Clown Car II: Revenge of the Clowns

[Hrothbern]

Steve Bannon's surprising interview to The American Prospect: http://prospect.org/article/steve-bannon-unrepentant
"Trump’s embattled strategist phones me, unbidden, to opine on China, Korea, and his enemies in the administration".

From the Guardian on that interview:
"White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has given an unusual interview in which he claimed there was no military solution for North Korea, the far right was a “collection of clowns” and the left’s focus on racism would allow him to “crush the Democrats”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...trump-warns-china-trade-war-american-prospect

 

[Sommerswerd]

Who would have ever expected that we would come to a day when a collection of CEOs would exhibit a moral compass in the absence of such from the President of the US.

I heard a Trump surrogate on CNN yesterday trying to defend against this debacle. He said something along the lines of... "Well these CEOs, they're beholden to their corporate shareholders, so you have to expect them to be political and controlled by the political climate.."

I was like... "Wait... WHAT?!? Didn't you TrumpSADs tell us that one of the great benefits of Trump and all these corporate cronies with no political experience would be that they were not influenced by typical Washington politics and all that?"

 

[Lexicus]

"You cannot be against General Lee and be for General Washington, there is literally no difference between the two men."

I mean, both slaveholding traitors?

 

[Kyriakos]

I recall the snarky term "founding slavers"

 

[metalhead]

"You cannot be against General Lee and be for General Washington, there is literally no difference between the two men."

—
from email forwarded by Trump attorney John Dowd

Ironically, I kind of agree with this sentiment, though I suspect for very different reasons and purpose than it was originally expressed.

If you go tour Mount Vernon, there isn't a single mention of the slaves that lived there. They present it like George and Martha just had a gay old time entertaining foreign dignitaries and eating dinner in their old-timey dining room. Not that part of their time was also spent making sure other human beings remained in bondage, forced to make those meals under constant threat of bodily injury or death.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

One rebellion founded the US, which is (like it or not) us. One rebellion founded the confederacy, which is (like it or not) nonexistent. Any equating of the men leading the rebellions ends there.

 

[metalhead]

Founding a nation of slavers is perhaps not the accomplishment it's always made out to be. Oddly enough when the story of our independence is told, we always neglect to mention that the slaves here would have been freed 30 years sooner had we still been part of the British Empire. How many lifetimes were lived entirely in bondage that otherwise would not have been? Thanks, George!?

 

[caketastydelish]

I agree with you and we've had that discussion.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Founding a nation of slavers is perhaps not the accomplishment it's always made out to be. Oddly enough when the story of our independence is told, we always neglect to mention that the slaves here would have been freed 30 years sooner had we still been part of the British Empire. How many lifetimes were lived entirely in bondage that otherwise would not have been? Thanks, George!?

There is still a qualitative difference between forming a nation of slavers by rebelling against a nation of slavers in a world where slaving was the norm and had been for millennia, and forming a nation of slavers as a rebellion against a nation that was accepting the new norm that slavery was obsolete. Sure, we can look back through the lens of history and say Washington "should have known" that slavery would end in just a few generations, and that the target of their rebellion would end it a generation sooner than the product of the rebellion would...but I try not to use the lens of history that way. And even if you do use it that way the fact remains that it was a lot easier for the confederacy to look around and see that they were effectively rebelling against the norm, not the future.

 

[Colon]

The thing is that the current Confederacy worshipping didn't start until the 60s, as a reaction to the civil rights movement. It's intrinsically bound to racism. That, and the fact the colonies didn't rebel against the crown to maintain slavery, makes the comparison between the Civil War and the American revolution unbearably shallow. No surprise Trump is fond of it.

 

[Lexicus]

The colonies partially did rebel to preserve slavery, though. One of the concerns of the revolutionaries was precisely that the strong government of Britain would be able to interfere with slavery, and there is a reference in the Declaration to "domestic insurrections" (i.e, slave rebellions) supposedly "excited" by the king.

by rebelling against a nation of slavers

In what sense was the UK a "nation of slavers?"

