conservatives and conservatism - why gradual change?

[toth8]

I've never understood conservative values. Why is gradual change preferable over rapid change? Surely the nature of the change is dependent upon the issue at hand? How can you say that all rapid change is bad?

[davidbach]

I've never understood conservative values. Why is gradual change preferable over rapid change? Surely the nature of the change is dependent upon the issue at hand? How can you say that all rapid change is bad?
If this is a "conservative value", then it is one (maybe the only one) that I endorse. Society can accept gradual change, but sudeen change is disruptive. Consider the case of prohibition, the consequences of which America is still suffering. Economically, any sudden change in parameters can put organisations out of business, leading to a depression. The same change applied gradually will cause adaptation. Consider the case of foreign competition - the US economy has gradually adapted by turning to service industries. In the process, however, some industries, such as textiles, have been almost destroyed. Some communities have substituted other industries for textiles, some have had insufficient time.

One may lament the sad state of American society, but a comparison with 20 or 30 years ago does show the power of gradual change. How many blacks, gays, atheists etc. have suffered indignity and worse in the process? I do not know.

Of course, some changes must be made immediately. One down to the conservatives! Sometimes gradual change is really no change at all. Strike two!

David.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I've never understood conservative values. Why is gradual change preferable over rapid change? Surely the nature of the change is dependent upon the issue at hand? How can you say that all rapid change is bad?

A lot of the time people see the possibilities for change and attempt to implement them too soon, causing serious problems for the larger society. For example, communism, anarchism, and radical socialism. IMO, humans are animals with prefrontal cortices, and on the whole are uneducated, superstitious, and violent. Radical leftists of the late 19th century on to today have seen the past, the promise of future technology and production methods, and concluded that the anarchist/socialist/communist future is better. In my opinion, an opinion that I think is shored up nicely by historical facts, people as a whole aren't advanced enough socially and intellectually to collectively embrace a system that is based upon the collectivization of the means of life. The great majority of people are just animals looking to the survival of themselves and their own.

Gradual change is the only way to fundamentally change what a society is about. If the change comes too quickly, the backlash is more severe, and the change itself might become compromised by counterrevolution. The surest way to actualize any idealistic change in human society is the slow process of educating each successive generation to have the qualities you want in the new world.

Or, you can have a revolution and kill all of the people that disagree with you.

A little wordy, but maybe that helps. I'll be happy to answer any questions you want. I'm a pretty conservative person according to the way you define conservatism, in that I think that radical revolution is almost always a mistake.

[Metaphor]

A lot of the time people see the possibilities for change and attempt to implement them too soon, causing serious problems for the larger society. For example, communism, anarchism, and radical socialism. IMO, humans are animals with prefrontal cortices, and on the whole are uneducated, superstitious, and violent. Radical leftists of the late 19th century on to today have seen the past, the promise of future technology and production methods, and concluded that the anarchist/socialist/communist future is better. In my opinion, an opinion that I think is shored up nicely by historical facts, people as a whole aren't advanced enough socially and intellectually to collectively embrace a system that is based upon the collectivization of the means of life. The great majority of people are just animals looking to the survival of themselves and their own.

Gradual change is the only way to fundamentally change what a society is about. If the change comes too quickly, the backlash is more severe, and the change itself might become compromised by counterrevolution. The surest way to actualize any idealistic change in human society is the slow process of educating each successive generation to have the qualities you want in the new world.

Or, you can have a revolution and kill all of the people that disagree with you.

A little wordy, but maybe that helps. I'll be happy to answer any questions you want. I'm a pretty conservative person according to the way you define conservatism, in that I think that radical revolution is almost always a mistake.

Should the South have freed slaves gradually when they lost the war?

[premjan]

I'm not sure the civil war was entirely about slavery. Instead of insisting on a civil war, they could have insisted on step by step removal of restrictions on slaves. E.g. first removing restrictions on movement of slaves. Then payment of wages, then the right to vote etc. At a speed such that the economy could have sustained it and the need for war averted. The best wars are probably ones that are never fought. A collapse of the southern economy would have been no use to either slave masters or slaves.

[Metaphor]

I'm not sure the civil war was entirely about slavery. Instead of insisting on a civil war, they could have insisted on step by step removal of restrictions on slaves. E.g. first removing restrictions on movement of slaves. Then payment of wages, then the right to vote etc. At a speed such that the economy could have sustained it and the need for war averted. The best wars are probably ones that are never fought. A collapse of the southern economy would have been no use to either slave masters or slaves.

It doesn't matter whether the civil war was about slavery or not. I'm sorry I bought the war up at all.

Slavery is such a flagrant violation of our shared consensus of human rights that half-steps are not justified. An economic system predicated on the forced labour of others does not deserve to survive.

You are also assuming paying slaves some kind of wage would also not have collapsed the system, or that your other suggested reforms would work.

What does removing the restrictions on freedom of movement mean other than they are no longer slaves? Wouldn't that have collapsed the South anyway?

[dug_down_deep]

Is it really about gradual change versus rapid change? The issues I am conservative about I don't want to change. In fact, I want the world to change around them so that they're more firmly entrenched. As quickly as possible.

Given your assumption about conservative perspective on change, how do you reconcile the idea of a conservative activist?

[Laurentius]

Indeed. Gradual change supporters usually hope that real change will eventually fail to occur.

[premjan]

What does removing the restrictions on freedom of movement mean other than they are no longer slaves? Wouldn't that have collapsed the South anyway?Of course I am talking about the effective ending of slavery but without war - because the civil war was a huge disaster for the US too. The end of slavery did not mean perfect conditions for the emancipated anyway. There was a transition in any case, though it was more abrupt in the observed case.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Should the South have freed slaves gradually when they lost the war?

