The Two Horns of Dilemma

[Henry Moon]

Responses to a Dilemma

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance Robert Pirsig outlines possible responses to a dilemma. The classical responses are to either choose one of the two horns and refute the other or alternatively to refute both horns by showing that there are additional choices. Pirsig then mentions three illogical or rhetorical responses. One can "throw sand in the bull's eyes" by, for example, questioning the competence of the questioner. One can "sing the bull to sleep" by, for example, stating that the answer to the question is beyond one's own humble powers and asking the questioner for help. Finally one can "refuse to enter the arena" by, for example, stating that the question is unanswerable.

Some other dilemmas:

Named dilemmas

Euthyphro dilemma
Hedgehog's dilemma
Platonia dilemma
Prisoner's dilemma
Security dilemma
Stagflation
Warnock's Dilemma

http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Dilemna

[Belle]

Terry:

Thanks for giving us an introduction to what hopefully will be a compelling new thread!

Belle~

[Belle]

One final word and, I fear, just a bit off topic: unprepared for emancipation. Nonsense. What had these slaves been doing all their lives? Working. Does the work go away? No. Who will be doing the tilling and repairing and operating and building? Former slaves. To say that the slaves had not been prepared for emancipation is to acknowledge that they were, in fact, incapable of taking care of themselves and were better off under the care and feeding of a master. (I know you didn't say that, Rose, but it seemed to fit in here.)

Ole:

Many people, including President Lincoln, did not think slaves were capable of taking care of themselves:

Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln's First Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858:

I hate [indifference to slavery] because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world-enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites-causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become tiptop Abolitionists; while some Northern ones go South, and become most cruel slave-masters.

When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution.

My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,-to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.

When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.

But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave-trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbid the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter."

I have reason to know that Judge Douglas knows that I said this. I think he has the answer here to one of the questions he put to me. I do not mean to allow him to catechise me unless he pays back for it in kind. I will not answer questions one after another, unless he reciprocates; but as he has made this inquiry, and I have answered it before, he has got it without my getting anything in return. He has got my answer on the Fugitive Slave law.

Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any greater length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. [Laughter.] I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.]

Where is the nobility in offering a race of people "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and the "right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else;" while at the same time admitting that your race is superior and that blacks are "morally, politically, intellectually, and socially" inferior, which will "probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality?" Where is the hope and freedom for an entire race of people if they could not live 'on equal footing' with another?

How does working on cotton plantations, tilling, building, and repairing, prepare blacks for emancipation if there's no one to hire them; and there exists extreme prejudice on either side of the Mason Dixon Line?

Along with the above, Mr. Lincoln also points out the folly in attempting to send blacks to Liberia, even though five years later he attempted that very thing.  In his speech, the President acknowledges the dilemma of the slavery issue, clearly states that he has no idea how to resolve such a complex problem; and further conveys that he does not judge the South for having no solution in sight.

It seems to me Ole that most of America, at the time of the Civil War, believed blacks to be far lower in intelligence (amongst other things) than white people; and with that universal mindsight, blacks were not considered to be capable of independent living.

Belle~

[Belle]

I had to go back a few pages to find this. Have you done this, Belle? I tend to get exercised on occasion when a question is asked and then lost in a fast-paced discussion. I believe that a "proven fact" must be proved--sooner or later.

All I want to see is a marked disparity between white and black deaths from natural causes during reconstruction. "Natural causes" intentionally excludes those hung or otherwise murdered.

Ole:

I have indeed contacted the Library of Congress and only heard back from them since I returned from holidays.  The LOC has suggested perusing the National Archives for stats at: www.archives.gov.  They've also suggested reading material as below, along with an additional list of 25 books on the reconstruction years, if you would like me to post these as well.  I've previously listed my own source books which discuss various hardships during the reconstruction years.

