I just was sitting in a cafe with my son (Sette Panni for the Harlemites) reading through the McPherson joint. I'm at the chapter where he's about to deal with John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry. One thing that this book makes clear is that analogies between John Brown and anti-abortion terrorists don't really tell you much.
I don't have my head totally wrapped around this yet, but it seems that political violence in 19th Century America was much more common than it is today. Perhaps, that's the wrong way to put it. I'm not sure. But I just got done reading a section where Congressmen were coming to the House floor armed for a shoot-out. Why? Because of a book that slandered the South. A book. fool!
And it didn't even seem that unusual. Fist-fight were common. And what about the caning of Charles Sumner. It's hard to imagine, say, Lindsey Graham beating the hell out of Patrick Leahy with a cane--and then his constituents not only keeping him in office, but sending him canes engraved with things like "Hit him again!"
Mob violence seems to predominate--on both sides. In Boston, gangs routinely formed to flout the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. John Brown was off the hook in Kansas--but it wasn't just him. I'm talking about pro-slavery forces laying siege to whole towns with cannon-fire. it. I'm talking about politicians in New Orleans forming pirate armies--in open defiance of the feds--to go conquer Cuba.
I hesitate to call it a more violent society. But political violence seems endemic in that period, in a way that it just isn't today. I don't say this to minimize Tiller, but by 19th century standards, I'm not even sure his murder qualifies as terrorism. Fools were bucking each other all over the place.
And of course this says nothing of the fact that slavery, itself, was violent act. More, later...
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
good point. i'd also bet dollars to donuts that the majority of the anti-abortion people who are so vocal were AWOL during the Civil Rights Movement in any way shape or form.
I don't give them the phrase anti-abortion (is anyone PRO abortion?) but for most people who call themselves that, it's not about being pro life or about the rights of the unborn or anyone else. It's about the certitude of their religious belief. Because they are certain, they demand that everyone believe what they believe, no matter the issue. So they don't have to be consistent in working for civil rights, or against capital punishment. They just get to tell us what to believe.
RL, i totally agree. i am admittedly bias, as i am an eternal feminist and pro-CHOICE (and NOT pro-abortion), but i believe pro-lifers are on the wrong side of history.
a fleeting glance at social change and progress throughout the timeline of humanity, shows that those whose opinions include enforcing a belief system onto others usually end up failing.
the problem with the christian right/ activist arm of the pro-life agenda, is that they are not willing to engage the debate on their own certainty on when life begins. they base their belief that life begins at conception on a faith-driven idea and demand the rest of us agree with that faith.
the debate around exactly when a biological phenomenon turns into a being is saturated with subtelties, nuance, and scientific disparities. depending on a belief in a spiritual realm, depending upon a conception of energy as an undying force, depenging upon a belief in manifest destiny, depending upon having the potential to bear life (i.e. being man or woman; having a uterus or not), etc.--- one can't begin to fathom the vast conglomeration of possibilites available when it comes to a woman's reproductive options and fate. to turn a blind eye to ALL of these realities shows a lack of understanding and compassion towards humanity and its vastness and ultimately emergent qualities.
if pro-lifers would instead be convicted about their OWN ideas within the boundaries of their OWN lives, their argument would ring true more frequently with more people than the active pursuance of a christian-minded society.
religion WILL change, the idea of God WILL change. one can not encompass their perception of the world in a stagnant idea of God and faith. it fails time and time again. from the prevalence of pagan gods, to the complete absence of them in mainstream society... from the crusades to the holocaust... from polytheism to monotheism... faith only works in the moment and for the induvidual. it is not the correct lens through which to view the human condition.~
if pro-lifers would instead be convicted about their OWN ideas within the boundaries of their OWN lives, their argument would ring true more frequently
Certainly for me. Coming back to the subject of TNC's post, your comment brings to mind another way the analogy may fail.
Some slaveowners questioned the ethical validity of the system, some manumitted their slaves, some made it clear they understood it was evil but believed it an economic necessity, some former slaveowners openly opposed the system. I am not an avid reader of the literature of the abortion debate. Is there a literature of former pro-life people questioning the validity of their own position or changing their views? Or are they less self-critical even than slaveowners?
is anyone PRO abortion?
Yes, I would say I am pro-abortion. In many cases, abortion IS the best procedure for a particular medical need. Just like surgery, chemotherapy, etc may be deliver the best outcome for a particular case.
Particularly with the type of cases Dr. Tiller handled, to choose something other than abortion would likely result in the death of the woman or a short, horrific life for the baby if delivered.
I would say that your statement is loaded, with the seeds of misunderstanding.
Most people mean that they are in support of abortion as one of the (perhaps several) options that could serve as the means to a desirable and positive end. Hence the term pro-"choice"
Most people are averse to the term "pro-abortion" because the phrase fosters the right wing fantasy of pro-choice people maliciously aborting children as though this act were an end in itself. This may seem ridiculous but these people are invested in their moral superiority.
Of course if your support of the term if more highly principled than that, please enlighten us.
I'm pro-abortion. I think it's better for all of us who are already living if fewer children are born, up to a point, and I think it's much better for the children who are born if they are strongly wanted. I think if I found myself pregnant and I didn't want to be, or even just didn't really feel like having a child, abortion would be the morally proper choice. I understand that other people have a different moral perspective, and but that's mine. I think it's good when people who don't want children have abortions, preferably as early in the pregnancy as possible. It seems to me that it reduces suffering.