The point is moot. The Civil War was in many respects a result of abolitionists pushing for an immediate end to all slavery, which to the South was unnacceptable as ending slavery meant the complete collapse of the southern economy.

It's possible that slavery might have been ended and civil war avoided through further education and ramping up legal restrictions on slavery.

On the other hand, maybe war was the only option. I'm not saying that radical change will never be necessary to end injustices. I'm saying that long-term, gradual change will be more effective and involve less war.

ETA: And premjan makes an important point. Are blacks even equal citizens today? The Civil War only removed their physical chains... the societal change was far more subtle and much longer in the coming. Who knows... maybe teaching southern children that blacks are humans might have worked out a lot better than one and a half centuries of the KKK.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Indeed. Gradual change supporters usually hope that real change will eventually fail to occur.

But you see, that's not necessarily true. Would I love to live in a postmodern anarchist utopia where everything magically functioned properly and I never had to work to live? You bet your ass I do. Do I think it works at our current level of technological and social sophistication? Hell no.

[Metaphor]

The point is moot. The Civil War was in many respects a result of abolitionists pushing for an immediate end to all slavery, which to the South was unnacceptable as ending slavery meant the complete collapse of the southern economy.

It's possible that slavery might have been ended and civil war avoided through further education and ramping up legal restrictions on slavery.

On the other hand, maybe war was the only option. I'm not saying that radical change will never be necessary to end injustices. I'm saying that long-term, gradual change will be more effective and involve less war.

I'm sorry I mentioned the word war. It is irrelevant to my point.

If there was never any threat of war, wouldn't it still have been better for the South to end slavery straight away rather than gradually? Isn't doling freedom out gradually (whatever that means) USING THE VERY SAME ARGUMENTS THAT JUSTIFIED SLAVERY, immoral? What's the difference between 'we can't end slavery because the economy would collapse' and 'we can't end slavery suddenly because the economy would collapse'?

[Nitrousoxide]

I'm sorry I mentioned the word war. It is irrelevant to my point.

If there was never any threat of war, wouldn't it still have been better for the South to end slavery straight away rather than gradually? Isn't doling freedom out gradually (whatever that means) USING THE VERY SAME ARGUMENTS THAT JUSTIFIED SLAVERY, immoral? What's the difference between 'we can't end slavery because the economy would collapse' and 'we can't end slavery suddenly because the economy would collapse'?

Well, one is true and the other false.

It is true that the South's economy would have collapsed if slavery were suddenly abolished.

It's not true that the South's economy would have collapsed had slavery slowly been abolished.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm sorry I mentioned the word war. It is irrelevant to my point.

If there was never any threat of war, wouldn't it still have been better for the South to end slavery straight away rather than gradually? Isn't doling freedom out gradually (whatever that means) USING THE VERY SAME ARGUMENTS THAT JUSTIFIED SLAVERY, immoral? What's the difference between 'we can't end slavery because the economy would collapse' and 'we can't end slavery suddenly because the economy would collapse'?

"suddenly"?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

For the record, it's not that I'm any big fan of slavery, or that I'm writing off the suffering that slaves might have continued to endure for years as slavery was slowly abolished. It's that I question the necessity of one of the deadliest and most brutal wars in the history of the world, when ~90% of the slaves became "sharecroppers" after the war anyway and endured another century of suffering and prejudice.

[Metaphor]

Well, one is true and the other false.

It is true that the South's economy would have collapsed if slavery were suddenly abolished.

It's not true that the South's economy would have collapsed had slavery slowly been abolished.

It's a game with words. How slow is slow? Would delaying complete emancipation by 25 years be justified if it were demonstrated that's how long the economy would need not to collapse? What if freeing them faster meant a depression but not collapse?

[premjan]

Slavery is such a flagrant violation of our shared consensus of human rights that half-steps are not justified. An economic system predicated on the forced labour of others does not deserve to survive.

You are also assuming paying slaves some kind of wage would also not have collapsed the system, or that your other suggested reforms would work.

Slavery is bad of course as it absolutely restricts human freedom and turns people into commodities - our values lead us to rightly condemn these practices. But effectively the civil war took 4 years. Reconstruction took 12 more years. The war produced nearly a million casualties, as many as the number of slaves that died due to bad conditions in the Caribbean plantations in one whole century, but in a compressed fashion. This could maybe have been avoided if there had been a steady pressure or threat of war with more restricted military action, to effect a transformation of society to not use slaves.

Some people also argue the war increased the influence of the central government too much.

But it is probably an interesting historical question.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's a game with words. How slow is slow? Would delaying complete emancipation by 25 years be justified if it were demonstrated that's how long the economy would need not to collapse? What if freeing them faster meant a depression but not collapse?

I'll take "not war" for 500, Alex.

[Metaphor]

For the record, it's not that I'm any big fan of slavery, or that I'm writing off the suffering that slaves might have continued to endure for years as slavery was slowly abolished. It's that I question the necessity of one of the deadliest and most brutal wars in the history of the world, when ~90% of the slaves became "sharecroppers" after the war anyway and endured another century of suffering and prejudice.

Deadliest and brutal? The 20th century saw the two bloodiest wars in human history, and neither of those was the Civil War. No war is a walk in the park but to say that the American civil war was one of the deadliest is, frankly, hyper-exaggeration.

It is indeed very hard to speculate, but given the South's utter intransigence on the issue, it is not inconceivable that slavery would have continued for decades.

[Metaphor]

I'll take "not war" for 500, Alex.

For the umpteenth time, the war has nothing to do with it. If the South had the choice of passing legislation that either emancipated slaves immediately or emancipated slaves gradually over 25 years, why is the second preferable to the first?

[premjan]

The main argument for ending slavery gradually would have been to achieve a better condition for blacks at the end of a gradual process rather than mere emancipation which as has been pointed out, led to poverty and discrimination conditions anyway for many freed slaves. The civil war appears to have been fought on ideological rather than practical grounds.

