WHEN IN LEVITICUS 19:33-34 IT TELLS THE HEBREWS TO NOT MISTREAT FOREIGNERS & TREAT THEM AS NATIVES? ARE THESE FOREIGNERS VOLUNTARY IMMIGRANTS TO ISRAEL OR PRISONERS OF WAR?

  • DOES THE BIBLE ALLOW BEATING SLAVES AS LONG AS THEY SURVIVE AND RECOVER AFTER 1-2 DAYS, PER EXODUS 21:20-21? IF SO, WHY DOES EXODUS 21:26-27 SAY THAT A MASTER WHO PUTS OUT A SLAVE'S EYE OR KNOCKS OUT A TOOTH MUST FREE HIM/HER?

  • DOES NUMBERS 31:17-18 ENDORSE SEXUAL SLAVERY IN GENERAL, OR IS THIS TELLING THE HEBREWS TO TAKE FEMALE MIDIANITE VIRGINS AS WIVES IN THE WAKE OF THE MIDIAN WAR? SHOULD SPARING THE VIRGINS WHILE GENOCIDING THE REST BE CONSIDERED "MERCIFUL"?

  • WERE SOUTHERNERS USING AN IMPLAUSIBLE READING OF THE "CURSE OF HAM" (GENESIS 9:20-27) TO JUSTIFY AFRICAN CHATTEL SLAVERY?

  • WHAT DOES THE APOSTLE PAUL HAVE TO SAY ABOUT SLAVERY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?

  • COULD A OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT & BENEVOLENT BEING LIKE GOD DEVISE RULES THAT WOULD'VE PROHIBITED SLAVERY, OR WAS SOME FORM OF "UNFREE LABOR" INEVITABLE IN ANCIENT TIMES SO THAT GOD COULD ONLY PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS FOR IT?

  • DO JEWS & CHRISTIANS INVARIABLY HAVE TO DISHONESTLY CHERRYPICK BIBLICAL PASSAGES TO ARGUE IT DOESN'T JUSTIFY SLAVERY, AS MANY NEW ATHEISTS ARGUE?

  • IS THE "SLAVE BIBLE" THAT OMITTED PASSAGES THAT SPOKE AGAINST SLAVERY GOOD EVIDENCE THAT SOUTHERN SLAVEOWNERS RECOGNIZED THAT THE BIBLE'S STANCE ON CHATTEL SLAVERY WAS AT LEAST AMBIGUOUS OR PERHAPS PROHIBITIVE?

  1. Stephen Woodford (Rationality Rules), "3 Justifications for Scriptural Slavery – Debunked" (video - 19:34 min, start at 9:05)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iAQ6dA5gJI&t=9m5s

.
II. THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR'S EFFECTS ON SLAVERY, THE FOUNDERS' DISAGREEMENTS ON SLAVERY & THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:

  • WAS THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR PRIMARILY FOUGHT OVER TAXES & THE OTHER GRIEVANCES LISTED IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, OR WAS IT PARTLY A "COUNTER-REVOLUTION" TO PRESERVE SLAVERY FROM THE THREAT OF BRITISH ABOLITION AFTER THE SOMERSET CASE IN 1772 OUTLAWED SLAVERY IN THE BRITISH ISLES?

  • IF THE COLONIES HAD LOST THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR, WOULD SLAVERY IN THE U.S. PROBABLY BE ABOLISHED IN 1833 WITHOUT A BLOODY CIVIL WAR? OR WOULD BRITISH ABOLITION PROBABLY BE DELAYED BECAUSE THE SOUTHERN SLAVEOWNERS WOULD'VE ACTED AS A POWERFUL LOBBY AGAINST ABOLITION IF THEY'D STILL BEEN BRITISH SUBJECTS?

  • WHEN THOMAS JEFFERSON WROTE THAT "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, DO WE KNOW IF HE MEANT TO IMPLICITLY INCLUDE OR EXCLUDE NON-WHITES?

  • DOES THE FACT THAT THOMAS JEFFERSON & GEORGE WASHINGTON OWNED SLAVES SUGGEST THEY DIDN'T REALLY SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT & REGARDED BLACKS AS INFERIOR, AS MANY OF THEIR MODERN CRITICS ALLEGE, OR DO THEIR WRITINGS SUGGESTS THEY WERE CONFLICTED IN THEIR VIEWS? TO WHAT EXTENT IS CONDEMNATION OF THEM JUSTIFIED & TO WHAT EXTENT IS IT "PRESENTISM" - I.E. JUDGING THEM BY MODERN MORAL STANDARDS?

  • DOES THE REVOLUTIONARIES RHETORIC SUGGEST THAT THE REVOLUTION'S IDEALS HELPED INSPIRE NORTHERN ABOLITION? DID THIS PROVOKE A REACTIONARY BACKLASH IN THE SOUTH, SHIFTING SOUTHERNERS FROM AMBIVALENCE & RELUCTANT ACCEPTANCE OF SLAVERY TO A MORE PRO-SLAVERY POSITION?