1. Intimate reconstructions: Children in postemancipation Virginia
by Jones, Catherine A., Ph.D., The Johns Hopkins University, 2007, 324 pages;
AAT 3240739
       Abstract  |  24 Page Preview  |  Full Text - PDF (20 MB)  |   Order a
copy 
 
   2. Freedpeople's democracy: African-American politics and community in
postemancipation Natchez District
by Behrend, Justin J., Ph.D., Northwestern University, 2006, 550 pages; AAT
3230114
       Abstract  |  24 Page Preview  |  Full Text - PDF (2 MB)  |   Order a copy 
 
   3. New voices in the old dominion: Black politics in the Virginia southside
region and the city of Richmond, 1867--1902
by Carey, Hampton D., Ph.D., Columbia University, 2000, 345 pages; AAT 9970162
       Abstract  |  24 Page Preview  |  Full Text - PDF (14 MB)  |   Order a
copy 
 
   4. The gender of Reconstruction: Rape, race, and citizenship in the
postemancipation South
by Rosen, Hannah, Ph.D., The University of Chicago, 1999, 476 pages; AAT 9951830
       Abstract  |  24 Page Preview  |  Full Text - PDF (23 MB)  |   Order a
copy 
 
   5. Uncle Ned's children: Negotiating community and freedom in
postemancipation Richmond, Virginia
by Brown, Elsa Barkley, Ph.D., Kent State University, 1994, 624 pages; AAT
9534491
       Abstract  |  24 Page Preview  |  Full Text - PDF (34 MB)  |   Order a
copy 
 
3. "Coolies" and cane: Race, labor, and sugar production in Louisiana,
1852--1877
by Jung, Moon-Ho, Ph.D., Cornell University, 2000, 614 pages; AAT 9967572
       Abstract  |  24 Page Preview  |  Full Text - PDF (31 MB)  |   Order a
copy 
 
Transforming work: Slavery, free labor, and the household in southwest Georgia,
1850-1880
by O'Donovan, Susan Eva, Ph.D., University of California, San Diego, 1997, 536
pages; AAT 9808979
       Abstract  |  24 Page Preview  |  Full Text - PDF (20 MB)  |   Order a
copy 
 
   3. Before dusk: Race, labor, and status in Louisiana, 1865--1900
by Steedman, Marek David, Ph.D., University of Michigan, 2003, 208 pages; AAT
3106168
       Abstract  |  24 Page Preview  |  Full Text - PDF (10 MB)  |   Order a
copy 
 
   4. Emancipation to empire: Race, labor, and ideology in the New South
by Clune, Erin Elizabeth, Ph.D., New York University, 2002, 244 pages; AAT
3048806
       Abstract  |  24 Page Preview  |  Full Text - PDF (11 MB)  |   Order a
copy 

Belle~
 

[Henry Moon]

Belle, thank you for suggesting this thread and its title, and leading the charge, so to speak.  It's a hot topic you'll be discussin' for sure, lass. You'll need ta put a fine edge on yer sabre.



Terry

[Belle]

Terry:

My sabre is sharpened, so let the games begin...I do hope you'll join the field!

Belle~

[ole]

Many people, including President Lincoln, did not think slaves were capable of taking care of themselves:

That "they" thought it is a given. That "we" think it is quite another matter.

ole

[ole]

I have indeed contacted the Library of Congress and only heard back from them since I returned from holidays.  The LOC has suggested perusing the National Archives for stats at: www.archives.gov.  They've also suggested reading material as below, along with an additional list of 25 books on the reconstruction years, if you would like me to post these as well.  I've previously listed my own source books which discuss various hardships during the reconstruction years.

Am more than gratified that you have a reading list. In that list, where does it say that blacks suffered disproportionately with whites during reconstruction?

ole

[Belle]

In that list, where does it say that blacks suffered disproportionately with whites during reconstruction?

Ole:

I didn't say that blacks suffered disproportionately with whites during the reconstruction years, but it stands to reason that they did, and then some, as a result of emancipation.  This is what I questioned, and commented on: 

"Do you think that blacks were better off as slaves - fed, sheltered, protected, and even loved by some Southerners; or 'free' to wander aimlessly, unable to find employment; starve, suffer persecution everywhere they went; or even die as a result of disease or untreated illnesses during the Reconstruction years?  Without a responsible plan by the Federal government, that is exactly what happened when four million black people were set 'free.'  Invisible shackles comes to mind."

