Skip to content

Biweekly Discussion - Slavery & Pseudohistory

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

Details

This is going to be an online meetup using Zoom. If you've never used Zoom before, don't worry - it's easy to use and free to join.

Here's the link to the event: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87550825276?pwd=UTEvellBWGNHMkRZREw4eVY0Y3B6UT09

Meeting ID: 875 5082 5276
Password: 222437

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

ANALYZING HOW AMERICAN SLAVERY GAVE RISE TO PSEUDO-LAW, PSEUDO-HISTORY, PSEUDO-ECONOMICS & PSEUDO-SEMIOTICS

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. Desmond also argued that "the institution of slavery turned a poor, fledgling nation into a financial powerhouse, and the cotton plantation was America’s first big business."

More recently, in the weeks following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police on May 25th, 2020, protestors around the United States have not only torn down or defaced a large number of Confederate monuments, but they've also vandalized monuments to abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass (Rochester), John Greenleaf Whittier (LA), Matthias Baldwin (Philadelphia) & Hans Christian Heg (Madison), the black Union soldiers of the 54th Regiment (Boston), and even black lynching victims (Duluth), suggesting the historical knowledge of some anti-racist protestors is sorely lacking — or that activism has given way to petty vandalism. Statues of George Washington & Thomas Jefferson (Portland) and Ulysses S. Grant (San Francisco) have been toppled as well. This has spurred public debate about whether Founders and Union generals should still be publicly honored if they owned slaves or had views we'd now regard as racist. There have also been demands to take down several statues primarily due to their condescending composition — notably the Emancipation Memorial (DC & Boston) which features Abraham Lincoln standing over a kneeling slave, and the Equestrian Statue in front of the Museum of Natural History (NYC) which features a Native American chief and a black African walking beside a mounted Teddy Roosevelt. Trump's argument in 2017 that pulling down Confederate statues may lead to a "slippery slope" in which monuments to the Founding Fathers will be torn down as well now seems almost prophetic — a word most skeptics would never expect to use to describe our 45th president.

On June 30th, due to public pressure, state officials in Mississippi announced they would redesign the state flag to eliminate the "stars & bars" which was the last remnant of the Confederate battle flag on official state flags. Activists have also pressured corporations to do away with various corporate symbols or icons that hark back to slavery or Jim Crow, such as Aunt Jemima syrup & Uncle Ben rice. Certain old movies that lend nostalgia to these periods like "Gone With The Wind" and "Song of the South" have been taken out of circulation by streaming services as well. Activists have claimed that these visible reminders of the "Lost Cause" mythology & white supremacist ideology continue to affect race relations in America, while critics have argued this amounts to "erasing history".

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 the Nazca lines. 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 Southerners 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 or the Civil War never happened. Instead, they argue that slaves weren't generally treated any worse than Northern laborers in coal mines & factories, and that the Civil War was an unjust act of "Northern aggression" rather than a righteous fight to end slavery. While some of the arguments of Lost Cause historians are focused on historical facts, much of their debate with mainstream American historians revolves around 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 or the significance of Confederate monuments today, we're also going outside the domain of history and into the realm of economics and semiotics.

In the first section of this discussion, we'll look at the Founding Father's views on slavery and how it figured into the writing of the Constitution. We have a lot of historical writings on slavery from the Framers in the issue of slavery, both from slavery opponents like John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Governeur Morris to somewhat reluctant slaveowners like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, and James Madison. We'll consider whether or not the Constitution presents a clear legal justification for or against slavery or if it's ambivalent. We'll also discuss whether certain interpretations of the Constitution's position on slavery — like the idea that the Three-Fifths Compromise meant the Founders considered blacks only partly human — might constitute an untenable form of "pseudo-law" (similar to the fringe claims that the federal income tax is unconstitutional we discussed in a past meetup). Since this portion of our discussion mostly focuses on events in America's Founding Era, 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, since England abolished slavery in 1833.

In the second 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, such as the fact that the desire to preserve slavery was the major reason cited by the Southern states in their declarations of secession from the Union. We'll also consider whether slavery would've eventually been abolished if the Southern states had been allowed to peacefully secede or whether the Civil War could've been averted if the federal government offered to purchase slaves' freedom from the slaveowners as was done in the Northern states in the early 19th century, England's colonies in 1833, and France's colonies in 1848.