  • WHY DOES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION USE A VARIETY OF EUPHEMISMS FOR SLAVES LIKE "OTHER SPECIES OF PROPERTY" OR "OTHER PERSONS"? IS THIS GOOD EVIDENCE THAT MOST FRAMERS THOUGHT SLAVERY WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH INHERENT HUMAN RIGHTS, OR MERELY A PRAGMATIC WAY TO AVOID/POSTPONE DISPUTES BETWEEN PRO- & ANTI-SLAVERY REPRESENTATIVES SO THE CONSTITUTION COULD BE RATIFIED?

  • WAS THE "THREE-FIFTHS COMPROMISE" (ART. I, SECT. 2, CLAUSE 3) PREMISED ON THE IDEA THAT SLAVES WERE ONLY PARTLY HUMAN, OR WAS IT A WAY TO LIMIT THE POWER OF SLAVE STATES BY NOT COUNTING ALL OF THEIR SLAVES AS POPULATION FOR THE DETERMINING REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS?

  • WAS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE CREATED TO PROVIDE A CHECK ON POPULISM BY PROVIDING A CHECK ON THE POPULAR VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT, OR TO GIVE SMALL STATES & RURAL STATES A GREATER VOICE, OR WAS IT SPECIFICALLY CREATED TO MAGNIFY THE POWER OF SLAVE STATES?

  • DID THE CONSTITUTION'S "IMPORTATION CLAUSE" THAT KEPT CONGRESS FROM PROHIBITING THE "MIGRATION OR IMPORTATION OF SUCH PERSONS AS ANY OF THE STATES NOW EXISTING SHALL THINK PROPER TO ADMIT" BEFORE 1808 (ART. I, SECT. 9, CLAUSE 1) IMPLICITLY ALLOW SLAVERY, OR DOES IT MERELY SET A DATE BEFORE WHICH ANY FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS COULD NOT BE PASSED?

  • WAS THE "FUGITIVE SLAVE CLAUSE" (ART. IV, SECT. 2, CLAUSE 3) AN IMPLICIT ENDORSEMENT OF SLAVERY, EVEN THOUGH IT DIDN'T MENTION "SLAVES" BUT RATHER "PERSON[S] HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOR"? OR COULD IT BE INTERPRETED TO ONLY REFER TO PEOPLE WHO HAD BREACHED A VOLUNTARY CONTRACT, LIKE INDENTURED SERVANTS?

  • HOW LOGICALLY SOUND IS LYSANDER SPOONER'S ARGUMENT THAT THE "ORIGINAL PUBLIC MEANING" OF THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T EXPLICITLY ALLOW SLAVERY EVEN IF IT WAS IMPLICITLY ALLOWED BY "ORIGINAL INTENT", AND THAT -- WHEN IN DOUBT ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION OF A LAW -- "NATURAL LAW" COMPELS US TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF LIBERTY? IS HE RIGHT THAT SLAVERY COULD REASONABLY BE HELD TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, EVEN PRIOR TO THE 13th AMENDMENT?

  • DOES THE FACT THAT THE CONSTITUTION ORIGINALLY ALLOWED SLAVERY MEAN THAT AMERICA'S HIGHEST LAW IS INHERENTLY RACIST, OR DOES THIS OVERLOOK THE 13th-15th AMENDMENTS AND THE CIVIL RIGHT ERA LEGISLATION?

2a) Robert Morris, "3 Ways Vox Doesn't Get The American Revolution" (video - 3:24 min, listen to 1:12)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6VEOO_Tjx8

2b) Carol Swain, "Why the 3/5ths Compromise Was Anti-Slavery" (video - 5:01 min,)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giBRnKRWR6M

Ilya Somin, "The Case Against the Case Against the American Revolution: Some on both left and right argue that the American Revolution was a mistake that ultimately caused more harm than good. Here's why they're wrong."
https://reason.com/2019/07/04/the-case-against-the-case-against-the-american-revolution/

.
III. NEOCONFEDERATE "LOST CAUSE" APOLOGETICS & THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S COMMENTS ON THE CIVIL WAR:

  • WERE SLAVERY & OTHER FORMS OF "UNFREE LABOR" SO UBIQUITOUS AROUND THE WORLD IN THE PREINDUSTRIAL ERA THAT SOUTHERN SLAVEOWNERS WERE MORE-OR-LESS "NORMAL", OR IS THIS A "FALSE EQUIVALENCE" & AN ILLEGITIMATE FORM OF "WHATABOUTISM"?