For the vast majority it is indeed about being for the rights of the unborn. For a majority (but not all) of those people it also involves religion, but the two are not contradictory things.
Re: "they demand that everyone believe what they believe, no matter the issue"
Nonsense.
Ummm... maybe because some of us weren't born yet? That's a little unfair.
How awesome would C-SPAN have been then?
Ratings would have been through the roof. American Idol wouldn't have been able to compete.
It was a nasty, nasty time. The Mountain Meadows massacre occurred in 1857. This was the mass slaughter of the Fancher-Baker emigrant wagon train by the Mormon militia in Utah. 120+ people murdered. This had nothing to do with the civil war and everything to do with the very troubled and very violent mid-19th century history between the US and the LDS. In contrast the Pottawatomie Massacre by John Brown in Kansas in 1856 resulted in 5 deaths. A follow up action around Osawatomie, Kansas resulted in more than 20 killed. Roughly 20 (counting executions) died as a result of the Harpers Ferry raid. Extremely high numbers for today but combined less than 1/2 the number killed at Mountain Meadows. It is stunning how much violent death there was in the middle 19th century.
Even adjusting for the violence of the times, there is no comparison between Brown and Teller. Brown was a leader of a violent movement. He traveled, raised funds, actively recruited and conducted more raids on the Kansas / Missouri border right up until Harpers Ferry. As a terrorist, he has more in common with the IRA leaders of the late 20th century than a lone gun man in Kansas.
Terrorist or freedom fighter? For Malcom X and H.D. Thoreau it wasn't a tough call, but then they had their own slant on this:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Plea_for_Captain_John_Brown
It was widely known that John Brown was wink wink financially supported by what were considered to be respectable, establishment abolitionists. Violence was not only more common. It was validated by those in power, on every side.
I think the critical thing to take away from all this is to realize how magnificent our union has become to where something like the Tiller murder is a huge deal and can shift entire political agendas. 100+ years ago, you are right, it wouldn't even be on the violence radar.
This is not a "look how savage everyone was back then" posts, it's more of a "work to not let it return to those days" type of post. People don't seem to realize how much violence is still seething under the surface of our country and how important it is that it stays beat down and on the retreat from civilized society.
In a country like America where the political tensions run so deep and people get so wound up to have a black man elected presidents with NO violence, no uprisings like the ones that you are reading about; it's something important to acknowledge, to be thankful for, and to keep working on.
Bravo.
Or Brava.
(Don't mean anything by it, Ricky Bobby, but these days, you know, you never know. Had a female student, first name James.)
You're making a huge racist assumption that I would have caught this error. I, however, do not speak illegal alien and am offended that you thought I would be more culturally aware.
/wingnut strawman
How could I not respond to such poetry? That's like a triple twist with a double flip, perfect landing paragraph. Not saying anything more 'cause I stept in shit thrice already with first a foreign language, and then refs to poetry and now gymnastics and then there's shit and then thrice and oh my.
"I apologize if you took offense by anything that you misinterpreted that I said."
/generic BS apology
From the editor in my head:
I am sorry for the situation in which my words were interpreted as offensive. It's been blown way out of proportion.
/order BS, family political, species weasel
At some point Freakonomics the point is made that the past was much more violent than modern American and Europe. Cities would just chew people up and spit them out whether by disease or violence.
My sister was doing some geneological research related to the Hatfield-McCoy feud of the late 19th century and came across the bit of trivia that there were more murders in the state of Kentucky in 1890 than in 1990. And that's not per capita. It's total number of murders.
I wonder how much of it was due to differences in technology and density. Outside of urban areas, law enforcement response time was probably pretty low, both because of the amount of time it took for information to reach them and for a physical response to be mounted. You can get away with a lot more when the local sheriff is 100 miles away and will take days if not weeks to respond. In addition, the differences in firepower between the local constabulary and the locals was probably a lot smaller back then. Having "cop killer" bullets is one thing, but not having any body armor to begin with is a whole lot worse.
With that said, it's clear there were a lot of cultural differences that factored in. It is pretty unimaginable to have senators brawling on the floors of Congress (though I'd pay good money to see it).
TNC:
Check out David Grimsted's AMERICAN MOBBING, 1828-1861. He lays all the violence out there is ways that you would not even believe. This particular text is not like Hahn or McPherson in the sense that the Grimsted is really academic, but a simple perusal would give an idea of the ubiquity of violence and particularly mobbing. What is interesting, too, especially in terms of racialize violence is that white mobs really love to terrorize and beat down their black neighbors on national holidays. The message was clear: you blacks are not only "noncitizens," but you are "anticitizens." That is, blackness was anathema to what it meant to be an American. Moreover, and this is one of the cruelest ironies of American history, violence got worse as the antebellum period progressed. That is, we did not get better as time progressed, we got worse. (It was better to be black in America in the 1810s than it was to be black in America in the 1850s--I recognize that is a generality, but if you had to pick, you pick closer to the American Revolution than the Civil War). Stay strong!