[Nitrousoxide]

It's a game with words. How slow is slow? Would delaying complete emancipation by 25 years be justified if it were demonstrated that's how long the economy would need not to collapse? What if freeing them faster meant a depression but not collapse?

Why are you changing the subject? You said that the argument against the gradual change is the same as the argument against any change (no matter the speed), and thus, since we cannot accept the argument against any change (no matter the speed), we must also not accept the argument for gradual change.

I pointed out that the argument for slow change was not sound so the two arguments are not comparable.

It's quite frankly true that given time, the South's economy would have been able to chage to support wage labor, but it's also true that the suddenly removing the workforce in the South would destroy the economy.

Do you think I made some mistake in responding to your claim that the two arguments are comparable?

[Metaphor]

Why are you changing the subject? You said that the argument against the gradual change is the same as the argument against any change (no matter the speed), and thus, since we cannot accept the argument against any change (no matter the speed), we must also not accept the argument for gradual change.

I pointed out that the argument for slow change was not sound so the two arguments are not comparable.

It's quite frankly true that given time, the South's economy would have been able to chage to support wage labor, but it's also true that the suddenly removing the workforce in the South would destroy the economy.

Do you think I made some mistake in responding to your claim that the two arguments are comparable?

You simply said the first one was true and the second one was not true. That's an assertion, not an argument.

[Laurentius]

But you see, that's not necessarily true. Would I love to live in a postmodern anarchist utopia where everything magically functioned properly and I never had to work to live? You bet your ass I do. Do I think it works at our current level of technological and social sophistication? Hell no.

Funny post :), but it makes no argument against what I meant.
What did I mean after all? ;)
Here's an example I've lived: the government of a former Communist country has to decide whether or not the market should be liberalized quickly or slowly (quickly = a matter of years, slowly = a matter of decades). All the institutions of a free market have already been invented and tried out. Fast transition supporters are the ones who really want change, slow transition supporters are the ones who prefer the status quo.

[Nitrousoxide]

Let me ask you two questions.

Do you think that given time the South's economy could have adapted to the use of wage workers instead of slave workers?
Do you think that the South's economy would have never been able to adapt to the use of wage workers instead of slave workers?

[premjan]

Funny post :), but it makes no argument against what I meant.
What did I mean after all? ;)
Here's an example I've lived: the government of a former Communist country has to decide whether or not the market should be liberalized quickly or slowly (quickly = a matter of years, slowly = a matter of decades). All the institutions of a free market have already been invented and tried out. Fast transition supporters are the ones who really want change, slow transition supporters are the ones who prefer the status quo.
In the case of US civil war, there were two opposing sides with opposite beliefs, so steady pressure to maintain change without maintenance of status quo would have been possible. This may be the key - a steady pressure for change, that is not however revolutionary in its rate.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Deadliest and brutal? The 20th century saw the two bloodiest wars in human history, and neither of those was the Civil War. No war is a walk in the park but to say that the American civil war was one of the deadliest is, frankly, hyper-exaggeration.

It is indeed very hard to speculate, but given the South's utter intransigence on the issue, it is not inconceivable that slavery would have continued for decades.

Yes, I'm exaggerating the effects of a 1,000,000-casualty war, the effects of which lingered 80 years and more after the fact.

Hey, if it's not WWI or II, it's can't be bad at all, right? :huh:

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Let me ask you two questions.

Do you think that given time the South's economy could have adapted to the use of wage workers instead of slave workers?
Do you think that the South's economy would have never been able to adapt to the use of wage workers instead of slave workers?

Let me go ask my slaves.

[Laurentius]

Do you think that given time the South's economy could have adapted to the use of wage workers instead of slave workers?
Do you think that the South's economy would have never been able to adapt to the use of wage workers instead of slave workers?

I hate answering such hard questions with a simple yes or no, but my reaction to both would be no I don't think so. Obviously, I'm biased. As a matter of fact, I think both conservatives and progressists have to be well represented in a community so that the society may have solutions at hand for the situations it will encounter.

[Metaphor]

Yes, I'm exaggerating the effects of a 1,000,000-casualty war, the effects of which lingered 80 years and more after the fact.

Hey, if it's not WWI or II, it's can't be bad at all, right? :huh:

You should put the text in inverted commas when you quote me.

Oh wait. You were putting words in my mouth. My bad.

[premjan]

I hate answering such hard questions with a simple yes or no, but my reaction to both would be no I don't think so. Obviously, I'm biased. As a matter of fact, I think both conservatives and progressists have to be well represented in a community so that the society may have solutions at hand for the situations it will encounter.
Right - this allows you to hedge your bets.

[Metaphor]

Let me ask you two questions.

Do you think that given time the South's economy could have adapted to the use of wage workers instead of slave workers?
Do you think that the South's economy would have never been able to adapt to the use of wage workers instead of slave workers?

1) Given time, this is what the South did anyway.

2) How is this different to your first question?

I think the following

That the economy of the South collapsed after the emancipation is a historical fact, but it does not mean that freeing slaves necessarily would have led to the collapse of the Southern economy. A huge amount of the South's resources was put into the war or destroyed by the war, so we have no idea whether it could have sustained the immediate emancipation of slaves in peace time.

As for your other question, what does 'adapted' mean? Clearly the South's economy has recovered from the emancipation of slaves now. Are you asking is there a trade-off that would be justified?

First, I don't know what the 'gradual' emancipation of slaves means. How do you 'gradually' restore a fundamental human right? If you give slaves freedom of movement, they are no longer slaves (though they wouldn't have been much better off, agreed).

Second, at what point are you willing to make the cutoff? If economists estimated the South could handle the transition if it were spaced out over 25 years, would that be justified?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

For the umpteenth time, the war has nothing to do with it. If the South had the choice of passing legislation that either emancipated slaves immediately or emancipated slaves gradually over 25 years, why is the second preferable to the first?