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

In the final section, we'll try to take a skeptical & science-based approach to some issues involving "semiotics" — the study of signs & symbols, and we'll consider whether or not there can be false interpretations of public memorials, flags, corporate icons, movies & books that we might call "pseudo-semiotics". We'll look at how the public debates over public memorials to Confederate generals & soldiers and the Dixie flag, as well as to slave-owing Founders like Washington & Jefferson, constitute a sort of "racial Rorschach test" that forces us to consider the meaning of public monuments & symbols. We'll see how this ties in with the recent pressure put on corporations to do away with corporate icons like Aunt Jemima & Uncle Ben, as well as the removal of old movies like "Gone With The Wind" from streaming services and books like "Huckleberry Finn" from school libraries. We'll try to determine if there's a somewhat objective way to determine whether or not these visible aspects of our culture signify an endorsement of slavery & white supremacy or merely function as public reminders of our nation's morally tarnished history.

NOTE: We covered this topic in October of 2019, and the discussion outline is mostly the same except we looked at the debate over whether or not the Bible endorses slavery, and if so was it more akin to "indentured servitude" rather than the racialized chattel slavery practice in colonial era & the ante-bellum South. Our discussion today instead has a section on the debate over Confederates monuments, the Confederate battle flag, and other cultural icons that hark back to slavery. To review the old discussion outline, use the following link:
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/rgrhxqyznbbc/

A BRIEF WORD ABOUT HISTORICAL ARGUMENTS:

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

  1. The US Constitution is fundamentally pro-slavery (or fundamentally pro-freedom).
  2. The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery (or was only about slavery).
  3. The Transatlantic slave trade & Southern slave plantations had nothing (or everything) to do with why America became a wealthy nation.
  4. The Confederate flag, Confederate statues & movies like "Gone With The Wind" are tributes to white supremacy (or Southern heritage).

In order to make our debates more logically sound, it may be worth reviewing why Sweeping Generalizations & False Dichotomies are fallacious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

It might also be good to understand several other logical fallacies that often crop up in debates over history, although we should note that not all historians agree they're always fallacious:

  • Is-Ought Fallacy (a.k.a. Naturalistic Fallacy, Fact-Value Distinction): a failure to distinguish how the world is versus how the world ought to be; in historical debates, this can involve arguments about the "right side of history" that confuse empirical questions about how things did happen with ethical questions about how things should have happened.

  • Genetic Fallacy: a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.

  • Intentional Fallacy: the fallacy of basing an assessment of a work (or symbol) on the creator's intention rather than on one's response to the actual work. (This principle is related to the "death of the author" in literary studies, i.e. the decline in interpretations based on what the author "really meant", but it can also apply to historical interpretation.)

  • Reification Fallacy: a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity. A common case of reification is the confusion of a model or symbol with reality: "the map is not the territory".

  • Historian's Fallacy (a.k.a. Hindsight Bias): an informal fallacy that occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and have the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision. It's similar to but distinct from "presentism", a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas (such as moral standards) are projected into the past.

Please refer to the Wikipedia entries for a brief overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
https://www.britannica.com/art/intentional-fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_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 48 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 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 IT WAS THE LATTER, WHY WAS LOYALIST SENTIMENT STRONGER IN THE SOUTH?

  • 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? DID JEFFERSON THINK THAT ONE DAY SLAVERY WOULD END & BLACKS WOULD BECOME AMERICAN CITIZENS, OR DID HE IMAGINE THEY'D BE REPATRIATED TO AFRICA?

  • 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 THE POPULIST EXCESSES AND/OR TO GIVE SMALL STATES & RURAL STATES A GREATER VOICE? OR WAS IT A CONCESSION TO THE SLAVE STATES WHICH HAD LOWER WHITE POPULATIONS & WERE WORRIED ABOUT BEING LESS INFLUENTIAL IN ELECTING THE PRESIDENT? IF SO, DOES THIS MEAN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WAS ORIGINALLY "PRO-SLAVERY" — AND WOULD THAT MEAN IT'S STILL "PRO-SLAVERY" TODAY?

