Putaing, que c'est vrai !Citation:
Existential depression is a depression that arises when an individual confronts certain basic issues of existence. Yalom (1980) describes four such issues (or "ultimate concerns")--death, freedom, isolation and meaninglessness. Death is an inevitable occurrence. Freedom, in an existential sense, refers to the absence of external structure. That is, humans do not enter a world which is inherently structured. We must give the world a structure which we ourselves create. Isolation recognizes that no matter how close we become to another person, a gap always remains, and we are nonetheless alone. Meaninglessness stems from the first three. If we must die, if we construct our own world, and if each of us is ultimately alone, then what meaning does life have?
Existential depression in gifted individuals |
Citation:
I was surprised to see, in another thread, that several members stated their belief that slavery was “on the way out” when the War started. They suggested that, even without the Civil War, Southerners would have done away with slavery within a reasonably short period (several decades?) after the 1860s. Rather than hijack that thread, I thought I’d start another to raise the issue and elicit views.
I, frankly, have no idea how or when slavery would have been abolished but for the Civil War, but however it would have been accomplished, I can’t imagine that Southerners would have voluntarily done so within a relatively short period. Among other things:
1. By all accounts, slavery remained a viable economic institution. The number of slaves had increased dramatically between 1800 and 1860. The price of slaves remained high, indicating that slaves remained valuable and desired possessions. In his book, The Peculiar Institution, Kenneth Stampp suggests that Southerners were increasingly experimenting, with success, with the use of slaves in factories, mills, railroad construction and the like. This raises the likelihood that slavery was not even tied to the health of the plantation-agricultural system and might survive and thrive even if the South turned increasingly to manufacturing. It also casts doubt on the assumption that slavery was geographically limited to the South and might be transplantable to territories opened to slavery by Dred Scott.
2. The South seems to have been terrified of its slaves and caught in a dilemma (going back at least to Thomas Jefferson) that it had been unable to solve: how to free slaves without being swamped (in its view) by hordes of free blacks. Thus, even assuming that southerners concluded that slavery was no longer desirable (for whatever reason), they had never devised a feasible way to free slaves. I have not seen an argument that the South was any nearer to resolving this issue in 1860 than it was in 1800. To the contrary, the increased number of slaves, and the failure of deportation and back-to-Africa remedies, made the problem all the more intractable.
3. Complicating this further was the fact that it was illegal, or at least forbidden by custom, even to discuss the issue of freeing the slaves throughout most of the South. Just ask Cassius Clay. Even assuming that some southerners entertained the idea that such a drastic step was desirable or necessary, they could not even raise it.
In making these points, I do not mean to exclude the possibility that slavery might have shifted geographically. William Freehling (in The Road to Disunion) makes the point that historically northern states had abolished slavery prospectively when slave ownership fell below a percentage of 15% or 10%. Thus it is conceivable that one or more border states where slave ownership was slowly declining (again, not because large numbers of slaves were being freed, but rather because they were being sold into the deep south) – Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri – might have within, say, twenty years, abolished slavery prospectively. But (again taking history as a guide), this would not have decreased the total number of slaves, but simply moved them. Either they would have been sold “down the river” and/or they would have been sold into the territories opened to slavery by the Dred Scott decision. Deep South states with increased numbers of slaves would have become even more resistant (if that’s possible) to the idea of freeing them (see my point no. 2).
In short, I have trouble imagining the abolition of slavery throughout the country except by war or, eventually (50 years? more?), constitutional amendment. I certainly can’t imagine deep south states abolishing slavery of their own accord by 1870, 1880 or even 1910.
Although I’ve set forth my views, I don’t mean to be dogmatic about this. If you think I’m wrong, I’d love to hear why."
NOW HERE IS MY RESPONSE:
"
Response by Richard Lee Fulgham on Sat, 08/10/2013 - 16:47.
Un-revising history:
The answer to this can be found in the first few pages of CSA President Jefferson Davis' book about the war. The USA had recently aquired millions of acres of new territory in the northwest, including Colordo and other soon-to-be states. The South knew the days of slavery were numbered -- England had abolished it in 1938 and no other European country condoned it by then. The world was against slavery and the CSA would have to give it up. However, the Confederate States of America wanted to extend the legalization of slavery so that slaves could go with those millions of people going to settle the new Northwest Territories. If Africans were legally "property", they would have to go with their owners to these new areas.
This would significantly thin out the overabundance of Africans in the South and later allow them as freed men to settle in the new lands. Lincoln was hypocritical when he proclaimed all slaves free in those states "in rebellion". In fact, those Southern states had legally seceded from the Union and comprized a new soverign nation. So the war was not a "civil war". but an invasion of the South by the North. There is a vast difference between a rebellion and defending one's homes, wifes, farms and land from invaders. Lincoln made the proclamation so the Southern settlers going to settle the Northwest Territories could not force freedmen to go with them. So even today there is a disporportionate number of African-Americans in the South.
This confinement of freed slaves to the South was made certain when all Northern states made it illegal after the war for "People of color" to cross state borders into the North. Talk about hypocricy . . . . I learned all this while researching my histgorical novel below. American children and adults have been mislead by victor-written "history" books since 1960 or so. No one has to accept what I've explained here: do some research yourself. You will learn, if you dig deep enough, that the South had a legal reight to secede from the Union; The CSA all ready had legislation drawn up to free the slaves as they helped populate and build the Northwest territories; and the North deliberately wiped the Southern culture and the Southern way life off the face of the earth (though not in the hearts of people like me, and we are millions strong).
During "reconstruction" and before, Northern troopers raped almost all white and black young women; burned down virtually all court houses; burned almost all plantations to the groud; salted the land so nothing would grow; posioned the water; and looted everything they could pick up.
As I said, do the research and you will discover these truths to be true. The revsionist history is right now falling apart as more and people are disenfranchised by the change in America from a free democratic republic to an oligarchy (rule of a tiny minority of rich people). Thank you allowing me to respond. I remain your loyal and obedient servant, Richard Lee Fulgham. Here's the historically true book I mentioned:
http://www.amazon.com/Hogs-Cold-Harbor-Johnny-ebook/dp/B00929TZJ2/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-3&qid=1375970240&tag=s601000020-20
|
