Jefferson Day

[BaalChatzaf]

If the Brits had ever aided the CSA militarily, the USA would have been all over Canada in a thrice. We had the Army for it. The Brits were far too smart to do anything like that.

Ba'al Chatazaf

Perhaps this is what Chris meant by "naive." The Brits did aid the CSA militarily and had to pay reparations after the war. (And France was told it was time to get out of Mexico.)

--Brant

The Brits sent in no troops. They did supply some ships and arms to the CSA and there was some blockade running. However they never recognized the CSA as a sovereign state nor did they have any treaties with the CSA. When the Brits saw how the war was going they got their cotton from Egypt instead of the Southern states.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Bob, That sounds like opportunism to me. With Bright and Cobden it was a moral opposition to slavery.

[Greybird]

[...] I would have to investigate the history of this to be sure, but I would bet good money that the abolition of slavery issue involved some pretty tangible interests and not merely a wish to be a moral benefactor of mankind.

I should take that cynical bet. Yet at the risk of your seeing and reviewing another movie {rueful smile} I would suggest you at least plunk down $8 to see "Amazing Grace," the story of William Wilberforce, who was instrumental — along with, yes, Bright and Cobden — in shaming the British Parliament, over 40 years, into abolishing slavery. (It should be playing in Chicago. If not, look for the DVD later this Summer.)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve,

I will see the film. It sounds like an uplifting one and I have no doubt there were admirable people involved on the moral side. (I greatly admire idealists.)

On a cursory look through Google, I see that there was an 1807 act of Parliament prohibiting African slave trade to British colonies (I didn't look into that yet) and that there were some problems in the early 1830's with sugar coming from the Caribbean and other places (which depended a great deal on slave labor at that time and was one of the primary users of African slaves).

All it will take is a little more reading and, from what I have already seen, it will be easy to uncover the economic motives, essentially discovering who gained what with the abolition of slavery. At this point in time, I will still bet good money that some very powerful people gained a lot with outlawing slavery—oodles and oodles and oodles in fact.

My view of history is to attribute multiple causes to events, not one cause only. On an issue like this, an idealist does not have a chance in hell to change society for the better if a favorable economic climate is not present—specifically, either many people are starving or some powerful people stand to gain. The economic factor, general good times without great centralized power, is probably what retarded the abolition of slavery in the USA (and even then, this factor was basically over how to settle the West). There had been plenty of idealists around for decades without effect before the Civil War.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael,

Another factor is the philosophy in the South before the Civil War. Eric Daniel has a great discussion of this topic. German philosophies played in big role in the South.

[Brant Gaede]

Steve,

I will see the film. It sounds like an uplifting one and I have no doubt there were admirable people involved on the moral side. (I greatly admire idealists.)

On a cursory look through Google, I see that there was an 1807 act of Parliament prohibiting African slave trade to British colonies (I didn't look into that yet) and that there were some problems in the early 1830's with sugar coming from the Caribbean and other places (which depended a great deal on slave labor at that time and was one of the primary users of African slaves).

All it will take is a little more reading and, from what I have already seen, it will be easy to uncover the economic motives, essentially discovering who gained what with the abolition of slavery. At this point in time, I will still bet good money that some very powerful people gained a lot with outlawing slavery—oodles and oodles and oodles in fact.

My view of history is to attribute multiple causes to events, not one cause only. On an issue like this, an idealist does not have a chance in hell to change society for the better if a favorable economic climate is not present—specifically, either many people are starving or some powerful people stand to gain. The economic factor, general good times without great centralized power, is probably what retarded the abolition of slavery in the USA (and even then, this factor was basically over how to settle the West). There had been plenty of idealists around for decades without effect before the Civil War.

Michael

Michael, you can follow the money to many great follies, but those pale to the moral follies. Then there are the moral "follies" to the good, sometimes coming down to bad. If it was just money, the world wouldn't be awash in blood, in spite of the Belgium Congo where, "Listen to the demons, how they yell, they're cutting off Leopold's hands in Hell!"

--Brant

Edited May 22, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

Michael,

Another factor is the philosophy in the South before the Civil War. Eric Daniel has a great discussion of this topic. German philosophies played in big role in the South.

There was slavery in the South long before Kant wrote -Critique of Pure Reason-.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

The Old and New Testaments have discussion of the treatment of slaves.

There was slavery everywhere and by everyone. Slavery did not have to be defended because no one was attacking the practice.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I never said that money was the only cause. Here is my exact thinking (quoted from above): "My view of history is to attribute multiple causes to events, not one cause only."

I generally find Objectivist thinking lacking in looking at the money trail in seeking causes of wrongdoing, especially if the money trail involves big business. That's why I mentioned it.

Here's a good example. Objectivists are quick to excuse/overlook multinationals in bed with foreign politicians, or mention moral failings in terms of altruism, collectivism, etc., only when these multinationals are caught with their pants down. They rarely mention the money/government connection.

Take the story of AES (a power company) in São Paulo right before I left. It promised gazillions of dollars in investment and signed contracts to that effect. On examining the issue more closely, it's "investment" was actually a loan from the local development bank based on futures-like speculation of government bonds and using the not yet constructed power lines and equipment as collateral. The actual contracted investment was only going to arrive in Brazil after construction had taken place, had been paid for, was in full operation and a good hefty profit had been received abroad. When the deal fell through after a couple of years (even Brazilians have their limits on the absurd), the only people out of anything were the politicians and businessmen directly involved (receiving, er... uhm... ahem... bonuses... for their participation) and, of course, the populations of the places where construction and power was promised and contracted but not realized. Lots of tax dollars went down the drain. AES did not suffer at all and undertook no risk at all, unless you consider loss of profits for work not done and investments not really made. The type of deal it performed has a name in Brazil (and South America in general): financial engineering.

Any analysis of this will uncover enough moral lapses (based on altruism, collectivism, etc.) to fill a book, but there is one hell of a money trail to follow, too. Look at a typical Objectivist analysis and the money trail will not be mentioned at all.

The trickle-down explanation (ideas trickling down from philosophers to the popular culture) is only valid for a portion of the explanation of historical events. Most Objectivist analyses of history I have read have left me with the impression that philosophy (including religion) is the single driving force of history. It isn't. The reasons are varied and are all centered in human nature, including the part not impacted by philosophy. (One thing never mentioned by Objectivists, also, is the need, or at least propensity, people have shown throughout ALL of human history to follow a leader and even give their lives for him/her).

I have no doubt the historical events involving slavery were due to multiple causes.

Michael