Sorry, i was just baffled that people still believe the "MLK was a capitalism-loving compromise activist" myth.
Last edited:
AHC: Grant considered a great president
- Thread starter Mort the Reaper
- Start date
Skallagrim
Banned
Did I say that? I contrasted him with Malcolm X, and I'm baffled -- in turn -- that you're choosing to ignore that in order to turn it into a straw man. C'mon. You know exactly what I'm saying, and what the argument is, but you seem intent on missing the point.
I will re-iterate: like certain people, including Martin Luther King, I believe that we do not achieve our end by seeking out violent confrontation. This to be contrasted with Malcolm X, a noted proponent of both violent methods and ethnic secessionism. (Whereas Martin Luther King knew very well that America was gong to have to be home to all Americans, so his goal was for all of them to ultimately live in harmony.)
If, following a civil war, there is to be one people, then one cannot begin with violent dreams of vengeance. This does not imply that human rights are to be "sacrificed", and you will note that I explicitly did not oppose (and even explicitly supported) the notion of an ATL President Grant offering stronger support for universal voting rights. My objection was to the deeply misguided, revenge-fueled, and frankly morally decripit notion that revenge can ever help to heal a people.
My contention is that if you want Grant, or anyone in that situation, to be (and to be seen as) a great leader, then you need to cast the poisoned apple of revanchism right into the sea, and instead make ready for all to share in the sweeter fruits of forgiveness and brotherhood. No pointing fingers, no question of "war blame", no more looking to a very twisted and corrupted past-- but one common dedication to building a better future.
Now if you disagree, I'll happily hear your arguments. But if you only want to go off on side-tracks that deliberately miss the point, then I say again: let's call it a day right now.
MLK was by no means alone in deciding the Civil Rights effort in favor of African-Americans -- in fact, i would argue that the Black Panthers' increasing organization of black communities into coherent, mobilized political units may have forced the hand of the US government into dropping the institutional tenets of Jim Crow. Malcolm X and his organization were by no means useless, they constituted a coherent effort alongside MLK who was indeed sympathetic to their methods in principle, even if he may have disagreed with the idea of black separatism.
I'm just going to posit a question i believe is significant to what we're discussing: what differs justice from vengeance?
Last edited:
Skallagrim
Banned
Justice is the rectification of wrongs; a restoration of balance; an end to a state of suffering. It is produced by equity and reason, meant to be impartial and aspiring to objectivity. It aims to create a state of peace and harmony.
Vengeance is the infliction of harm to answer harm; suffering inflicted to punish earlier suffering. It is produced by anger and passion, by nature partial and necessarily subjective. It aims to make those that it targets hurt, thus creating a state of further violence and discord.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment did exactly that. But even before its provisions were lifted the Democrats had already "redeemed" VA, NC, TN and GA. They just found other candidates who were not in the proscrid categories, but of isentical views to those who were. So nothing much changed.
You have to choose one *or* the other. There is no way to combine the two. If there is punishment there will not be reconciliation.
How do you do that w/o increasing government spending at a time when they already have a war to pay for?
I'm afraid i'll have to say that justice is essentially still harm. Imprisonment, that is, seclusion from interacting with society, has noticeable harmful effects and intents -- it is executed under the belief that the threat of sanctioning will dissuade the criminal and other citizens from repeating the crime.
In essence, the only factor that differs justice from vengeance is formal legitimacy -- the former is carried out by legitimate institutions of state, the latter by individuals and groups acting outside the frame of legality (be it sanctionable or not). Accusing non-state-sanctioned vengeance of causing discord is redundant considering how little prisons, as institutions, can prevent criminal activity from happening in society and many times even within the very walls of the prison.
You mentioned vengeance being subjective. Assuming you agree with me that justice is only legitimized vengeance, what ensures that a state will be 100% impartial in a procedure of judgement? You can amenize the most extreme inpulses of vengeful feeling by state mechanisms and formalities, but at the end of the day, where's the guarantee that the judge will be the enlightened ultra-ethical figure the state and society expect them to be?
