Humanities desk
< April 3	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 4

Why did the abolition of slavery prove so difficult and divisive?

Hi there. I was wondering why the decision to abolish slavery was so divisive, despite the brutality and inhumanity of the process? --FallinggoApartio (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FallinggoApartio (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Slavery in the United States#Economics along with other sections in the same article, which explains why Southerners were generally resistant to abolishing slavery on economic grounds, regardless of the inhumanity of it. Also, not to be ignored, is racism, which is why Southerners may have not cared about the brutality of it. --Jayron 32 16:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, although the actual transportation of new slaves was abolished by the Slave Trade Act 1807, a great many wealthy people continued to earn a lot of money from their investments in sugar plantations in the West Indies; many of them sat in Parliament. Abolishing slavery would make the plantations less profitable; it wasn't until a generous compensation package had been agreed with the plantation owners and their financial backers that the abolition legislation, the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, could be passed. In the days before investigative journalists, it was difficult for the British public to ascertain just how bad conditions were for West Indian slaves. It wasn't until there was a slave revolt, the Baptist War of 1831, which was followed by two Parliamentary inquiries that brought the sordid details to light. Note that it was in the same year that the Factories Act 1833 limited the factory working hours of British children aged 9 to 13 to no more than ten hours a day, six days a week, so inhumanity wasn't limited to the slave plantations. Alansplodge (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most memorable... was the discovery (made by all the rich men in England at once) that women and children could work twenty-five hours a day in factories without many of them dying or becoming excessively deformed. This was known as the Industial Revelation. DuncanHill (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this occurred a year after the Reform Act 1832. Before that, wealthy property owners (many/most of whom were in some way financially connected to slavery) were the only people who could vote. Most of the rest of the population thought slavery was dispicable, but couldn't do anything about it. This change in the franchise was important in brining about the change of the law (according to this book I was reading recently). Iapetus (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One factor to consider in the US is that the South was deeply concerned about losing parity with the North, in terms of population, wealth, and political power. The Three Fifths Compromise had allowed the Southern whites to partially count slaves for allocation of Representatives, but only white men could vote, giving them more political power per voter than in the North. This somewhat allowed them to maintain their political parity. However, if the slaves were freed, they could either leave the South, or they might get the vote, either of which would reduce the political power of Southern whites. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, it was about money. It always is. As with the line from All the President's Men, "Follow the money." That simple observation explains nearly everything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although if that were an absolute, we would still have slavery in the West today. Philanthropism is a powerful force too. Alansplodge (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's always possible to doublethink yourself into a position that to a disinterested outsider seems totally ludicrous, to the extent that supporters of slavery saw it as the moral position. See articles like peculiar institution (the idea that slavery was a fundamental part of Southern culture) and drapetomania (the idea that slaves wanting freedom was a symptom of a mental illness) for some of the more extreme examples. The "Cornerstone Speech" in which the Confederate States seceded contains a summary of what pro-slavery politicians thought (or at least claimed to think, which amounts to the same thing): that black people were not equal to whites, and that slavery was religiously, scientifically and economically justified. Smurrayinchester 09:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rationalization (psychology) seems relevant here. --Jayron 32 12:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a James Fennimore Cooper book "The Ilini" that really made an impression on me - I know that liking this guy's writing is sign of a small, stupid mind, but what can I say? He described the Confederate side of the issue as dominated by people who called the abolitionists "nigger-stealers" bent on seizing their property without compensation. I've seen descriptions of slave value as being a substantial part of many Southern whites' wealth.

Anyone who doubts that people could really be righteous about such a crazy thing as owning a person need merely look at today's politics where claims of "intellectual property" ban people from singing songs or posting night shots of the Eiffel Tower or making sunitinib and giving it away at cost to help cancer patients. It is exactly the same kind of thinking, though the lashes are usually kept further out of sight. Wnt (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"First official census of England"?

I found Historical evolution of alcohol consumption in society by David J. Hanson which says: "1501 CE – present: The first official census of England, conducted in 1577, reported the existence of 14,202 alehouses, 1,631 inns, and 329 taverns." That information is referenced to Gately I (2008). Drink: A cultural history of alcohol. Gotham Books, New York, NY (p. 124 of the linked pdf file). Our Census in the United Kingdom article has nothing between the Domesday Book and 1801. Can anybody find another source that describes the 1577 census please? Alansplodge (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Volume IV of The Agrarian History of England and Wales (CUP), "According to a census taken in 1577 there were over 1,600 inns in twenty-five English counties..." see here. Now, that simply says a census, so it may have been a census of inns, or places generally of use for excises. I will continue to look!. DuncanHill (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! The footnote on the page I linked to says it was a census of Inns. DuncanHill (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This, referencing a National Archives document, suggests it was a survey of inns and taverns, not a "census" in the usual modern sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just edit-conflicted with PalaceGuard008 trying to link to the same page! DuncanHill (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It always helps if you know what you're looking for: "On 20 July 1577 an order was made in Council for a return to be prepared of the exact number of ale-houses, taverns and inns in England and Wales. The purpose of this census was to formulate a levy upon those drinking establishments..." Monckton, Herbert Anthony (1966), A History of English Ale and Beer, Bodley Head (p. 101). I shall edit my contribution to the Pub article accordingly. Alansplodge (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Hillary Clinton and Benghazi