TNC I've lived in North Carolina for most of my life and went to college in Wilmington, NC for 18 months before I ever even heard of the 1898 race riot/coup that happened there. This article, along with others awakened me to the political violence of the late 19th century. I would recommend it to anyone who hasn't heard of the Wilmington riots, or is interested in learning more about how 19th century events affect the south to this day: http://www.newsobserver.com/1370/story/511596.html
If you'd like to discuss the war or Lincoln, Ta-Nehisi, just let me know. There's nothing I like more.
I wanted to write in (to you or Megan) this past week saying that I thought the use not only of historical analogy but also more generally analogy as analysis is somewhat bad form, of only limited value, and generally leads to false assumptions or problematic results. As a professor once nearly yelled at me "do not tell me what it is like tell me what it is." He went on to say that analogies were one of the weakest forms of critical thinking and analysis. It is what we first do when presented with a new problem, issue, or subject. We take it and attempt to fit it to what we already know. But, if we never get past the analogy, it shows that we have never really examined or analyzed the issue in depth.
In terms of historical analogy, I think it is even worse (sorry). I was a history major in college and the biggest pet peeve of all historians (or at least my professors) was the misuse and abuse of history. What people tend to forget is that history is not made in a vacuum and we are dealing with singular events. Just as lightning doesn't strike twice, history doesn't really repeat itself. That doesn't mean events don't resemble each other, patterns do not exist in history or that we can't learn from history. It means, though, that past practice and past success (or failure) are not indicative of future practice and future success.
And, really what does a society eventually coming to view slavery as wrong really tell us about our own struggle with question of abortion? What makes anyone think that the history of slavery provides better insights for the abortion debate than, say the history of modern medicine?
I'm veering off my original point to applaud this post.
As a species what makes humans stand out is our use of symbolic reasoning. Language. Writing. Models in math and science. A whole host of "this new thing is like this other thing I already know, so that will help me understand it" investigation going back to Cro Magnons. But too much of what passes for analysis today is reasoning by analogy long after that's useful; I like your former professor.
One of my pet peeves as a reader is people who read about another time and confidently assert "Oh, if I were living then I would have every one of my present values firmly intact. Being raised in a different time and place would have no effect on me, because I Am Right." Really bad historical fiction is that in which you can discern the decade in which it was written by the socio-political beliefs of the protagonists.
My original point was to recommend Assassination Vacation by Sarah Vowell, in which she visits scenes related to the assassinations of Lincoln, McKinley, and Garfield. It wraps the past and the present together in ways that really work, history rather than tortured analogy.
I like your professor also and understand what he was getting at, but guys like Jesus of Nazareth, the Sufis and Malcolm X were geniuses at using analogies. Rather than weak thinking, Christ's "Render Unto Caesar What Is Caesar" answer, an escape from a clever Pharisee trap, revealed an amazing truth that "telling one what it is, not what its like" would not have done justice. Again, great point and a useful one for prodding a student's pedagogical development, but symbolic reasoning is too central to human innovations in history, literature, philosophy and spirituality to outright dismiss or discard as one of the weakest forms of thinking.
Good reply. Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing as I listened to one Ben Bernanke last night on 60 Minutes, who has "been preparing for the current financial crisis all of his life," due to the fact his primary research focus throughout his academic career has been the Great Depression. For better or worse, Big Ben certainly doesn't lack for certainty in his convictions, being fully prepared to double down on his (hell, our) current bets. Should make for an excellent and unusually quantifiable test of the legitimacy of historical analogy.
John Brown was a really interesting guy, but he's hard to evaluate. His plan can be criticized not just for violence, but for craziness as well. If he had succeeded in igniting a rebellion, he probably would have gotten a lot of African Americans (and many of their oppressors) killed. The only way his plan could have worked would have been through the intervention of God. He seems to have been counting on that.
I don't think Brown was a terrorist, though -- he was a solider. Brown wasn't trying to control people through fear. He was trying to start a war -- that's why he attacked his target in Harper's Ferry, he wanted arms for the coming fight. He wanted the slaves to fight a war to throw off their oppressors, and he believed that God would intervene on their behalf.
It's really hard to plug Brown's POV into our current political landscape. Brown was all caught up in a kind of millenarianism that's hard for us to relate to directly.
Tilner's murder was about terror. It was about making people afraid to provide legal abortions. Tilner's murder is very much in the spirit of the lynchings. It's a message -- keep your head down, or this is what will happen to you.
The points above about violence as a whole having decreased have been made by a dude named Stephen Pinker... this is a pretty interesting lecture on the issue. I don't know for sure if he's right, but eternal optimist that I am, I would like to believe so.
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html
David Brin has made the same argument.
My impression is that historians, asked to pick a historical era in which to live (as opposed to visit, a la "I've always wanted to meet X"), tend to pick right now. If you're in the nitty gritty details of history, the lynchings and Jim Crow as well as the cool bebop, or the childhood deaths from a thousand readily preventable causes as well as the traditional family on a farm, the past looks a lot less shiny. (Just to take the farm example, how come history is people moving off farms and into cities, if country living is so preferable? The 19th century sweatshops were horrible, yet people still flooded in from the countryside to work in them.)
People flooded into cities for economic reasons. Several years of crop failures and your family is starving, so you move to the city and hope someone pays you enough for you to live off of, and send money back home. Or, someone makes the decision for you. Many Irish were sent to the United States by the landowning class, who figured out it was cheaper to send people living on their land to the US instead of feeding them.