What i'm trying to say here is that the issue is not a question of legality, but ethics. The Black Panthers could not have resorted to formal institutional means of solving ethnic disputes, these were most of the time staffed with the very people who despised them. "Our (my?) Ideal Grant" could not have just rammed his bills and reforms for racial and class equality through a potentially hostile government, but that is more an issue of the forces and pressures making such reform unlikely. Southern society (be it the WASP planter or the poor white farmer with incomplete civic education), as it was not fully educated(*) towards less asinine political ideals, represented a pressure actor. These pressures could have been dissuaded by educating the younger generations (which is not a necessarily authoritarian ordeal -- Paulo Freire details how it can happen without symbolic violence), but alas, this is one of the areas in which the US government has failed.
*= i won't use the term "re-educated" as it implies that racism is an innately educated mode of thinking, which it is not.
Last edited:
Tax the property of the former slave plantation owners. Gradually build up a coherent economy within society by integrating African-Americans into both education and the workforce -- i could see technology in the US building up faster in a way if racial discrimination had not prevented white and black students from socializing and sharing knowlege with each other.
Skallagrim
Banned
I agree that what you are discussing it is a matter of ethics. Several points though:
-- The actual discussion of this thread is not one of ethics, since "what would make Grant be perceived as a great President" isn't an ethical question, so you insist on having the wrong discussion. I have already pointed that out a few posts back.
-- I disagree with your view of justice, which is basically a form of legal positivism. That is but one view, but it is certainly not mine.
-- In fact, I received my doctorate by arguing the exact opposite, namely that man-made laws are irrelevant to the nature of justice, and can at best co-incide with it, or (more likely) vaguely approximate it.
-- In my view, justice by definition precludes "punishment", as justice is only concerned with producing eudaimonia. If this requires that a dangerous person be locked up, then this must be done; but not to avenge, but to prevent him from doing further harm. (And if he is not going to do further harm, locking him up to "punish" him is pure madness, since it would preclude him from doing good. Much better would be to sentence him to repairing or compensating any damage he has done, as best as can be managed.)
-- This doesn't imply that acts of revenge, borne of emotion, cannot be justified, since they certainly can. But that we understand an act does not make it the ideal act. Justice is the ideal act.
-- In this, justice happens to perfectly align with the needs of society as a whole (i.e. peace and reconciliation), since its execution will tend to foster further co-operation, and bring greater peace to all. Vengeance, contrarily, can only cause further division. (Which, while pleasing to those who are vengeful, would ultimately bring harm to yet other innocents-- who do not deserve this.)
-- Essentially, you must ask: is my enemy not perfectly defeated when I make him into a friend? And would seeking vengeance not primarily serve to embitter my enemy, thus ensuring that he will never be my friend, which implies that any final defeat of him will be much later and at a much higher cost, if it even arrives at all?
-- And once you ask that, you will know that it is only sensible to fight enemies who remain a threat. Already defeated enemies must be either butchered (if you are a vile monster who does such things) or made into friends (if you are a human being, and worth that name). Justice demands this of us. And even when we ignore justice: the essential needs of a divided, post-war society demand it, too.
As such, both my sense of justice and my appraisal of the needs of a society emerging from a civil war tell me, very clearly, that the best option is to forego all desires for vengeance. (This is sound advice in any event, since a logical analysis will tell you that vengeance is never constructive and always harmful. Not only to its targets, but also to you-- and to all of the community in which you exist.) This makes the requirements for a succesful Grant presidency abundantly obvious to me.
Last edited:
Again, all of this is within a framework of state that doesn't depend on a subjective definition of what fairness is -- a WASP baron would likely very loudly decry any attempts by the state at expropriating his wealth (which he's likely to perceive as naturally his) because he rebelled against the state. I'd say expropriating the wealth of the slave owner and redistributing it among his former slaves would be fair by constitutional logic, especially if we consider the former's propensity to wanton violence that was proven by the civil war he participated in. Cooperation can only go so far as the subdued party's will to cooperate -- given how the southern political establishment basically discarded all provisions for racial equallity once northern troops withdrew from occupying the south, i believe there'd be no other productive choice than to try and structurally transform southern society.