For the third or fourth time, the war has everything to do with it. You can't see that taking the Civil War out of the question "why would ending slavery slowly over some span of time be better than ending it quickly in 1860?" is ludicrous? That's like saying, "ignoring the alcohol, why is having a martini every night preferable to drinking the whole bottle of vodka at once?"

[premjan]

Given the actual time taken for reconstruction, in hindsight, 16 years to eradicate slavery would have been acceptable. I think removing restrictions on movement and an end to ownership and sale of humans would have to have been the first priority. Then humane wages, and definitely by the end of the 16-year period the right to vote (initially most of the slaves would have been illiterate).

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You should put the text in inverted commas when you quote me.

Oh wait. You were putting words in my mouth. My bad.

As if you weren't twisting mine subtley to make me seem stupid? I never said it was the deadliest and most brutal wars ever. I said it makes the list. Don't be obtuse and I'll make every effort to wrap my small mind around your premises.

[Metaphor]

For the third or fourth time, the war has everything to do with it. You can't see that taking the Civil War out of the question "why would ending slavery slowly over some span of time be better than ending it quickly in 1860?" is ludicrous? That's like saying, "ignoring the alcohol, why is having a martini every night preferable to drinking the whole bottle of vodka at once?"

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. The OP was asking why gradual change was always necessary. It is not always necessary, and a strong case can be made for immediate change.

We don't know whether the South could have freed slaves in 1860 without economic collapse. By 1864, when the slaves were freed anyway, the South was in total war.

If the South had NOT gone to war, it is an open question whether freeing the slaves would have collapsed the economy.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. The OP was asking why gradual change was always necessary. It is not always necessary, and a strong case can be made for immediate change.

We don't know whether the South could have freed slaves in 1860 without economic collapse. By 1864, when the slaves were freed anyway, the South was in total war.

If the South had NOT gone to war, it is an open question whether freeing the slaves would have collapsed the economy.

I know I used a lot of 10-dollar words in my response, but my answer to the OP was basically that humans are stubborn and violent and that gradual change means less violence and war than radical revolution. So you see war is very much my point.

ETA: Perhaps instead of "problems" and "severe backlash" I should have said, "big fuckin' wars," but that's an oversimplification. I assumed that one would read "big fuckin' wars" into my response, and I apologize if you did not.

[enoch007]

Should the South have freed slaves gradually when they lost the war?


After the end of reconstruction and the implementation of Jim Crow, the South did not "free" anyone politically for the next seventy to eighty years.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hi there... just looking around. Let's play nice. Everyone should know by now that my opinion is all that really matters on this issue. You all may feel free to discuss your opinions, but please continue to do so nicely. If not, we've got a rabid squirrel who hasn't eaten since like 10:30 this morning. :)

[Hooboy !!]

I've never understood conservative values. Why is gradual change preferable over rapid change? Surely the nature of the change is dependent upon the issue at hand? How can you say that all rapid change is bad?
This is a bit of a misconception. It is not about "gradual" change as much as it about change without first understanding the problem, taking the time to formulate a good solution, then developing a plan for implementing it. This process can happen very quickly in some cases.

The fundamental principle of conservatism (in terms of change) is that... things are the way they are for what were at one time, good reasons. Seeking to change things, without first understanding this is simply reckless.

Don't get me wrong. I am no more inclined to do things simply because "that is the way things have always been done", but I am not inclined to fix something that is not broken, to change for the sake of change, or to try something new, simply because it is new. It can be incredibly inefficient.

[toth8]

Is it really about gradual change versus rapid change? The issues I am conservative about I don't want to change. In fact, I want the world to change around them so that they're more firmly entrenched. As quickly as possible.

Given your assumption about conservative perspective on change, how do you reconcile the idea of a conservative activist?

I would say yes because the original foundation of conservatism as a political ideology was an aversion to rapid social or political change. That's not just "my" definition.

I'd think linking conservatives with free markets is more applicable to American political culture.

[Aeron]

I would say yes because the original foundation of conservatism as a political ideology was an aversion to rapid social or political change. That's not just "my" definition.

I'd think linking conservatives with free markets is more applicable to American political culture.



I think linking conservatives with republicans is a very bad idea, as an aside.

[ksen]

I've never understood conservative values. Why is gradual change preferable over rapid change? Surely the nature of the change is dependent upon the issue at hand? How can you say that all rapid change is bad?

Gradual change is not a central tenet of conservatism.

I consider conservatism to include:

1) Small, unobtrusive federal government,

2) Low taxes,

3) Non-interventionist foreign policy,

4) Free trade (not the NAFTA, CAFTA type),

5) Rule of law,

6) Reliance on the free market with as little government interference as possible.

Those are a few off the top of my head.

Please note that neo-conservative philosophy will most likely disagree with a number of the above. I am not a neo-conservative.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Gradual change is not a central tenet of conservatism.

I consider conservatism to include:

1) Small, unobtrusive federal government,

2) Low taxes,

3) Non-interventionist foreign policy,

4) Free trade (not the NAFTA, CAFTA type),

5) Rule of law,

6) Reliance on the free market with as little government interference as possible.

Those are a few off the top of my head.

Please note that neo-conservative philosophy will most likely disagree with a number of the above. I am not a neo-conservative.

He means conservatism in the greater theoretical dichotomy of radical vs. conservative, not American political conservatism.

[ksen]

He means conservatism in the greater theoretical dichotomy of radical vs. conservative, not American political conservatism.

Oh, sorry about that. I misread the OP. :o

[Loren Pechtel]

I've never understood conservative values. Why is gradual change preferable over rapid change? Surely the nature of the change is dependent upon the issue at hand? How can you say that all rapid change is bad?