Also, farming could be just as horrible in terms of random death. People were sucked into machines, trampled by horses, fell through ice, freak blizzards ... etc.
The time period was much more violent. Children could still be - and expected to be! - whipped by their teachers. Everyone owned guns. There are plenty of stories about people who went nuts on the frontier and killed their whole family.
RL, ( there is no "reply" link at the bottom of your reply), great way to tie me back into the conversation...
I think todays pro-lifers are just as diverse in their reasoning as latter day slave owners. in my comment, i was sure to point out that it was the activist arm of the movement that is of concern. many pro-lifers just think abortion is wrong. they have no religious reasons, they just feel "inside" that it is not an option for them. they would even drive their friends and family to the clinic, and comfort them and refrain from casting any judgement. their are some pro-lifers who oppose abortion in principle but understand its utility in certain, limited situations (rape, danger to life of mom, etc).
and then to TNC,
i believe that perhaps the intensity of a john brown or the frequency of unrest in a neophyte infrasturctue is NOT analogous to the status quo. however, the motivation of a john brown or a violent pro-life activist are the same. they both find their resources, intelligence, and encouragement from fringe interest groups.(not that abolitionists were fringe, but those who believed that murder would positively affect the argument against slavery were fringe).
secondly, the context of dr.tillers murder is VERY telling. mcclatchy posts from the kansas star that in the days leading up to tillers death, the pro-life activism had reached fever-pitch. there were many activists involved, many threats to clinic workers, and multiple instances of vandalism (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/69586.html). much like the politcal violence of yesteryear, the explosion happened after the pressure just got to be too much. the difference lies within our current societal conception of violence as a means to an end. the prevalence of violence was most likely due to the fact that vigilanteism, frontierism, and nativism ran supreme in 19th century american culture. the reason brooks could maintain his position of public service while having committed such a heinous crime upon his fellow pol, is the same reason a woman couldn't vote or claim to be raped by a white man. our paradigm, as a society has since shifted. but the paradigm of tiller's murderer (allegedly, scott roeder) is analogous to john browns, brooks', and any other man of that time who saw fit to achieve social change through violence. true, times have changed, but a lynch mob is a lynch mob is a lynch mob. (note: we call group-hate/ group- violence "lynch mobs" even today though their aren't any instances of accepted vigilante justice. again, the times have changed but the nature of the individuals involved is analogous to lynch mobs of the past).
ADDITIONALLY:
indeed these folks were and are terrorists.
and i am a bit aghast that you think dr. tiller's murder wasn't terrorism. that may be because you don't belong to a group open to that kind of violence. you are neither doctor, nor nurse, nor clinic worker of any kind. you aren't a woman who may be violently harassed or hurt or killed because you are practicing your right to choose. killing dr. tiller most surely makes it harder for these doctors to feel safe at work. killing dr. tiller most surely cloaks a hard decision for a young girl in even more fear and thus ignorance about her right to choose.
its not like we don't have a 360 view and understanding of what terrorism is in 2009. how could you think that the message that tragic event sent out to all pro-choice people didn't terrorize at least a few?
There certainly is, as you say, a broad range of folks who oppose abortion, just as there were a broad range who opposed slavery. From your "pro-lifers who just think abortion is wrong... just feel inside that it is not an option for them" to the hammer-hard consistency of bread and roses above, who writes "I'm pro-abortion. I think it's better for all of us who are already living if fewer children are born, up to a point".
I, like many others who call themselves pro choice, agree with the first group of people you describe. Though we married young, my wife and I were married, working, getting educated and then well-educated, poor as students but never short of family support if necessary, never had to confront the crushing question of a nonviable fetus. We never considered, or in the last case had to consider, abortion as an option. Not for us. But we had resources other people do not. Everyone should have the right to decide, on whatever grounds they choose, medically or morally or as Malthusian as bread and roses.
I don't agree with a false interpretation of bread and roses, an interpretation that suggests that abortion is often an unthinking act, for MANY, easy as eating an M&M. Or that everyone who is pro choice is arguing that such a scenario is OK. I share the opinion of the people you cite, who think it is wrong for them. What does that make me? Am I pro choice and anti abortion? (We are, really, my wife and I, for ourselves.)
Folks in the 19th century confronted a similar range of choices in defining John Brown. If I could use Walter Cronkite's You Are There machine, I would not agree with my neighbor Gerrit Smith when he financially supports John Brown's insane raid. But I'd vote for him when he ran for political office, arguing in the 1840s for what became the 13th Amendment. And I'd agree with him, have the guts to work with him (I hope), when he most probably breaks the law, if he indeed, as everyone openly suspects, runs a station on the Underground Railroad at Peterboro. And if I could afford it, I'd join him in providing funds to defend those accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act.
Historic analogies break down. Others here have expressed the reasons very well. But the rationale behind this analogy is understood. It is used as a piece in a game of moral one-upmanship. Slimy one-upmanship (I know, TNC, satyagraha ahimsa and anger is impotent but damn.) Slavery, slavery for God's sake, is being used as a rhetorical device in the debate. My views about abortion, are more moral than yours, says one side. I'm as good a person as were those who opposed slavery. You're not. That's the ground, by not ceding the phrase 'anti-abortion', that I won't give.