  • WERE THOUSANDS OF IRISH PEASANTS ENSLAVED BY THE ENGLISH & SENT TO THE CARIBBEAN IN THE 1600s, OR IS THIS A MODERN URBAN LEGEND CREATED BY WHITE RACIST GROUPS? IS THERE AN ELEMENT OF TRUTH IN TERMS OF IRISH BEINGS TRANSPORTED AS CONVICTS & INDENTURED SERVANTS?

  • IS THE MODERN BELIEF THAT SOUTHERN SLAVEOWNERS WERE UNIQUELY EVIL AN EXAMPLE OF "PRESENTISM"? WAS IT OBVIOUS TO ANY RATIONAL PERSON IN 19th CENTURY AMERICA THAT SLAVERY WAS MORALLY WRONG, OR DID PREVAILING OPINION BLIND MOST WHITE AMERICANS (ASIDE FROM A SMALL NUMBER OF ABOLITIONISTS)?

  • WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE CONDITIONS OF SLAVES IN THE ANTEBELLUM SOUTH - I.E. WERE RAPE, TORTURE, FAMILY SEPARATION & STARVATION ROUTINE OR RARE? WERE SLAVES GENERALLY TREATED BETTER OR WORSE THAN NORTHERN WORKERS IN TEXTILE MILLS & COAL MINES OR PAUPERS IN DEBTORS' PRISONS & ALMSHOUSES?

  • DID ANDREW JACKSON'S HANDLING OF THE NULLIFICATION CRISIS IN 1832 SUGGEST SOMEONE WITH HIS DIPLOMATIC SKILL COULD'VE AVERTED THE OUTBREAK OF CIVIL WAR IN 1860, AS TRUMP ALLEGED?

  • WAS A COMPROMISE POSSIBLE IN THE 1850s THAT WOULD'VE AVERTED THE CIVIL WAR WITHOUT ALLOWING SLAVERY TO EXPAND INTO THE WESTERN TERRITORIES?

  • COULD THE FEDERAL GOV'T HAVE SIMPLY PAID SLAVEOWNERS TO RELINQUISH THEIR SLAVES, PERHAPS THROUGH GRADUAL EMANCIPATION AS THE NORTH HAD DONE?

  • DID THE SOUTH SECEDE TO PRESERVE SLAVERY, OR WAS IT MORE RELATED TO STATE'S RIGHTS, ANGER OVER TARIFFS, GOV'T SPENDING ON THE NORTH'S CANALS & RAILROADS, AND THE DIFFERENT INTERESTS OF INDUSTRIAL & AGRARIAN-BASED SOCIETIES?

  • WERE GENERALS ROBERT E. LEE & STONEWALL JACKSON MORALLY OPPOSED TO SLAVERY, AND MERELY FIGHTING TO GIVE THE SOUTH A LONGER TIME TO GRADUALLY ABOLISH IT?

  • DOES THE CIVIL WAR QUALIFY AS A "WAR OF AGGRESSION" BY THE NORTH, OR WAS THE SHELLING OF FORT SUMTER AN ACT OF SOUTHERN AGGRESSION THAT STARTED IT? EVEN IF THE WAR STARTED BY THE NORTH'S REFUSAL TO ACCEPT SOUTHERN SECESSION, WAS IT JUSTIFIED ONCE LINCOLN DECIDED TO END SLAVERY?

  • DID ANY SLAVES OR FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR FIGHT FOR THE SOUTH, AS MANY CONFEDERATE APOLOGISTS ALLEGE? IF SO, WAS IT VOLUNTARY OR UNDER DURESS?

  • DO SOME OF LINCOLN'S ACTIONS DURING THE CIVIL WAR, LIKE JAILING DISSENTERS & SUSPENDING HABEAS CORPUS, QUALIFY HIM AS A "DICTATOR", AS SOME OF HIS CRITICS ALLEGE? WERE THESE MEASURES JUSTIFIED BY THE SITUATION?

  • WAS SHERMAN'S DESTRUCTION OF ATLANTA & "MARCH TO THE SEA" A WAR CRIME, AS MANY SOUTHERNERS ALLEGE?

  • DOES THE TIMELINE OF CONFEDERATE MONUMENT ERECTIONS (WITH A HUGE SPIKE IN 1900s-1910s & SEVERAL SMALLER SPIKES IN THE 1920s & LATE '50s-EARLY 60s) SUGGEST THESE STATUES WERE MOTIVATED BY HISTORICAL COMMEMORATION OF THE WAR OR CONTEMPORARY REACTIONS TO RACIAL TENSIONS?

  • CAN PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES HELP DETERMINE WHETHER MOST SOUTHERNERS TODAY REALLY SEE THE REBEL FLAG & CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS AS ABOUT "HERITAGE NOT HATE"?