  • 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 LATER SUPREME COURT DECISIONS LIKE "SHELLEY V. KRAEMER" (1948), "BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION" (1954) AND "LOVING V. VIRGINIA" (1967) THAT REINTERPRETED THE CONSTITUTION?

1a) 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

1b) 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/

.
II. 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 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 CHOSE 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?

  • SINCE LINCOLN DID NOT VIEW BLACKS AS EQUALS & DID NOT DECLARE WAR ON THE SOUTH TO FREE THE SLAVES BUT TO PRESERVE THE UNION, IS IT INCORRECT TO VIEW HIM AS A CIVIL RIGHTS HERO? OR DOES HE DESERVE CREDIT FOR EMANCIPATION?

  • 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?

  • DID ROBERT E. LEE PLAY AN IMPORTANT PART IN CONVINCING CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS TO LAY DOWN THEIR ARMS AFTER THE SURRENDER AT APPOMATOX? IF SO, SHOULD HE RECEIVE ANY CREDIT FOR THIS?

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

.
III. 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 SLAVE 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" WAS 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?

  • DID ECONOMIES OR SCALE & DIVISION OF LABOR MAKE LARGE PLANTATIONS WORKED BY GANGS OF SLAVES THE MOST ECONOMICALLY PRODUCTIVE TYPE OF AGRICULTURE PRIOR TO INVENTION OF GAS-POWERED TRACTORS & HARVESTERS, OR WERE SMALLER NORTHERN FARMS WORKED WITH FREE LABOR ABLE TO PRODUCE MORE BY BEING MORE INNOVATIVE?

  • 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 THE GANG SYSTEM?

  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

.
IV. CULTURAL HISTORY, SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY & THE "POLITICAL ICONOCLASM" DEBATE:

  • IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH OF THE CIVIL WAR, DID IT MAKE SENSE FOR THE UNION TO TREAT CONFEDERATE GENERALS WITH HONOR & ALLOW SOUTHERNERS TO BUILD MEMORIALS TO THEIR DEAD SOLDIERS, IF ONLY TO KEEP THE PEACE? IF SO, DID THE POLITICAL UTLITY OF ALLOWING SOUTHERNERS TO MAINTAIN THEIR "LOST CAUSE" PSEUDOHISTORY AS A WAY TO SAVE FACE DECLINE OVER TIME AS THE THREAT OF ANOTHER CIVIL WAR FADED?

  • DOES THE TIMELINE OF CONFEDERATE MONUMENT ERECTIONS (WITH A HUGE SPIKE IN 1900s-1910s & SEVERAL SMALLER SPIKES IN THE LATE 1920s-'30s & LATE '50s-EARLY 60s) SUGGEST THESE STATUES WERE MOTIVATED BY HISTORICAL COMMEMORATION OF THE WAR OR CONTEMPORARY REACTIONS TO RACIAL TENSIONS?

  • HOW & WHEN DID VIRGINIA'S BATTLE FLAG SUPPLANT OTHER CONTENDERS TO BECOME WHAT WE THINK OF AS THE "CONFEDERATE FLAG"? WAS THE INCREASING PUBLIC DISPLAY OF THE FLAG IN THE 20th CENTURY MOSTLY DRIVEN BY OPPOSITION TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT IN THE 1950s-'60s OR AN UPSURGE OF SOUTHERN PRIDE IN THE 1970s-'80s, OR BOTH?

  • CAN PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES HELP US DETERMINE WHETHER MOST SOUTHERNERS TODAY REALLY SEE THE REBEL FLAG & CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS AS ABOUT "SOUTHERN HERITAGE" AND/OR BEING A "REBEL" IN A GENERIC SENSE, NOT RACISM, AS MANY NOW CLAIM?

  • WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF REPEATEDLY SEEING CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS ON BOTH WHITE & BLACK SOUTHERNERS? DO THESE PUBLIC SYMBOLS NOTICEABLY INCREASE RACISM AMONG WHITES & SHAME AMONG BLACKS, OR DO PEOPLE GROW SO ACCUSTOMED TO THEM OVER TIME THAT THE EFFECTS FADE TO NOTHING?