This is what I mean by context. In fact people who thought murder would advance the cause of abolition weren't fringe at all. Faced with the Fugitive Slave Act, one abolitionist said that the only way to fight back was by murdering slave-catchers. But it wasn't John Brown who said--it was Frederick Douglass. Harriet Tubman threatened to murder slaves who felt they couldn't make the passage north. Brown's most terrorist-like acts weren't at Harper's Ferry, but in Kansas, where he was funded by people well within the mainstream of abolition.
This is exactly my point. Political violence was much more common and accepted at that point than it is today.
I think this is wrong. John Brown's raid, while shocking in its ambition, was preceded by a low-level war between the pro and anti slavery force. The explosion did not happen after the pressure became too much. It was already very violent. Slavery, itself, is a violent act.
Please quote where I argued that Tiller's murder didn't constitute terrorism. I think you need to re-read the post.
An example you didn't cite. After the insanity of Bleeding Kansas and Harper's Ferry, millions go off to a good war, singing a really really weird war song --
John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave;
His soul is marching on!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Mainstream validation, even celebration.
" I don't say this to minimize Tiller, but by 19th century standards, I'm not even sure his murder qualifies as terrorism. Fools were bucking each other all over the place."
This is where you asserted that dr. tillers death may not consitute terrorism. i am sure you will point out that you couched it in terms of "by 19th century standards," but this is where my point on the context of a 19th century viligante versus a modern day pro-life activist come in...
i am saying that though violence and terrorism was thematic and acceptable or, like you said, "endemic to that time," it does not qualify any less as terrorism. John brown was a terrorist b/c he did not desire to change the way people felt about slavery, but instead fill those who wanted to participate in the peculiar institution with so much fear that they were scared to own slaves. there was no desire to have a true sea change, or philosophical enlightenment--- thus, not ever SOLVING the problem, rather sweeping the gun powder under the rug to have it explode later.
also, i disagree that harriet tubman's and frederick douglass' anger and sense of dying dignity are the same forces that motivated john brown to take violent action. i am a black woman, and i am sure if i were a part of that time (and had the same gumption and feisty nature) you would be able to quote me MANY times over on killing slave owners... even now, in 2009, the thought of slavery makes me see red! and like RL says, i would have probably joined up with the likes of a john brown. but i would be responsible for terrorizing the white folks. i would have liked it, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been terrorism.
i read the post thouroughly and enjoyed it TNC.
I just want to point out that it isn't couched--it's an important part of the sentence. I literally would not have written that without the "by 19th century standards" part. It means something very different if you don't have that.
There are some interesting connections between the time periods. In John Brown's day the Supreme Court had made a decision that a human could be declared property (Dred Scott). In our day the Supreme Court declared the same for the soon-to-be-born (Roe v Wade).
Certainly John Brown's actions were questionable. Even his friend, Frederick Douglas, was doubtful of the wisdom of his actions at Harpers Ferry. Still, Frederick continued to support John Brown and call him a martyr since he was, after all, part of the "righteous cause".
Frederick Douglas, of course, became a Republican. The Democratic party of the day was pro-slavery (not every Democrat, of course!). Today the party that supports the right of a woman to declare the soon-to-be-born "property" and therefore disposable is...the Democratic party.
Frederick Douglas thought it ridiculous that, in America, we should need to have a debate on the merits/evils of slavery. "There is not a man under the canopy of heaven that does not know that slavery is wrong for him." I find it troubling that the human rights of the soon-to-be-born are an issue of debate today in America. "There is not a man under the canopy of heaven that does not know that abortion is wrong for him."
doesn't that conversation start with a debate on what constitutes life?
are u saying that a person traded in mainstream society for money and or barter goods is the same as a fetus in vitro?
roe v. wade was a bout the viability of a fetus... the argument (or one of them) in the dred scott decision was not one of whether or not a slave was a viable human but that he was an inferior human.
article 3: "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
and it was about citizenship, and equal protection under the law. NOT a debate of the viability of a black person's humanity.
In John Brown's day the Supreme Court had made a decision that a human could be declared property (Dred Scott). In our day the Supreme Court declared the same for the soon-to-be-born (Roe v Wade)
I totally disagree. If a fetus were property, I could sell it. I could announce to the right group that I wanted to have an abortion, but if someone pays me enough, I'd bring the pregnancy to term and let that person adopt the baby. I guess I don't know, really, whether that would be illegal, but I'd be a little shocked if it were.
The law allows for killing in self-defense. Killing another person in self-defense does not make them your property.
I get that you think Roe was wrong, but that doesn't mean that it declared fetuses to be property. It didn't. It found that the rights of the mother were more important than the rights of the fetus, up to the third trimester (or is it 'viability') when the rights of the fetus become more important- except when the mother's life or health is threatened. Just as the rights of children are subordinate to the rights of their parents in many ways, until gradually they even out. Parents have the right to forcibly control their children's location, diet, social circumstances, etc, in ways that would constitute kidnapping for an adult. That doesn't make them property. You can't sell them, and you can't destroy them.