1) Change itself almost always causes harm to some people. This harm is reduced by changing things slowly.

2) In the real world we don't know for sure what the result of a change is going to be. Thus it's better to take it gradually and see what happens.

Thus rapid change is only a good idea if the situation is VERY clear and slow change will cause considerable harm. An example of this sort of situation is the civil rights movement.

[Loren Pechtel]

Should the South have freed slaves gradually when they lost the war?

More like, should they have gradually freed the slaves instead of war.

I have seen reasonable proposals for how slaves could worked their way to freedom.

[dug_down_deep]

I feel like I'm in Wonderland, having tea with the hatter.

How is it that any proposal that includes slavery as a requirement can be termed 'reasonable'?

Are we seriously concerned about the economic health of people who hold other people against their will, beat them, rape them, steal the product of their labor, and sell their children? Really? We're concerned about that?

War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Torture is love.

[Loren Pechtel]

I feel like I'm in Wonderland, having tea with the hatter.

How is it that any proposal that includes slavery as a requirement can be termed 'reasonable'?

Are we seriously concerned about the economic health of people who hold other people against their will, beat them, rape them, steal the product of their labor, and sell their children? Really? We're concerned about that?

War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Torture is love.

Nobody's saying slavery is good. What we are questioning is whether an abrupt end at the end of the civil war is better than a more gradual approach without war.

Earlier in this thread a death toll for the war of 1 million was given, not to mention the effects of a great amount of hatred caused by the war.

How about the following approach:

1) All slaves are automatically freed on their 18th birthday.

2) For the rest of them: Do an assessment of the value of slaves. All slave owners are required to advance (at zero interest) their slaves 1 day of freedom per week, the value of this being 1/7 of the value of the slave. On that day (different for each slave) the slaves are treated as freemen for employment purposes. After the advance is repaid they are free to do what they will with the money, they have a right to buy their freedom 1/7th at a time at the price set in the initial assessment.

Note that the cost of this proposal to the slaveowners is very low. It wouldn't have caused anything like the problems the civil war caused.

It probably means more time spent in slavery but that has to be balanced against a million lives.

[dug_down_deep]

Nobody's saying slavery is good. What we are questioning is whether an abrupt end at the end of the civil war is better than a more gradual approach without war.

Earlier in this thread a death toll for the war of 1 million was given, not to mention the effects of a great amount of hatred caused by the war.
And forcing people who were doing all that awful shit to other people was wrong? I really don't get this.
It probably means more time spent in slavery but that has to be balanced against a million lives. Many of that million were in favor of doing that awful shit to other people, and supported it by pointing guns at the people who told them to stop. I guess they probably earned their deaths. Not sure why some huge group of kidnapping victims should pay for that instead.

[davidbach]

This is a bit of a misconception. It is not about "gradual" change as much as it about change without first understanding the problem, taking the time to formulate a good solution, then developing a plan for implementing it. This process can happen very quickly in some cases.
Just like Bush/Cheney did when they invaded Iraq.

The fundamental principle of conservatism (in terms of change) is that... things are the way they are for what were at one time, good reasons. Seeking to change things, without first understanding this is simply reckless.
Usually, as with slavery, the "good reason" is that some people were making a great deal of money out of it.

Don't get me wrong. I am no more inclined to do things simply because "that is the way things have always been done", but I am not inclined to fix something that is not broken, to change for the sake of change, or to try something new, simply because it is new. It can be incredibly inefficient.
Hmmm. The current crop of conservatives does not seem to have any inhibitions on changing things when it suits their book.

David.

[Joe Bloe]

How is it that any proposal that includes slavery as a requirement can be termed 'reasonable'?
How bad would the alternative have to be before you would consider, say, a gradual 20 year phase-out of slavery? What if the war caused 10 million deaths? 20 million? The complete destruction of the United States? What if the slave owners decided they would kill all their slaves if they couldn't have a phase-out? The last option is of course highly unlikely, but the point is to ask: is there a point at which you would conclude that putting up with twenty more years of slavery is less evil than the consequences of attempting to immediately and completely abolish it? Sure, if immediate and complete abolition is possible, that is of course preferable. But what if it isn't possible (as in fact was the case)? Or do you think that nothing could possibly be worse than accepting 20 more years of slavery?

You could reasonably argue that risking 4 years of war followed by a century of legal segregation was worth not allowing slavery for another 20 years. But I don't see how you can argue that nothing would be worse than accepting a gradual phase-out.

Are we seriously concerned about the economic health of people who hold other people against their will, beat them, rape them, steal the product of their labor, and sell their children? Really? We're concerned about that?
You don't have to be concerned about them at all. But you can be concerned about the half million or so who were killed fighting against it, and the former slaves themselves who might have benefited more from a gradual emancipation if it included funding for education for them to build up the knowledge and skills they would need to run their own farms and businesses, and the funding to provide them with those farms and businesses, rather than a war and emancipation that gave them their freedom and nothing else.

War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Torture is love.
No. People are people, and reality is reality: slave owners, even those who think slavery is bad but were born into the system and depend on it, aren't going to willingly give up their means of supporting themselves without compensation or a fight. Immediate and complete abolition, though the ideal, was not possible.

[CelticChic]

I feel like I'm in Wonderland, having tea with the hatter.

How is it that any proposal that includes slavery as a requirement can be termed 'reasonable'?

Are we seriously concerned about the economic health of people who hold other people against their will, beat them, rape them, steal the product of their labor, and sell their children? Really? We're concerned about that?

War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Torture is love.


What about the economic health of the ex-slaves themselves? The Civil War freed them, but to what exactly? Sharecropping where white farmers took most of what they had anyhow, night riders burning and beating people who wanted to go to school or vote?