Can you tell me, exactly what do the Republicans accuse Hillary Clinton of with respect to the 2012 Benghazi attack? --Halcatalyst (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of being a Democrat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of not being the great and powerful Oz, capable of foreseeing and stopping any and all terrorist attacks. And of the heinous crime of being a Clinton - mustn't forget that. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They usually try to keep it vague, as anything specific could be more easily disproven. But, some general issues they had:

1) Lack of security at the embassy.

2) Misstatements right after that it was a spontaneous demonstration, rather than a planned attack. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Republicans feel she is guilty of gross mismanagement and neglect... leading to a dead ambassador and three other embassy employees. And then trying to spin things and deflect responsibility by saying it was a spontaneous reaction to a video instead of a coordinated attack. Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. The republicans do not think that she is responsible for the deaths of those people (although many of the ill-informed people who vote for them believe the Faux News propaganda). They truly don't give a fuck about those people; they turned their tragic deaths into a political talking point. Imagine if, and this is incredibly hypothetical, the people who died somehow got resurrected. They would be very sad that their deaths are used in a political game of spindoctors. Related articles: Fear, uncertainty and doubt & Empathy. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that during the Reagan and Bush administration, several US embassies were attacked and hundreds of Americans died. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that one of the Republicans on one of the investigation committees admitted it was merely an attempt at political sabotage. Can anyone find a link ? StuRat (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@StuRat: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Google "republican admits benghazi political" for more. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that should cover it. StuRat (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never quite understood why it being a spontaneous demonstration that turned into a riot would be any better for Hillary than a coordinated, pre-planned attack. If anything, you'd expect it to be easier to protect against the former, wouldn't you ? StuRat (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the issue of the 30 minute forced delay on the American response to the attack. The chain of command goes up to the Secretary of State (Clinton) and then to the President (Obama). So, who ordered the 30 minute delay? On one side, you have people who believe that Clinton ordered it. On the other side, you have people who believe that there is no such thing as Benghazi and it was made up just to make Clinton look bad. Since both sides are based on hate instead of anything reasonably logical, there is no way to get to a reasonable middle ground. 199.15.144.250 (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. Like Bill Maher said: "It's not fair that people who can't defend their own nonsense get to create a fake fair-and-balanced argument, the way they do when asserting that evolution and creationism are equally valid". In reality there is no one who claims that there is no such thing as Benghazi and it was made up just to make Clinton look bad. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this as someone not very familiar with the incident, shouldn't the question also be about why there was a 30 minute delay, and whether it was justified or an error? The first view you mention reads like they are saying, if X ordered a delay, then X was automatically at fault / helping the terrorists, which doesn't sound very rational. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the question if they would actually give a fuck about the lives of those people. But the intention wasn't to learn lessons and improve the security protocol, the intention was to use their tragic deaths for political gain. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the article itself: "In her role as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton subsequently took responsibility for the security lapses." Also from the article: "...the State Department circumvented their own Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB) standards for diplomatic security. ... In her January 2013 testimony before Congress, Secretary Clinton claimed security decisions at the Benghazi compound had been made by others, stating, "The specific security requests pertaining to Benghazi ... were handled by the security professionals in the [State] Department. I didn't see those requests, I didn't approve them, I didn't deny them." Only 6 U.S. ambassadors have ever been killed and this was the first one since 1979. It was bound to be a big deal. Also reading through the article I don't see anything about a half-hour delay but several hours-long delays. Rmhermen (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "Only 6 U.S. ambassadors have ever been killed". Are you sure? Our article says: "Eight United States Ambassadors have been killed in office – six of them by armed attack and the other two in plane crashes". Maybe others have been killed while out of office. And at least one of those plane crashes led to many conspiracy theories. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the half hour delay... look in the article for 9:00 and 10:05. That is the start and end of the "half hour delay." If you read outside sources, you will find all kinds of unreliable garbage related to it. I have personally seen articles that claimed Hillary supported the attack because she personally wanted the Ambassador killed (bullshit). I have also seen articles that claimed the local troops were never actually in Benghazi and are just some guys that Lindsey Graham paid to say that they were forced to wait 30 minutes before they could go in to help (bullshit). 199.15.144.250 (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]