And I'm sorry to be troubling to you, but I do know that abortion is right for me, both in the sense that I feel abortion would be the right choice if I found myself pregnant, and in that if my mother had not wanted a child when she got pregnant with me, I think abortion would have been the right choice. It would have been right for me, if it was right for my mother. Sorry.
Steve
Since you would like to change people's minds on this issue, I'm surprised to see such a poorly reasoned line of argument.
Nobody is arguing that the abortion issue is about "property." Nobody.
Both those for, and against, the individual's right to make decisions about pregnancy are concerned with deeply-felt beliefs about an individual citizen's control over their body, the nature of fetal existence, religious and spiritual beliefs, and whether government or the family is better placed to make these moral decisions.
Since nobody thinks it's about property rights, you're aguing with an empty straw man. You can't persuade anyone by accusing them of a position none of them hold,
Yeah, no disrespect, but this is just wrong--on both counts. Dredd Scott didn't clare humans could be property--slavery was protected by law from the country's inception. The question wasn't "Is slavery lega?" (it most certainly was) it was "Is a slave still a slave wants he moves into a state where slavery isn't legal."
Likewise, a fetus isn't "property," for all the reasons bread&roses outlined. Bad analogy--on both fronts. But this really proves the point. People just grasp for shit. Whether they have a firm understanding of what they're grasping, or not.
To back up the point on the Dred Scott case:
Not only did the case declare that slaves continue to be slaves when they move from state to state--It more important argued that slaves-former or otherwise-could never be citizens and were NOT protected by the Constitution. That is, freed or manumitted slaves were somewhere between chattel and citizen, without any recourse to the political or juridical system. The largest impact of the ruling though really had to do with whether or not Congress could regulate slavery in federal territories--Taney and the court said, thereby overturning all previous Compromises (i.e. 1820, 1850, etc.) Thereby forcing the North to pass personal liberty laws and eventually clearing the way for the war (among other things: i.e. Free Soil, Republicanism, etc.)
I have to say that I really enjoy reading this blog and others when we talk about real juicy issues; but really some folks need to get their facts straight. Steve, your point about the political parties is, with whatever due respect, simply laughable. To try and trace the stances of political parties based on their names is ridiculous. These things change all the time. I mean really; if you think that the Republican party of Lincoln's day--the party that was all about big government--is equivalent to the Republican party today *simply because they have the same name* is downright bizarre. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about in terms of what the parties have stood for. Have you heard of this guy called FDR or completely changed what it meant to be a Democrat for instance and prompted old Democrats (see good 'ol Strom) to switch to the Republican party. I mean I could go on and on.... Oh, by the way, the Republican party of Lincoln (and Lincoln himself) began as ambivalent to slavery and all but the radical wing were willing to leave it in place when the party began (of course, many thought it would eventually die out, but it was not their concern)...
also... i want to hear more thought on terrorism v. activism or whether or not terrorism even belongs in these discussions. thanks~
Just want to second TNC's reading of McPherson's most excellent book Battle Cry of Freedom. I've read many books on the Civil War but Battle Cry of Freedom spends essentially half of its length *setting* up the war, where many others go over the military ins and outs. The setup is a truly vital part of the war. http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Oxford-History/dp/019516895X The prose is beautiful and not at all dry as bones academic history (while still being rigorous). IF you want a fun but nevertheless quite informative one, read Fletcher Pratt's old Ordeal by Fire: A Short History of the Civil War. http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Civil-War-Ordeal/dp/0486297020/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244346815&sr=1-1
Anyway I think our host's comment that political violence was much more common is quite true. Indeed I believe the 19th Century was quite a bit more safe than the 18th if I'm not mistaken. In aggregate numbers the 20th is the most dangerous, but proportionally one's risk of dying due to violence is much lower. I wonder if Rudy Rummell has something to say on this? Have to dig around on his web page....
I'm not sure to whom I'm replying, so I'll grace all with my reply. Brown was a murderous, "god sent me", nut. He burned his way into American history the traditional way: through violence. So, going back into the history of America shows a more violent society? I guess this excerpt proves that:
Reports of cannibalism by the Mohawks were not unheard of. In Reverend Johannes Megapolensis’s 1644 “Short Account of the Mohawk Indians,” the Dominie described a Mohawk victory celebration, an account that very likely will not be featured as part of any Hudson 400 celebrations:
"They are very cruel towards their enemies in time of war; for they first bite off the nails of the fingers of their captives, and cut off some joints, and even whole fingers; after that, the captives are forced to sing and dance before them stark naked; and finally, they roast their prisoners dead before a slow fire for some days, and then eat them up. The common people eat the arms, buttocks and trunk, but the chiefs eat the head and the heart."
This whole thread is meaningless. That could include this post. it seems that temperocentrism and moral relativism reign supreme in these kind of discussions, leaving everyone where they started. If it comes down to the question 'when does a life begin?', it is both a scientific and religious issue. The scientific answer is constantly evolving. The religious answer is static. I don't see a clear resolution of this conflict. All I know is that murdering a doctor isn't going to accomplish anything. Which brings me back to John Brown. Both Brown and the dood who killed Tiller had a direct line to god. So what's up with god?
An historical note: Frederick Douglass, as I recall, met with Brown and attempted to dissuade Brown from his insane idea about the attack on Harper's Ferry. Douglass wrote about it in his autobiography.
