-Caveat Lector-
William Hugh Tunstall wrote:
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> In general, I'm opposed to the use of force against people. [snip] , but I think
> most of us have to recognize that until there is some major transformation of
> human nature and human society, "power" or force must be used in order to maintain
> order within a civil society.
I disagree that "force" must be used "in order to maintain order..." Force should
only be used to punish crimes that have been committed. The threat of punishment
AFTER a crime is committed may be the coercion you speak of. Again, God said,
"Because judgment against *an evil work* is NOT inflicted *swiftly*, therefore the
hearts of the sons of men are fully set in them to do evil."
> The American federal government during the 1860s was not the superpower
> state of today.... One of the tragedies of the period was that once
> having "freed" the slaves, the Federal government found itself not having
> either the will nor the wherewithal to protect and to insure the civil
> liberties of black Americans.
The North was eager to address the "slave issue," but caved in to their truer
natures when it came to addressing the Negro issue.
> Not having a way of supporting themselves, many of the former slaves
> understandably looked to their former masters for guidance and support in their
> new status.
Keep in mind that *capital* is a requirement to start up maintain an orderly and
efficient business. There were basically only two forms of capital left in the
South after the war... (1)Land, and (2) the inherent "capital" of the labor of the
former slaves... These were combined largely in the form of "share-cropping," which
was not a new idea at all, and had been widely in use by slaves and landowners.
Most plantations had land set aside for the slaves in which they could conduct their
own personal farming operations, and the proceeds were used either directly or sold
for their personal benefit. (See "Time on the Cross" for a larger discourse on
this.)
> Clearly, the Federal government had a responsibility to these individuals to help
> them to become productive members of a society for which they were ill prepared
> to enter...
That isn't so "clear" to me.... Most slaves knew how to work, and many of them had
skills such as blacksmithing, brick-laying, and even engineering in some cases.
> Lacking the funds/political support/a workable plan, the US government more or
> less abandoned these individuals to the tender mercies of a market economy that
> the newly freed slaves didn't understand...
However, their employers understood it... It isn't likely that ANY peasant working
class people "understood the market economy" any better... You work, you get paid,
you spend your money... It isn't a difficult concept.
>
> Plus, look at the condition of southern agriculture after the Civil War...not a
> happy
> picture.... Of course, some states fared better than others..but my point is that
> the concept of freedom is a tricky one.
Absolutely... people tend to develop a "slave mentality" when the personal result of
their labor (benefits to them) are not proportional to the effort expended... That
is why socialism does NOT work... It fosters a "slave mentality."
> Are you truly "free" if you are illiterate, without marketable skills,lacking
> capital in a society that considers you to be less than human?
No you aren't... But then, NO ONE is "truly free," if by that you mean "has license
to do whatever-in-the-hell he wants to do." The factory workers in the northeast
and in Europe were certainly not "free." In fact, their lives were considerably
"less free" in terms of actual options and benefits than were Negro slaves... who
had "cradle to grave" benefits, far less rigorous work schedules, and "employers"
who had a direct interest in their health and well-being. The differences in living
conditions between the average slave-owner and his slaves was not as great as the
living conditions of the great northern industrialists and their "wage-slaves." Of
course there were exceptions in both areas, but I speak in terms of "general
conditions."
> The prevailing social philosophy of the time--"root, hog or die"--might have been
> workable IF the former slaves would have had the wherewithal to support themselves
> (land,tools,food,shelter,etc)...instead, they found themselves having to
> sell what little skills they possessed in an economy that had been devastated by
> war.
They were no different in that aspect than anyone else... Everyone should be
expected to "sell their skills" in the economy. Slaves generally had skills in
agriculture, house-keeping, animal husbandry, and so forth, but many also had "trade
skills" ... Some became sharecroppers, others became employees, and some became
entrepreneurs.
> The federal government just wanted the problem to go away.... White Americans were
> more interested in getting on with their own lives...putting an end to the enmity
> against the former rebels...
If that is so, "Reconstruction" was a pitiful way to accomplish their goal. One of
the prime results of Reconstruction was a deeper animosity between the races than
had been evident before or during the war.
> What to do with the recently freed slaves was not particularly high on the
> political agenda....
Well, you might also consider that the White Confederate was "not particularly high"
on the political agenda" either... They could not even vote, unlike the recently
freed Negro, who could and did.
> Some of us argue that the government should play a positive role in
> helping people...others argue that ANY kind of aid is unconstitutional,
> etc... And much of our list discussions on these topics are carried into
> abstract terms...
First of all, the Govm't CANNOT give anything to anyone that it didn't TAKE FORCIBLY
from someone else. The BEST thing the govm't can do to "help people" is to stay out
of the way, provide protection against foreign invasion, and run a system of courts
that treats everyone the same.
Hawk
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