  • SHOULD WE REMOVE PUBLIC MEMORIALS TO SLAVEOWNERS LIKE WASHINGTON, JEFFERSON & GRANT? OR DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO ARGUE THEY DON'T REPRESENT WHITE SUPREMACY BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T FIGHT TO MAINTAIN SLAVERY & HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CELEBRATED FOR THEIR OTHER ACCOMPLISHMENTS WHICH WE STILL APPRECIATE?

  • SINCE OUR MORAL NORMS ARE LIKELY TO CONTINUE TO EVOLVE, DOES THIS MEAN OUR CURRENT HEROES SHOULDN'T GET PUBLIC MEMORIALS SINCE FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL PROBABLY FIND THEM OFFENSIVE? OR SHOULD WE VIEW PUBLIC MEMORIALS LIKE SCIENTIFIC THEORIES — I.E. THEY'RE USEFUL FOR A WHILE, BUT EVENTUALLY THERE'S SO MANY PROBLEMS WITH THEM THAT SOCIETY UNDERGOES A "PARADIGM SHIFT" AND THE OLD MUST BE SUPPLANTED BY THE NEW?

  • WERE THE REAL PEOPLE WHO INSPIRED AUNT JEMIMA (NANCY GREEN) & UNCLE BEN (FRANK BROWN) PAID FOR THE COMMERCIAL USE OF THEIR LIKENESS? WERE THESE ICONS DESIGNED TO EVOKE RACIST "MAMMY" & "UNCLE TOM" STEREOTYPES, OR MERELY TRYING TO ASSOCIATE BLACK COOKS & GOOD MEALS IN A WAY MOST AMERICANS NOW FIND PATRONIZING? DID RE-DESIGNS OF THESE CORPORATE ICONS IN THE LATE 20th CENTURY FIX THIS PROBLEM, OR DOES THEIR ORIGIN INDELIBLY TAINT THEM?

  • DID THE BOOK "UNCLE TOM'S CABIN" (1852) STOKE OPPOSITION TO SLAVERY ENOUGH THAT WE CAN SAY IT PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE IN CAUSING THE CIVIL WAR? DID "UNCLE TOM'S CABIN" AND "HUCKLEBERRY FINN" (1885) ENCOURAGE WHITE READERS IN THE 19TH CENTURY TO SYMPATHIZE WITH BLACKS, OR MERELY SEE THEM AS SIDEKICKS FOR "WHITE SAVIORS"?

  • DID "THE BIRTH OF A NATION" (1915) JUMPSTART THE 2ND KLAN BY DEPICTING THE POST-WAR SOUTH AS RACIAL CHAOS & THE 1ST KLAN AS HEROES? DID "GONE WITH THE WIND" (1939) HAVE A SIMILAR EFFECT, OR DID IT ENCOURAGE WHITE AUDIENCES TO VIEW BLACKS IN A PATRONIZING RATHER THAN THREATENING WAY?

  • SHOULD CLASSIC WORKS WITH RACIST TONES STILL BE ASSIGNED IN TODAY'S CLASSROOMS, PROVIDED TEACHERS SHOW STUDENTS HOW TO VIEW THE AUTHOR'S BIASES CRITICALLY? CAN ANALYZING OLDER MEDIA HELP US UNDERSTAND HOW RACISM SEEMED NORMAL, AND HOW HIDDEN BIASES MAY PERSIST TODAY?

  • SINCE MANY STUDIES HAVE CAST DOUBT ON THE CLAIM THAT CONSUMPTION OF VIOLENT MEDIA (MOVIES, MUSIC, VIDEO GAMES) CAUSES VIOLENT BEHAVIOR, SHOULD WE BE SKEPTICAL OF BIG PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS FROM SEEING PUBLIC MONUMENTS, WATCHING CIVIL WAR MOVIES, OR READING BOOKS ABOUT SLAVERY?

4a) Vox, "This timeline shows confederate monuments are about racial conflict" (video - 2:56 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WClgR6Q0aPE

4b) Craig Benzine & Matt Weber, "The Complicated History Of The Confederate Flag" (video - 9:42 min, listed to 9:10)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1VnD-PRVh8

4c) BlackTree TV, "Spike Lee takes on Gone With the Wind and Birth of a Nation" (video - 2:51 min, start at 0:14)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGAP6XkCbD0&t=14s

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Events in
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
Online event
This event has passed
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
public group