I think that war was inevitable in any case. However, if we could have done it gradually would 10 or 20 more years to free the slaves without war maybe have lessened some of the awfulness that came afterwards?

[dug_down_deep]

How bad would the alternative have to be before you would consider, say, a gradual 20 year phase-out of slavery? What if the war caused 10 million deaths? 20 million?
It's not a question of numbers. Every individual lives and dies a noble life, or they do not. Let me ask you a hypothetical based on hyperbole, in return. What if there were a country where they had perfected the art of kidnapping children, and they kidnapped yours and mine and everyone else's? And what if they subjected those children to the most savage and brutal torture on a daily basis, and broadcast video of the events so that we could see them? Would 20 million people dying to free those children be too much? Should we negotiate a gradual diminishment of torture over the next twenty years?

The complete destruction of the United States?
I don't know what that means. If you mean complete destruction of the people, then no, that is unacceptable. If you mean destruction of the sovereign government, then yes.

What if the slave owners decided they would kill all their slaves if they couldn't have a phase-out?
I think that then we should follow the guidance of hostage negotiators, since what we have is a crime in progress. I'm not ignoring the scale -- I'm just suggesting the approach should be that of mitigating a criminal action.

The last option is of course highly unlikely, but the point is to ask: is there a point at which you would conclude that putting up with twenty more years of slavery is less evil than the consequences of attempting to immediately and completely abolish it? Sure, if immediate and complete abolition is possible, that is of course preferable. But what if it isn't possible (as in fact was the case)? Or do you think that nothing could possibly be worse than accepting 20 more years of slavery?
No, there's worse, I'm sure. I think I would let the slaves make that call, if possible.

You could reasonably argue that risking 4 years of war followed by a century of legal segregation was worth not allowing slavery for another 20 years. But I don't see how you can argue that nothing would be worse than accepting a gradual phase-out.
The century of legal segregation was not caused by the Emancipation Proclamation. It was caused by racist worldviews. You would have had that either way.

You don't have to be concerned about them at all. But you can be concerned about the half million or so who were killed fighting against it, and the former slaves themselves who might have benefited more from a gradual emancipation if it included funding for education for them to build up the knowledge and skills they would need to run their own farms and businesses, and the funding to provide them with those farms and businesses, rather than a war and emancipation that gave them their freedom and nothing else.
Those fighting against it made a choice, and I honor their memories and deeply respect their sacrifices. I hope I would have done the same. I don't see how maintaining slavery would mean a somehow rosier outcome for former slaves and their descendants. That conclusion is thus far unproven.

No. People are people, and reality is reality: slave owners, even those who think slavery is bad but were born into the system and depend on it, aren't going to willingly give up their means of supporting themselves without compensation or a fight. Immediate and complete abolition, though the ideal, was not possible.
It was possible. It happened. It took blood to make it happen. It was a good thing to do.

[dug_down_deep]

What about the economic health of the ex-slaves themselves? The Civil War freed them, but to what exactly? Sharecropping where white farmers took most of what they had anyhow, night riders burning and beating people who wanted to go to school or vote?

I think that war was inevitable in any case. However, if we could have done it gradually would 10 or 20 more years to free the slaves without war maybe have lessened some of the awfulness that came afterwards?
I'm exceedingly skeptical that that would have been the result.

[CelticChic]

I'm exceedingly skeptical that that would have been the result.

The question was "what if" that result could have been achieved. I don't know that it would have worked either, in some ways I think the attempts at a gradual changing of laws regarding slavery in the northern states is what prompted the south to push for secession and war. But *IF* gradual changes could have led to both the freedom and better lives through the following years would it have been worth doing though it took longer?

[dug_down_deep]

The question was "what if" that result could have been achieved. I don't know that it would have worked either, in some ways I think the attempts at a gradual changing of laws regarding slavery in the northern states is what prompted the south to push for secession and war. But *IF* gradual changes could have led to both the freedom and better lives through the following years would it have been worth doing though it took longer?
Sorry I misunderstood. My answer would be that it would be up to the slaves to decide that. I don't feel qualified to weigh their suffering.

[Joe Bloe]

Immediate and complete abolition, though the ideal, was not possible.
It was possible. It happened.
No, it wasn't possible, and it didn't happen. Four years is not immediate. And four years of war is not inconsequential in its destructiveness. Do you really think it takes a Mad Hatter to argue for an alternative to war that includes accepting some period of continued slavery during an agreed on phase-out compromise?

It took blood to make it happen. It was a good thing to do.
And, as I said, you can reasonably argue that the cost of ending slavery with four years of war was worth it relative to trying something like a 20 year phase-out. My point is not that it necessarily wasn't worth it, but that it is an argument, not an obvious open-and-shut case. My point is that you are not in Wonderland having tea with the Mad Hatter: given what happened (a destructive four year war), there can be a reasonable alternative proposal that would include extending slavery for a phase-out period. You may not agree with a particular phase-out proposal, but it is not madness to argue for one as an alternative to a destructive war. I take it you agreed with my point when you said

No, there's worse [than accepting 20 more years of slavery], I'm sure.
And there can be reasonable disagreement on what would constitute being worse than accepting 20 more years of slavery. You think 4 years of war and approaching a million deaths was clearly not worse. I don't necessarily disagree with saying the war was not worse, but I do disagree with saying it was "clearly" not worse than attempting to find a compromise that would have allowed slavery to continue for some phase-out period.

Those fighting against it made a choice, and I honor their memories and deeply respect their sacrifices.
Just as a side point, not all of them chose to fight, many were drafted. That noted, though, I do agree with your sentiment here. But I disagree with the claim that their sacrifices were necessarily worth it relative to possible alternatives.

I don't see how maintaining slavery would mean a somehow rosier outcome for former slaves and their descendants. That conclusion is thus far unproven.
And, by the nature of history, and of politics in the present aiming toward the future, unprovable either way.