I didn't offer stats, but I'm sure you will find this information through the reading material and links that I've provided from the LOC.

Belle~

[Belle]

Andrew Johnson's Veto of the First Reconstruction Bill
2 March 1867

Washington, D.C., March 2, 1867
 
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
I have examined the bill to provide for the more efficient government of the Rebel States' with care and anxiety which its transcendent importance is calculated to awaken. I am unable to give it my assent for reasons so grave that I hope a statement of them may have some influence on the minds of the patriotic and enlightened men with whom the decision must ultimately rest.

The bill places all the people of the ten States therein named under the absolute domination of military rule; and the preamble undertakes to give the reason upon which the measure is based and the ground upon which it is justified. It declares that there exists in those States no legal governments and no adequate protection for life or property, and asserts the necessity of enforcing peace and good order within their limits. This is not true as a matter of fact.

It is not denied that the States in question have each of them an actual government, with all the powers -- executive, judicial, and legislative -- which properly belong to a free State. They are organized like the other States of the Union, and, like them, they make, administer, and execute the laws which concern their domestic affairs. An existing de facto government, exercising such functions as these, is itself the law of the State upon all matters within its jurisdiction. To pronounce the supreme law making power of an established State illegal is to say that law itself is unlawful.

The provisions which these governments have made for the preservation of order, the suppression of crime, and the redress of private injuries are in substance and principle the same as those which prevail in the Northern States and in other civilized countries. They certainly have not succeeded in preventing the commission of all crime, nor has this been accomplished any where in the world.... But that people are maintaining local governments for themselves which habitually defeat the object of all government and render their own lives and property insecure is in itself utterly improbable, and the averment of the bill to that effect is not supported by any evidence which has come to my knowledge.

The bill, however, would seem to show upon its face that the establishment of peace and good order is not its real object. The fifth section declares that the preceding sections shall cease to operate in any State where certain events shall have happened. These events are, first, the selection of delegates to a State convention by an election at which Negroes shall be allowed to vote; second, the formation of a State constitution by the convention so chosen; third, the insertion into the State constitution of a provision which will secure the right of voting at all elections to Negroes and to such white men as may not be disfranchised for rebellion or felony; fourth, the submission of the constitution for ratification by their vote; fifth, the submission of the State constitution to Congress for examination and approval, and the actual approval of it by that body; sixth, the adoption of a certain amendment to the Federal Constitution by a vote of Legislature elected under the new constitution; seventh, the adoption of said amendment by a sufficient number of other States to make it a part of the Constitution of the United States. All these conditions must be fulfilled before the people of any of these States can be relieved from the bondage of military domination; but when they are fulfilled, then immediately the pains and penalties of the bill are to cease, no matter whether there be peace and order or not, and without any reference to the security of life or property.

The excuse given for the bill in the preamble is one of necessity. The military rule which it establishes is plainly to be used, not for any purpose of order or for the prevention of crime, but solely as a means of coercing the people into the adoption of principles and measures to which it is known that they are opposed, and upon which they have an undeniable right to exercise their own judgment.

I submit to Congress whether this measure is not in its whole character, scope, and object without precedent and without authority, in palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood, and expended so much treasure.