Last edited:
Skallagrim
Banned
Matters would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis (that's how justice works), but my instinct tells me that in a general sense, to afford land to former slaves -- who worked that land, which one might say is the basis of just ownership -- is a correct decision. Do note that my interest here is in (and stops at the precise limit of) being equitable to those who have been mistreated, in an effort to bring balance where there has been horrible imbalance. The argument is not that anyone deserves to be punished, but that by working that land, without any recompense theretofore, the former slaves have earned a lot of "back pay" that is their due, which can perhaps be addressed by giving them the land.
Approaching the matter from the other side ("those slavers deserve punishment!" instead of "those slaves deserve compensation") is the big problem. Note how eerily often the comments in discussion of this topic veer off into an almost fetishistic obsession with imagined punishment of the slavers. The slaves are typically an after-thought. The focus is on the revenge fantasies.
You have repeatedly expressed your support for vengeance. Have you by now reconsidered this, or do you cling to the belief that revenge is a good idea?
I'll agree that justice and fairness should focus on the victims of mistreatment rather than the perpetrators.
However, i will say one thing more, mainly that ensuring social progress continues uninterrupted requires ensuring that the obstacles that created inequality in the first place don't come back. In this case, keeping the WASP class and racism down and in its due place is absolutely necessary for ensuring equality. This is why i'm a libertarian socialist (i believe the capitalist class' assets should be seized and distributed equally among all of the population in order to promptly dissolve class division as we know it), but that's an argument for another place.
Skallagrim
Banned
Well, I'm glad to hear that. It's a far cry from the blood-thirsty "pUnIsH tHe tRaItOrS!" revenge fetishism we see all too often.
On the matter of the, ah, application of justice, I fear we shan't agree. Putting that aside, however, the more thread-relevant point is that your agenda of social progress -- which might well be admirable -- is bound to have highly negative effects on society if it should be enforced by violence (and it would have to be). Now, one might say that this would best serve the cause of justice in the long term. I suspect you would. But that being neither here nor there, the fact remains that it would give Grant a blood-soaked legacy, which would be extremely divisive. It's certainly not the recipe for a reputation as a great President.
As such, having discussed justice in some detail, we do come back to the realities of history-- which is often a great succession of injustices. For Grant to be regarded as a great President, he'd have to be one that rejects vengeance in favour of very explicit reconciliation. This would undermine the Lost Cause narrative, and make many leading Southerners feel like a part of a successful nation after an unfortunate crisis-- instead of like defeated enemies unwillingly kept within a union they still detest. History would still be imperfect and full of injustices, but there would be fewer divisions and less bitterness, which would yield hope for earlier improvement of race relations (without OTL's notorious "set-backs"). Grant would be seen as one of the instigators of all this "smooth sailing", and this would give him a stellar reputation.
Marc
Donor
Since the white South proceeded to go to war with the black South, it's hard to imagine reconciliation as feasible as long at there isn't any admission of guilt and responsibility by the South.
But, this is tiring, either you believe that slavery was a moral evil or you don't...
Skallagrim
Banned
Trying to frame the discussion like that ("either you agree with me or you think slavery was moral") is a pretty disgusting trick.
Marc
Donor
Sorry, but it's core to any discussion about the South. One has to take a perspective on that as essential to an understanding of the era.
Alternate history is still based on social realities, as unpleasant as they often are.
Skallagrim
Banned
Warning
I'm afraid you appear to have a one-track mind. If you read the actual discussion, you'll see that there is quite a bit more going on. That you prioritise certain things and make them central to your thinking to the detriment of all other factors if your choice. Trying to then frame everyone who disagrees with your as being defenders of slavery is absurdist slander. Believe as you will, but keep such wildly misplaced accusations to yourself.
Last edited:
Skallagrim
Banned
Dude, you pretty much accuse me of being pro-slavery, and when I tell you to refrain from making such ridiculous accusations, that's making it personal?
Either get some perspective, or please don't speak to me again.
All Grant has to do is avoid about ten detrimental appointments and his administration will be highly regarded.