 

[metalhead]

There is still a qualitative difference between forming a nation of slavers by rebelling against a nation of slavers in a world where slaving was the norm and had been for millennia, and forming a nation of slavers as a rebellion against a nation that was accepting the new norm that slavery was obsolete. Sure, we can look back through the lens of history and say Washington "should have known" that slavery would end in just a few generations, and that the target of their rebellion would end it a generation sooner than the product of the rebellion would...but I try not to use the lens of history that way. And even if you do use it that way the fact remains that it was a lot easier for the confederacy to look around and see that they were effectively rebelling against the norm, not the future.

Oh sure, I'm not trying to draw a neat and total equivalence between the two. Just pointing out that Washington as a venerable figure is subject to some of the same historical complexities that make Robert E. Lee a problematic figure in terms of erecting statues in their honor that serve to exclusively glorify their legacy.

I don't think it's fair to expect Washington to have known slavery would end in most places by the 1840s, but it's certainly fair to fault him and others for compromising on the question, particularly when they personally were benefitting from the institution at the time. It's not as if abolition wasn't on the radar of the cognoscenti at the time; certainly the Framers knew of the movement and some even advocated for abolition in the Republic they were trying to form. But in the end, they compromised, and that's a hell of a thing to have compromised on.

And from a practical standpoint, from the standpoint of a slave in the 1840s in the United States, perhaps even from the standpoint of African-Americans today, are things really better for having fought for independence when we did? Surely there are alternate histories to be written where we declare independence later, our country abolishes slavery at its founding, and things go very differently.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In what sense was the UK a "nation of slavers?"

They established the slave trade to North America in the first place. The fact that they were a couple generations away from outlawing slavery doesn't give them some sort of "enlightenment is pending" pass.

Oh, and they also recruited their navy by impressing sailors from defeated vessels. A tradition rooted in the most basic, ancient form of enslavement by conquest.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh sure, I'm not trying to draw a neat and total equivalence between the two. Just pointing out that Washington as a venerable figure is subject to some of the same historical complexities that make Robert E. Lee a problematic figure in terms of erecting statues in their honor that serve to exclusively glorify their legacy.

I don't think it's fair to expect Washington to have known slavery would end in most places by the 1840s, but it's certainly fair to fault him and others for compromising on the question, particularly when they personally were benefitting from the institution at the time. It's not as if abolition wasn't on the radar of the cognoscenti at the time; certainly the Framers knew of the movement and some even advocated for abolition in the Republic they were trying to form. But in the end, they compromised, and that's a hell of a thing to have compromised on.

And from a practical standpoint, from the standpoint of a slave in the 1840s in the United States, perhaps even from the standpoint of African-Americans today, are things really better for having fought for independence when we did? Surely there are alternate histories to be written where we declare independence later, our country abolishes slavery at its founding, and things go very differently.

Are there some complexities in common? Sure. They were both men, for example, and if someday we develop into an Amazon matriarchy I'm sure they would wonder somewhat about all these statues of male generals. But the fact remains that in the 1770s slavery was pretty much the way the world had always been and still was. In the 1860s that was no longer the situation.

Consider how you would state your defense if we put you in some sort of suspension from which you are roused a hundred years from now and find that ownership of private property beyond your immediate personal needs was outlawed halfway through the interim, and is considered barbaric. You can say all you want that you agree completely and were "ahead of your time" and only did it because it was common practice and mostly unavoidable, but they may well still fault you for participating. Would you call it fair, or just?

 

[metalhead]

That's not really accurate. Some Northern states abolished slavery prior to 1800, a few before the Constitution was ever ratified, and abolition movements were widespread by the time the Constitution was ratified. Surely men of letters would have been knowledgeable about the Enlightenment philosophy that formed the underpinnings of the abolition movement; they co-opted its language in writing the Declaration of Independence, after all. Perhaps more importantly, France had banned slavery in its European homeland centuries before. The status of slavery in England was murkier, and it did exist in a few legacy forms at the time the Constitution was written, but was considered to be contrary to common law in the homeland, and slaves in the homeland who sued for their freedom often won it.

