Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: If You Think Democrats Today are Delusional…
“Now, I’m not obscuring the fact that the feeling of the British public is against the system of slavery, but I don’t see any reason at all why this sentiment should stand in the way of commercial advantages. Great Britain trades with Brazil, which is a slaveholding country, and Great Britain is, moreover the largest customer of the Southern states for the production of slave labor.” –Sen. Robert Barnwell Rhett (D–SC)
This statement attributed to Senator Rhett was beyond delusional, but it was representative of the beliefs that many secessionists in South Carolina maintained in 1860 before secession. As Democrats, they were convinced that G-d was on their side; that importing slaves from Africa was their right (even though it had been ruled illegal by the US government); that even though the British despised slavery and had for many years, they would still do business with slave traders—Rhett along with his fellow secessionists, the fire-eaters, were convinced that secession would be a just process and fairly simple to enact, particularly if Great Britain were on their side.
Needless to say, they were greatly disappointed that their assumptions were not only incorrect but wildly misconceived. The Civil War was just around the corner. One only has to read about the horrors of Reconstruction, too, to know what men will do to seek vengeance.
* * * *
I offer up this quotation to those who can’t understand how the Democrats (in the form of Leftism) live in a contrived reality. The government representatives keep making the same foolish decisions over and over again. They believe they have justice on their side, and somehow, they will be able to carry through on their plans and promises. Day after day we watch their incompetence demonstrated through ill-advised policies; year after year we’ve watched them rely on their senseless ideology and poor judgment. And the mindless violence and destruction of the past year only validates our observations.
You’d think we were living in 1860 all over again.
Hat tip to @seawriter who postulated that we’ve seen this kind of craziness and violence previously in this country, and recommended this book, Our Man in Charleston by Christopher Dickey.
Published in History
Prophetic?
Just in time–an article that tells us that many of the government entities that decided to defund the police now are re-instating or increasing their budgets for law enforcement. I wonder if the huge increase in crime has anything to with their decisions?
Not that most of them will admit.
For a progressive, screwing up means never having to say you’re sorry!
And the people who vote for them never admit it is an issue. It is the voters who are delusional.
Interesting quotation, Susan. I’m not sure how much it applies to progressives, specifically, and if perhaps we should all take the lesson to heart. While I think folks on the left routinely embrace ideas that history and common sense both suggest are bad for us — socialism, racism, puritanism — I don’t know that we get to call the pro-slave South “progressive” in any meaningful sense.
But your larger point, that seemingly irrational people might be acting in ways that make sense within the contexts of their fanciful universes — yes, that’s very believable. And it might provide us a nice alternative to simply assuming that other people are evil.
I don’t think Progressivism was necessarily practiced back them, but most of the secessionists were Democrats and they were the ones who viciously attacked black Republican voters after the Civil War. You make a good point, Hank. Maybe I need to change Progressives to Democrats.
Rhett is right, just not about the UK. He is describing modern US business dealing with China. No matter how many innocent people they butcher, they cannot resist that sweet Chinese cash. In fact most businesses probably wish they had the Chinese system here.
Great example, @omegapaladin! And what about Biden calling Putin a killer and then holding a summit with him?
The distinctions between an “evil” person and an “evil” act have always annoyed me. In terms of the South, the secessionists believed that the black slaves were less than human; I think they were both deluded and evil. I think one is obliged to think carefully about the distinction between the person and the act, and the word “evil,” shouldn’t be thrown around carelessly; at the same time, it might be too easy to rescue a person from the evil label when they should be held accountable for the evil of their act. I hope that makes sense.
In fact, that understanding comes quickly to a person who works with, or has frequent contact with, those who suffer from mental illness. Very often, their bizarre behavior is completely consistent with, and they’re simply following, their internal compass, which tells them that they actually are Napoleon, or Jesus Christ, or whom-or-whatever they believe about themselves.
I’m not saying that everyone who believes something which I believe to be obviously wrong, or clearly misguided, is mentally ill. That’s certainly not the case. But going too far down the path of understanding, to the point where I say, “well, that’s your truth, so it must be just as valid as my truth,” is, IMHO, a bridge too far.
Justice Scalia used to write on opinions he disagreed with, but with which could find no real basis for dissenting, “Stupid, but Constitutional.” I judge the outbursts of many on the Left, in the context of what @henryracette calls their “fanciful universes,” “Delusional, but Consistent.”
***
This is the Quote of the Day. Our sign-up sheet for May is here. May 30 is still available, with free shipping!
June’s sign-up sheet is here, and the days are going fast. Get ’em while they’re hot!