People in 1860 could not have known for sure that they had a choice between a bloody four year war and a 20 year agreed on phase-out. Nor can we know now that a 20 year phase-out would have been a workable alternative. But at the time, they should have known that a long and bloody war was a risk of insisting on immediate, uncompensated emancipation (after all, as I pointed out, even slaveholders who didn't like the system weren't going to give up their wealth and the system they depended on without either compensation or a fight). And they did know that phase-outs and buy-outs worked in the northern states that had abolished slavery.

Again, my point is not necessarily that a war was worse than attempting to come to an agreement on a phase-out period. My point is that it does not take a Mad Hatter in Wonderland to make the argument that it was.

It's not a question of numbers.
It is a question of numbers.

Every individual lives and dies a noble life, or they do not.
Too black-and-white; besides that, there are disagreements on what constitutes a noble life or death. I think it would have been noble to have set aside "noble ideals" and dealt with the reality of the situation and of the destructiveness of war by at least attempting to find an acceptable compromise that would have avoided a war. If you can't find an acceptable compromise, then go ahead and fight; but I think it worth at least attempting to find an alternative to war.

Let me ask you a hypothetical based on hyperbole, in return.
Why bother, if you think that numbers don't matter? To even return with such a hypothetical is to concede my point: as the conservative Thomas Sowell points out (to remind people that, yes, this discussion is at least somewhat relevant to the OP), "there are no solutions, there are only trade-offs." We can disagree on what number of X is worth trading off for what number of Y, but we can't say that it's not a question of numbers, or that you can avoid trade-offs and costs when pursuing ideals.

I think that then we should follow the guidance of hostage negotiators, since what we have is a crime in progress.
You're willing to negotiate with criminals? (Sorry, I know what you meant, but I couldn't resist; and, that tongue-in-cheek response does have a serious point to it...)

I'm not ignoring the scale -- I'm just suggesting the approach should be that of mitigating a criminal action.
What if you can, at some cost, get the criminal(/slaveowner) to agree to stop being a criminal(/slaveowner) as an alternative to forcing him (at some cost) to stop being a criminal? We can disagree on what cost of agreeing versus what cost of forcing would be worth it. But do you think that force, and the cost of force, is always necessarily better than the cost of an agreeable compromise with a criminal who is, if provided some benefit or compensation, willing to stop being a criminal?

The century of legal segregation was not caused by the Emancipation Proclamation. It was caused by racist worldviews. You would have had that either way.
To quote you: "That conclusion is thus far unproven." Do you think it is impossible that a compromise phase-out that included providing education and property to slaves so they had the knowledge and the means to demonstrate the falsity of those racist views could have mitigated at least the effects of those racist views, and perhaps even the racist views themselves?

I think I would let the slaves make that call, if possible.
They certainly should have had at least a large part of the call, but they weren't the only ones involved. Besides, are you certain they would not have agreed to something like a twenty year phase-out that included giving them education and property along with their freedom, rather than emancipation after a four year war in which many of them died and after which they got nothing but freedom? Do you think it takes a Mad Hatter to argue that it's possible they would have agreed to something like that?

[dug_down_deep]

It is a question of numbers.
Is not. (Your turn.)

Too black-and-white; besides that, there are disagreements on what constitutes a noble life or death. I think it would have been noble to have set aside "noble ideals" and dealt with the reality of the situation and of the destructiveness of war by at least attempting to find an acceptable compromise that would have avoided a war. If you can't find an acceptable compromise, then go ahead and fight; but I think it worth at least attempting to find an alternative to war.
Yeah, maybe.

Why bother, if you think that numbers don't matter? To even return with such a hypothetical is to concede my point: as the conservative Thomas Sowell points out (to remind people that, yes, this discussion is at least somewhat relevant to the OP), "there are no solutions, there are only trade-offs." We can disagree on what number of X is worth trading off for what number of Y, but we can't say that it's not a question of numbers, or that you can avoid trade-offs and costs when pursuing ideals.
I'll answer your question if you answer mine. Would you allow for the sacrifice of 20 million to save those children from 20 more years of (gradually diminishing) brutal torture? If this is just an argument about whether pragmatism is a good idea, then floobadee. I thought we were talking about victims of a crime.

You're willing to negotiate with criminals? (Sorry, I know what you meant, but I couldn't resist; and, that tongue-in-cheek response does have a serious point to it...)
Does a hostage negotiator ever say to a kidnapper, "OK. We'll let you rape the woman a few more times, then we need you to come out with your hands up"? No way.

They certainly should have had at least a large part of the call, but they weren't the only ones involved. Besides, are you certain they would not have agreed to something like a twenty year phase-out that included giving them education and property along with their freedom, rather than emancipation after a four year war in which many of them died and after which they got nothing but freedom? Do you think it takes a Mad Hatter to argue that it's possible they would have agreed to something like that?
They were the victims, and they deserved to make that call, if it had been possible. I don't know if they would have agreed to it or not. From the perspective of the policeman, it is absurd to consider granting the criminal a phase-out period for abusing a victim. It should stop immediately, by force if necessary, and it's worth dying for.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Does a hostage negotiator ever say to a kidnapper, "OK. We'll let you rape the woman a few more times, then we need you to come out with your hands up"? No way.

I certainly hope they occasionally think, "let's try to negotiate him into coming out rather than rushing in with guns drawn and causing the death of the hostages."

[Joe Bloe]

Is not. (Your turn.)
Oh, come on, I didn't just make an assertion, I followed it up with an explanation and defense.