"Both Brown and the dood who killed Tiller had a direct line to god. So what's up with god?"
man... i would love to know.
but imho, its not so much about the truth of God as it is about interpretation of God:
"The religious answer is static."
What the book you mention you are reading seems to detail is that the methods of political activism within the nation have mellowed out.
Following that politically violent US era we seem to have gone into the psychoanalysis era where those who could afford it got into self improvement via psychotherapy.
Theoretically, this transferred the political hostilities you mentioned outward into the nations around us. Did our concept of who is the enemy change as a result of self awareness?
When are we going to rid ourselves completely of those hostilities, and how, so that some peace can break some records worldwide?
I am not sure what the fact that there was more political violence in the 19th century tells us about the Tiller case except perhaps that the value of the analogy if there is any doesn't lie in the historical accuracy. Rather it lies in any help it gives one to put oneself in the mind of the people on the other side of the debate.
When I was in college (a long enough time ago that violence against abortion clinics was unheard of, although only a year or two away) I took a class on Civil Disobedience. It was a very liberal college and the class was part how-to. But I wrote a paper on when civil disobeidence was justified, and safely guessing the political leanings of the grader I took abortion protests as my example and argued that civil disobedience was only justified under limited circumstances. The comments on the paper actually came back with a horrified claim that then civil disobedience would seldom be justified as if that was a disproof. The grader had apparently never taken seriously the possibility that civil disobedience would be used by people on the other side of the political spectrum.
But as a philosopher, rather than a historian, I do see value in trying to get people to see the issue in a case in which they would count as being on the other side.
I think there can be historical value to analogies. This particular one seems valuable in understanding muslim reaction to the Mohammed cartoons. You often see claims like, there is something about Islam which makes it incompatible with free speech or similar kinds of claims. The fact that these behaviors are similar to where we were 150 years ago undercuts such arguments. Although obviously it does not explain these phenomena. It does give us reasons to be doubtful of the claims of exceptionalism.
One more to add to the list of crazy 19th Century violence.
A large group of Irish immigrants who were Civil War veterans (from both sides) teamed up to invade Canada. The Canadians beat them back, but as crazy as militia groups are today I can't imagine them trying to invade another country.
http://www.bivouacbooks.com/bbv2i3s6.htm
You mean Canadian Bacon wasn't a documentary? I miss John Candy.
This is my first time expressing an opinion on a site like this. I appreciate the comments. I realize no one talks about the soon-to-be-born as "property". This confuses me. How can someone be charged with murder in the death of a soon-to-be-born if they ARE NOT a person? How can they choose to abort a soon-to-be-born if they ARE a person? Only by defining them as NOT a person. And who decides if the soon-to-be-born is a person or not? The mother. This is a right I do not think she should have. Not because she does not have a right over her own body, but because she does not have a right over another PERSON'S body.
I am quit aware that millions of people disagree with me on this. But this is not a straw. The same fetus cannot be BOTH a person and not a person depending on what the mother decides. "Shall I charge my attacker with the murder of my baby or pay my doctor to end its life?"
By "soon to be born" do you mean a fetus in the third trimester or a fetus at any point, e.g. the first trimester?
If the former, then I would point to the actuality of abortion law: in the third trimester a woman cannot just change her mind, and if she didn't notice the signs of pregnancy until then, too bad. As Andrew has shown, people considering late second-trimester and on abortions are people faced with terrible choices: a child who will not live, and often one who will suffer considerably. If it's moral to let the child be born but then die quietly in the parents arms--a choice I fully respect--why is it not moral to "let" the fetus die earlier? I was particularly struck by the recollection of the priest who watched 11 out of 11 babies die with heart surgery, and suffer clearly terrible pain before.
That's one thing that most frightens me with regard to choosing to let the fetus come to term and die--that pro-life groups, like the Schiavo diagnosers, would insist that the child then be put through the full realm of surgeries. Embracing life, regardless of the quality of that life. You'll note that term "choice" came up, and like others in this thread I am pretty close to "pro-choice, personally wouldn't choose abortion." (I moderated when I was pregnant and learning all the things that can go wrong--anencephaly, or anything along the lines of Tay-Sachs, I think I would choose abortion. I know I would want to be the one making the choice--the Senator who diagnosed Schiavo, incorrectly, off 2 minutes of videotape should not be involved.)
"Health of the mother" exemptions mean "at 4 months, her cancer aggressively returned, and without treatment--which the fetus couldn't endure--she wouldn't live long enough to deliver safely in 4 months" not "at 8 months, she felt kinda depressed."
If you mean "soon to be born" in the sense of any point in pregnancy, I don't understand that position. I have been pregnant 3 times, resulting in 2 births of healthy children and one devastating miscarriage. A lot of the reason the miscarriage still hurts is that I couldn't get pregnant again after. It was the loss of a child I wanted that I mourned--the loss of a potential child--not the loss of a life equivalent to my two living children, or my mother's life.
Is a single cell (or blob of cells, or tube, and so on) a person equivalent to the mother, with not only full human rights, but the right to be sustained by the woman for 9 months? As soon as rape is brought up, a number of people in the great middle on abortion will allow, no, a rapist can't force a woman to be an incubator. That comes to the question of whether the state can--and Roe v Wade said, in effect, yes when the fetus is indeed soon-to-be-born (third trimester) and is viable. Often in the second trimester. But when we're talking about a cell, or a ball of cells, or a small humonunculus without a hooked nervous system at the end of the first trimester, then forcing a woman to sustain its life with her own is, indeed, intervention of the state.