If you’re new at this game, it’s a easy way to get your feet wet and start a conversation; if you’re an old-timer, you already know the ropes. Either way, please sign up to speak up.
Another ongoing project to encourage new voices is our Group Writing Project. May’s theme is “May Day, Mayday, May Days.” If you’re looking to share your own thoughts rather than those of others, please sign up for Group Writing too!
I found this story delicious in the schadenfreude I felt when I read it.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/atlanta-defund-the-police-backer-has-car-stolen-by-kids-in-broad-daylight-reports?fbclid=IwAR1Tp5rx0d7yunSQTW7pWfDl81vBOc9VoGxxsaGm0asiDAnQnY5CVbFSnUg
Now everything about this story is so sad. He’s not filing charges against the kids, because, you know, they are victims of poverty. This man, running for mayor is, also under indictment for other charges. Thanks, @tex929rr.
No, this is 1919 all over again. The Progressive Era. Post-pandemic. Brain-damaged, racist president in office. Communism everywhere. Rioting and strife in the streets. The Karens of America banned alcohol sales.
I would argue that Progressivism was practiced back then. Progressivism relies on the conception that everything must be centrally and mindfully organized for efficient delivery of whatever it is that you are doing. There is the central organizing entity and the organized carrying out the dictates of the organizing entity. The “morality” of such organization beyond efficiency is the superior knowledge or status of the organizing entity over the organized. How does this not fit a plantation? And given the history of what happens over the long term to Progressive societies, how little comfort there is in the initial claims that such organization and loss of individual agency is justified by the “elevation” or “good” for the organized? German Progressivism which was the kernel that seeded all other societies really is Monarchy re-formed. Our leaders might not be any more determined by inheritance, but we certainly have reformulated it as closely as possible by our credentialing system and the organizing forces described in Charles Murray’s Coming Apart. The delusion is that the loss of agency is moral and that there is no consequence to taking that agency.
An excellent clarification, @rodin. Yes, those actions and behaviors were present in the 19th century, but I was alluding to the fact that there wasn’t technically a political party that avowed Progressivism until the 20th century. And I highlighted your closing sentence, because that is precisely what the secessionists did to black Americans: deprive them of their agency. Thanks!
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is unpersuaded. She wants the Chicago PD eschew foot pursuits of people unless the police have probable cause. Now, my personal dealings with the police of late haven’t led to any foot pursuits, and back when I was younger, there was nothing probable about their cause, but somehow I doubt that the CPD is chasing people who don’t need to be chased.
I thought the horrors came during the post-Reconstruction era. I consider all the KKK stuff and Jim Crow to be the horrors. Which horrors do you mean?
I understand your point, but think you’re missing a few things on your history. In 1859, there was a confrontation called the Pig War or Pig and Potato War between the United Kingdom and the United States.
When the CSA was formed, the UK made a declaration of neutrality, with allowed Confederate ships access to ports, the same as the USA had. They were happy to continue trade.
In 1861, a Yankee naval officer nearly provoked a war between the United States and Great Britain in the Trent Affair. And France was prepared to back Britain. Luckily Seward was a good Secretary of State.
Senator Rhett’s position was not terribly far-fetched.
The federal government should have done a lot more to enforce Constitutional rights. Things were worse after Reconstruction ended in 1876. I find the use of “conservative” in the article interesting. It does not fit with my definition of “conservative” (conservative is risk averse), but fits with many others (conserving means preserving).
I’m puzzled by your examples, @arahant. I don’t understand the relationship between the Pig War and the current state of affairs in the U.S. between the secessionists and unionists. And I also found this on Wikipedia:
It got messy because some people supported Grant sending in troops to help establish order, and others hated it. I also think there were Republicans who supported black Republicans and others did not.
The point was that the UK did not have great relations with the United States in general in the Nineteenth Century. That confrontation happened only one year before Senator Rhett’s statement. The Southern States had much better relations wit the UK, mainly due to commercial interests.
Most of the trade ended not because the mill workers or owners weren’t willing, it happened because of the blockade by the United States. As the quote says, British blockade runners got through to help supply the Confederacy. While the UK did remain neutral, it was a much closer thing than you implied above.
Going back to your point about modern Progressives, I agree with it. But the Southern belief that the UK might intervene was not nearly as delusional.
We can agree to disagree. ;-)
Are you kidding? Not only are they chasing people just for fun, they’re also shooting black people just for target practice!
Why didn’t he call the social workers?
If those cities think they’re going to get back all the cops who left because they were being dissed for a year or more, they really are crazy.
They have to have known there would be this increase in crime if they defunded the police and hobbled them in other ways.