  1. The Cynical Historian, "10 Common Slavery Myths" (video - 14:49 min.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1FO9MqWugY

.
IV. ECONOMIC HISTORY & THE DEBATE OVER SLAVERY AS THE FOUNDATION FOR AMERICAN CAPITALISM:

  • WHY DO HISTORIANS THINK THAT EUROPEAN COLONISTS RESORTED TO SLAVE LABOR IN THE NEW WORLD? WAS IT MOSTLY DUE TO ECONOMIC FACTORS LIKE A LABOR SHORTAGE, OR MOSTLY DUE TO CULTURAL FACTORS LIKE RACISM?

  • IF COLONISTS HADN'T RESORTED TO IMPORTING AFRICAN SLAVES, COULD THEY HAVE FOUND AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF CHEAP LABOR (E.G. PAUPERS & CONVICTS FROM BRITISH ISLES)? IF NOT, WOULD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLONIES BE MUCH SLOWER?

  • DID REPLACING INDENTURED SERVITUDE WITH SLAVERY AS THE MAJOR SOURCE OF PLANTATION LABOR IN THE SOUTH MEAN THAT OWNERS COULD ARTIFICIALLY SUPPRESS LABOR COSTS & REAP MORE PROFITS? TO WHAT EXTENT WERE OWNERS PASSING ALONG NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES TO THE OVERALL SOCIETY (E.G. SLAVE PATROLS)?

  • TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF THE NORTHERN STATES FUNDED BY INVESTMENT FROM SLAVEOWNERS? WOULD THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF THE NORTH BE IMPOSSIBLE, OR MUCH MORE DIFFICULT, WITHOUT THIS INVESTMENT?

  • DO SOME SCHOLARS OVERESTIMATE THE WEALTH OF THE SOUTHERN STATES BECAUSE THEY ADOPT THE SLAVEOWNERS' FRAME OF REFERENCE, INCLUDING THE VALUE OF 4 MILLION SLAVES AS "CAPITAL" (WHEREAS NORTHERN WORKERS DON'T COUNT AS CAPITAL) AND EXCLUDING SLAVES FROM ESTIMATES OF GDP PER CAPITA?

  • WAS SOUTHERN SLAVERY A THROWBACK TO AN OLDER ECONOMIC SYSTEM ANALOGOUS TO ROMAN-ERA LATIFUNDIA OR FEUDAL MANORIALISM? OR WAS IT INHERENTLY "CAPITALISTIC" BECAUSE IT WAS TIED INTO LARGE-SCALE EXPORTS AND BECAUSE SLAVEOWNERS OFTEN USED ASPECTS OF MODERN BUSINESS MANAGEMENT LIKE ACCOUNTING LEDGERS?

  • HOW DID THE INVENTION OF THE COTTON GIN CREATE MORE DEMAND FOR COTTON? DID SLAVEOWNERS MEET THIS DEMAND FOR RAW COTTON PRIMARILY BY BREEDING NEW TYPES OF COTTON, OR EXTRACTING MORE LABOR FROM SLAVES THROUGH WHIPPING & TORTURE, OR PERHAPS BY SOME OTHER METHODS?

  • IS THE FACT THAT THE NORTH HAD A HUGE ADVANTAGE IN MANUFACTURING OUTPUT ON THE EVE OF THE CIVIL WAR, WAS FAR MORE URBANIZED, HAD MORE CANALS & RAILROADS, AND HAD HIGHER MEASURES OF HUMAN CAPITAL INVESTMENT (E.G. LITERACY RATES) PROOF THAT SLAVERY RETARDED ECONOMIC GROWTH IN THE SOUTH?

  • CONSIDERING THAT MODERN ECONOMISTS ESTIMATE THAT COTTON PRODUCTION WAS ONLY ABOUT 5% OF THE US ECONOMY IN 1860, DOES THIS SUGGEST THE POWER OF "KING COTTON" OVERSTATED?

  • EVEN IF SLAVERY WAS STILL FAIRLY PROFITABLE IN 1860, DO MOST ECONOMIC HISTORIANS THINK SLAVERY WOULD'VE NATURALLY DECLINED & BEEN ABOLISHED IN AMERICA WITHOUT A CIVIL WAR? IF SO, WHY & HOW LONG DO THEY THINK IT WOULD'VE TAKEN?

  • CONSIDERING THAT THE SOUTH'S PRODUCTION OF COTTON DECLINED AFTER THE CIVIL WAR BUT REBOUNDED BY 1876, DOES THIS PROVE THAT SHARECROPPING WAS AT LEAST AS EFFICIENT AS GANGS OF SLAVES WORKED BY OVERSEERS?

  1. History with Hilbert, "A Response To Alternate History Hub's 'What if the American Slavery Never Existed?'" (video - 22:45 min, start at 10:53)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5CiA2tR7TU&t=10m53s

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Events in Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
See more events
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Cafe Walnut
703 Walnut Street · Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
public group