As for "Reply": If you aren't signed in when you hit reply, it will take you to sign in and then the bottom of the thread. If you sign in and then go back to the post you want and hit "Reply" at the end your reply will end up under that post.
By the way, if they ever invent a working artificial womb, and the process of transfer of an early embryo to the artificial womb was as easy as an abortion at that point, then that WOULD shift the abortion debate. The embryo or fetus could "survive" with, if not minimal, then standard medical intervention.
But if that happens--and I think we're finding that pregnancy and development are complex enough that this won't happen in our lifetimes--then you'll come up against how many adoptive parents there really are out there. Parents who want any baby, regardless of what the mother did during the pregnancy, of her IQ and health history, of the father's IQ and health history, of race, of any detrimental conditions the embryo or fetus is carrying.
I recommend Dan Savage's book about adopting his son. For a college-bound white teenager who gets pregnant by another college-bound white teenager and has an exemplary pregnancy (no drinking, drugs, smoking; yes to vitamins and prenatal care) and gives birth to a healthy child there are indeed many eager adoptive parents. Not so for a child born in less ideal circumstances, or from a less ideal background.
"then you'll come up against how many adoptive parents there really are out there."
I think we already have some inkling of this given the huge numbers of available children in foster care, waiting to be adopted.
Foreign Policy has an interesting article about slaver and how these things usually end:
Meat: the slavery of our times
It is a brave article for such a publication. It points out nicely to how ethical progress happens in reality. One stops the oppression not due to ethics but some other economic or selfish considerations - then and only then does ethics follow.
I was literally shocked about what I had to read over on Meagan's blog after the abortion doc was shot by supposedly somebody who considers himself pro-life. I don't know how many commenters over there mentioned PETA in that context. PETA? As if PETA had every harmed a human. Even the most militant animal rights activist - the so called Animal Liberation Front - has never harmed or killed a human. In contrast - about 10 animal rights activist have been killed by farmers, hunters or circus staff over the last 20 years. Many more have been imprisoned for trying to prove what the USDA cannot - that nobody cares about the few animal protection laws that do exists. Every time an investigator catches farmers torturing animals - he or she risks going to jail. In contrast - the worst thing that can happen to a farmer who tortures is a $400 fine. What is the result - we have a guy on the FBI most wanted list right next to Osama Bin Laden who too has never killed nobody.
As Malcolm has stressed so often - the oppressor often behaves as if HE is the victim. Don't tell me what to do or not to do. Don't take away my freedom to have slaves or eat meat - you oppressor you! Look at these violent blacks marching the street. Oh - look at this extreme radical Malcom who claims that once whites try to harm you - you should defend yourself. This violent violent violent aggression cannot stand. Redemption!
PS: I am visiting Iran right now. It is funny that the Atlantic web site is not blocked be the national firewall. Except for Andrew's blog - that one is censored. Mr Jeffrey Goldberg is not. Why? Was it because he criticized George W Bush too much or is cause he is happily gay and open about it?
Of all the other web sites that I have bookmarked - I have found only one other censored web site:
www.peta.org
Why? Because if we all followed that little theme first promoted by Pythagorus and later the enlightenment in Europe - there would be no sin left on the planet and no need for religion? After all - PETA reminds the muslim and jewish world what the term haram means.
I have another context question I'd like to raise. I'm very familiar with the horrible black knickknacks and postcards from the Jim Crow days--not just the scenes of lynchings as photographs, but also black children being eaten by alligators, and all kinds of other stereotypical setups. I was at an antique store yesterday and flipping through a book of postcards from the same era. There were a lot of scenery postcards, and then I flipped to the page with a lot of aggressive postcards. There were none with black people, but there were Indians, Rednecks, naked women, and fat women all doing something we'd find offensive now (and indeed, I've seen similar postcards in gift shops in AZ). So my question is, what happens when you place the scenes of black children being eaten by alligators next to these other scenes (like putting John Brown into the context of political violence during his time?) Most of the discussions I've seen of the black stereotypes are in isolation from other kinds of knickknacks or postcards (for instance, a book I really liked, _Mammy and Uncle Mose_ by Goings).
Invisman
Hmmm...I can see that I need to be very specific on a site like this! I'm glad to see so many people who read and think about things. I think I just threw too many things out there at once.
About the political parties...there are things I admire and dislike about both of our current parties. I am not sure, but I think the current Democratic party would trace themselves back to Jefferson. If so (and I could be wrong) then the Democratic party of 1840-1860 would have been the same party, pro-slavery (generally, there were Northern Democrats who supported the Union). The largest resistance to Civil Rights in the 1950-1960 time were the southern Democrats.
I was not trying to suggest that Republicans are the good guys. I just thought it was interesting that, from my point of view, the same party was on the wrong side of the human rights issue of the 1800's (slavery) and today (abortion). I do understand that MANY people would see no connection between the two. Thanks for your comments.
By the way, I am dumb. I couldn't figure out how to put this next to your comment. Instead it is orphaned, separated by enough comments that people will wonder, "What is he TALKING about!?"