So abolition was far more than simply an idea in the ether. It existed in some form already in a few places, either explicitly or implicitly. On the contrary, Western countries are not banning private property, nor is there a movement to do so that has any kind of widespread support. Surely banning slavery in the Constitution of 1789 would have been more progressive than abolishing it in 1863 was, but it's not correct to say that the idea was totally alien to the Framers, or foreign to the state of the Western world at the time. Abolition was a clear choice available to them. They abandoned it when the Southern states indicated they would not sign on to a Constitution that included abolition.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's not really accurate. Some Northern states abolished slavery prior to 1800, a few before the Constitution was ever ratified, and abolition movements were widespread by the time the Constitution was ratified. Surely men of letters would have been knowledgeable about the Enlightenment philosophy that formed the underpinnings of the abolition movement; they co-opted its language in writing the Declaration of Independence, after all. Perhaps more importantly, France had banned slavery in its European homeland centuries before. The status of slavery in England was murkier, and it did exist in a few legacy forms at the time the Constitution was written, but was considered to be contrary to common law in the homeland, and slaves in the homeland who sued for their freedom often won it.

So abolition was far more than simply an idea in the ether. It existed in some form already in a few places, either explicitly or implicitly. On the contrary, Western countries are not banning private property, nor is there a movement to do so that has any kind of widespread support. Surely banning slavery in the Constitution of 1789 would have been more progressive than abolishing it in 1863 was, but it's not correct to say that the idea was totally alien to the Framers, or foreign to the state of the Western world at the time. Abolition was a clear choice available to them. They abandoned it when the Southern states indicated they would not sign on to a Constitution that included abolition.

And the resistance of the southern states was based at the time on economic necessity not monstrous hearts. The industries upon which their economies were based were (at that time) dependent on slavery and they had to compete in markets where the other producers used slave labor. When your colony is made up of plantations the point that New Hampshire has abolished slavery (that they never particularly had much of) is not really that relevant. Through the distant view of history "well other colonies were doing it" might make it look like everyone should have been, but the point is that in the world at that time it is very unlikely that much of anyone was really surprised that Washington owned slaves, or that any serious pressure was being generated to change that.

So, no, equating his situation with Lee just doesn't hold up. By Lee's time even the industries the south relied on were being run elsewhere using freeman labor. Well, wage slaves who at that point may have in fact been worse off than their ancestors had been, but that's a different issue.

 

[Lexicus]

Some Northern states abolished slavery prior to 1800,

Which ones?

EDIT: nevermind I looked it up

The status of slavery in England was murkier, and it did exist in a few legacy forms at the time the Constitution was written, but was considered to be contrary to common law in the homeland, and slaves in the homeland who sued for their freedom often won it.

The 1772 Mansfield decision in England, which essentially stated that slavery had no legal force in England. This was one of the developments that made the colonists nervous and tended to push them toward rebellion.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The 1772 Mansfield decision in England, which essentially stated that slavery had no legal force in England. This was one of the developments that made the colonists nervous and tended to push them toward rebellion.

It also had no apparent effect on recruiting policies of the English navy.

 

[metalhead]

Off the top of my head, Vermont and Pennsylvania did prior to 1789. I believe New York had as well, though New York is hardly a shining example because they ran the slave trade out of there, for the economic benefits, natch, well after the slave trade was abolished.

And the resistance of the southern states was based at the time on economic necessity not monstrous hearts. The industries upon which their economies were based were (at that time) dependent on slavery and they had to compete in markets where the other producers used slave labor. When your colony is made up of plantations the point that New Hampshire has abolished slavery (that they never particularly had much of) is not really that relevant. Through the distant view of history "well other colonies were doing it" might make it look like everyone should have been, but the point is that in the world at that time it is very unlikely that much of anyone was really surprised that Washington owned slaves, or that any serious pressure was being generated to change that.

It takes a monstrous heart to build an economy on the backs of men in bondage. On the backs of a system that puts women in bondage and often subject to the sexual desires of a male slaver. They didn't have to do any of that. They chose to do it. And when that choice became enshrined in the Constitution, the men who wrote and signed and ratified that document became complicit in it.

 

[Lexicus]

It also had no apparent effect on recruiting policies of the English navy.

Impressment is not the same as chattel slavery.