I'll answer your question if you answer mine. Would you allow for the sacrifice of 20 million to save those children from 20 more years of (gradually diminishing) brutal torture? If this is just an argument about whether pragmatism is a good idea, then floobadee. I thought we were talking about victims of a crime.
20 million? Are they all volunteers? How many would need to be drafted? And how many children are we talking about? Sure, the torture is horrible, and should be stopped. But "should" is sometimes not possible at any cost, and sometimes possible only at a horrible cost. 20 million lives is a hell of a lot to sacrifice, a horrible cost to pay. If it were 20 million children and that were the only way to save them, and I found 20 million volunteers, then, yes, I'd be willing to pay that cost. If it were 20 children, no, I think that 20 million lives is too horrible a cost to stop the horrible crime. Yes, we are talking about victims of a crime, but we are also talking about the real world where sometimes in reality there are horrible costs to achieve what morality demands. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. We can reasonably disagree on where to draw the line, and I'm not sure how many children saved from torture would trigger my being willing to sacrifice 20 million lives, most of whom, if we are talking soldiers, would be barely out of childhood themselves, but it would be a lot more than twenty. We may disagree on which is the lesser of two evils, but sometimes we have to make that choice.

Does a hostage negotiator ever say to a kidnapper, "OK. We'll let you rape the woman a few more times, then we need you to come out with your hands up"? No way.
Depends on the situation. What if the kidnapper says "I'll let her go and surrender if you let me rape her again, but if you don't then I'll rape her anyway and then kill her and kill a bunch of cops trying to stop me," and you know he has the power to carry out his threat? Or, "I'll let her go and surrender if you let me rape her again, but if you don't then I'll set off this nuclear bomb and vaporize the city"? Of course she shouldn't be raped again, and you should stop the rapist if you can. But sometimes you can't stop it at all, and other times you can't stop it without paying a cost more horrible than the crime you are trying to stop.

They were the victims, and they deserved to make that call, if it had been possible.
Yes: if it had been possible. On the other hand, though they were the victims, they weren't the only ones with a stake in the attempts to stop their victimization. There weren't enough volunteers to do the job, so many soldiers had to be drafted, forced to fight and die to stop crimes that they did not commit and were not involved in.

Suppose you were in Lincoln's place, hating slavery and wishing it to be abolished as he did, but unlike Lincoln, you didn't care that the constitution didn't give you the authority to end slavery in the southern states and you were willing to go to war to stop it as soon as possible. But, you knew that though you had more people and more industry on your side, they had home field advantage and enough resources to make it a long war, probably taking a few years and a few hundred thousand lives at least.

Suppose that leaders in the southern states, realizing your determination, came to you with a deal: "We want to keep our slaves, but we know you are determined to take them from us. Well, to avoid the inevitable war, we are willing to give up our slaves, if you will put your money where your mouth is and buy them from us, and pay to educate them and give them resources to take care of themselves so they won't be a burden on us. But if you don't compensate us for our loss, then we will fight against your attempts at forced emancipation."

Suppose you figured that it would take maybe as little as 5 years, but maybe 10, to raise that kind of money. So your choice is: slavery maybe ending within a year after a short war but more likely lasting at least another few years and maybe more during a war in which probably hundreds of thousands would die (many of whom would have to be drafted and forced to fight and die, since though many would volunteer there wouldn't be enough volunteers to get the job done without a draft) after which the former slaves have nothing but their freedom; or, the other option: slavery certainly lasting five years, maybe as many as 10, but with no war and its resulting death and destruction, and educated former slaves with property.

As for me if I were in that situation, I'd choose the phase-out, even if the slaves disagreed and said that they preferred draftees to die fighting to get their freedom a few years earlier than they would otherwise have it.

But, if I figured that it would take at least 100 years to raise the funds for the transition, I'd conclude that we should go ahead and fight and hope that the war would be quick with little bloodshed, but willing to risk the possibility of a long and bloody war to avoid the certainty of a century of more slavery. Where would I draw the line for and against war? 20 years? 50? I don't know, probably at a different place than you would, but my point is that it doesn't take a Mad Hatter to conclude that a line has to be drawn somewhere, sometimes you have to sacrifice ideals to reality.

From the perspective of the policeman, it is absurd to consider granting the criminal a phase-out period for abusing a victim.
Yes, it is absurd. But reality is absurd sometimes. Reality doesn't listen to our moral demands, and sometimes we don't have the power to enforce our moral demands. Might doesn't make right, but it does make real, and without enough power sometimes we can't make right real at all, and other times we can't make right real at an acceptable cost. Sometimes we have to resign ourselves to living with evil.

It should stop immediately, by force if necessary, and it's worth dying for.
Yes, it should stop immediately. But sometimes what should be is not possible, it's just not going to happen, not even with force. And, what is worth dying for, and how many deaths? Is it worth dying to immediately stop mild physical abuse? Is it worth a thousand police dying to stop one rape? Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, and we have to choose the lesser of two evils and live with the disease. It's not good, it's not fair, but sometimes reality works that way.

Again, I agree with your sentiments here. These horrible things shouldn't happen, and we should stop them. But we can't always stop them, and sometimes what it takes to stop a horrible thing is even worse that what we are trying to stop. Should the Soviets have been stopped from suppressing the uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia? Sure ... if we could do it without risking a nuclear holocaust; but was it worth that risk? I think that was an evil we just had to accept and live with, since the alternative was potentially far worse.

Edited to add another interesting (well, I think it's interesting) example I just thought of: was it worth risking killing the several teenage girls (however many it might have been) David Koresh was raping to stop him from raping them, and to risk killing lots of other people including many children in the process? I think it would depend on how much of a risk that was, I don't think that I should try no matter what the risk. If I knew for certain that the only way to stop him from raping the teenagers was to kill them and dozens of other people including a couple dozen children, I'd curse the gods and live with the evil. If I thought it was only a tiny risk that any of them would die, I'd go ahead and try to stop it and hope I didn't lose the gamble. Where would I draw the line at trying or not trying? Well, that's why I'm never going to volunteer for the job of making such decisions.