The ten States named in the bill are divided into five districts. For each district an officer of the Army, not below the rank of a brigadier-general, is to be appointed to rule over the people; and he is to be supported with an efficient military force to enable him to perform his duties and enforce his authority. Those duties and that authority, as defined by the third section of the bill, are "to protect all persons in their rights of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence, and to punish or cause to be punished all disturbers of the public peace or criminals." The power thus given to the commanding officer over all the people of each district is that of an absolute monarch. His mere will is to take the place of all law. The law of the States is now the only rule applicable to the subjects placed under his control, and that is completely displaced by the clause which declares all interference of State authority to be null and void. He alone is permitted to determine what are rights of person or property, and he may protect them in such a way as in his discretion may seem proper. It places at his free disposal all the lands and goods in his district, and he may distribute them without let or hindrance to whom he pleases. Being bound by no State law, and there being no other law to regulate the subject, he may make a criminal code of his own; and he can make it as bloody as any recorded in history or he can reserve the privilege of acting upon the impulse of his private passions in each case that arises. He is bound by no rules of evidence; there is indeed no provision by which he is authorized or required to take any evidence at all. Every thing is a crime which he chooses to call so, and all persons are condemned whom he pronounces to be guilty. He is not bound to keep any record or make any report of his proceedings. He may arrest his victims wherever he finds them, without warrant, accusation, or proof of probable cause. If he gives them a trial before he inflicts the punishment, he gives it of his grace and mercy, not because he is commanded so to do.

Cruel or unusual punishment is not to be inflicted, but who is to decide what is cruel and what is unusual?... Each officer may define cruelty according to his own temper, and if it is not usual, he will make it usual. Corporal punishment, imprisonment, the gag, the ball and chain, and the almost insupportable forms of torture invented for military punishment lie within the range of choice. The sentence of a commission is not to be executed without being approved by the commander, if it affects life or liberty, and a sentence of death must be approved by the President. This applies to cases in which there has been a trial and sentence. I take it to be clear, under this bill, that the military commander may condemn to death without even the form of a trial by a military commission, so that the life of the condemned may depend upon the will of two men instead of one.

It is plain that the authority here given to the military officer amounts to absolute despotism. But to make it still more unendurable, the bill provides that it may be delegated to as many subordinates as he chooses to appoint, for it declares that he shall "punish or cause to be punished." Such a power has not been wielded by any Monarch in England for more than five hundred years. In all that time no people who speak the English language have borne such servitude. It reduces the whole population of the ten States -- all persons, of every color, sex and condition, and every stranger within their limits -- to the most abject and degrading slavery. No master ever had a control so absolute over the slaves as this bill gives to the military officers over both white and colored persons.

I come now to a question which is, if possible, still more important. Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like this? I answer, "Certainly not," if we derive our authority from the Constitution and if we are bound by the limitations which it imposes. This proposition is perfectly clear, that no branch of the Federal Government -- executive, legislative, or judicial -- can have any just powers except those which it derives through and exercises under the organic laws of the Union. Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects. It protects not only the citizens of States which are within the Union, but it shields every human being who comes or is brought under our jurisdiction. We have no right to do in one place more than in another that which the Constitution says we shall not do at all. If, therefore, the Southern States were in truth out of the Union, we could not treat their people in a way which the fundamental law forbids. Some persons assume that the success of our arms in crushing the opposition which was made in some of the States to the execution of the Federal laws reduced those States and all their people -- the innocent as well as the guilty -- to the condition of vassalage and gave us a power over them which the Constitution does not bestow or define or limit. No fallacy can be more transparent than this. Our victories subjected the insurgents to legal obedience, not to the yoke of an arbitrary despotism. When an absolute sovereign reduces his rebellious subjects, he may deal with them according to his pleasure, because he had that power before. But when a limited monarch puts down an insurrection, he must still govern according to law.

If an insurrection should take place in one of our States against the authority of the State government, and end in the overthrowing of those who planned it, would they take away the rights of all the people of the counties where it was favored by a part or a majority of the population? Could they for such a reason be wholly outlawed and deprived of their representation in the Legislature? I have always contended that the Government of the United States was sovereign within its constitutional sphere; that it executed its laws like the States themselves, by applying its coercive power directly to individuals; and that it could put down insurrection with the same effect as a State and no other. The opposite doctrine is the worst heresy of those who advocated secession, and can not be agreed to without admitting that heresy to be right.

This is a bill passed by Congress in time of peace. There is not in any one of the States brought under its operation either war or insurrection. The laws of the States and of the Federal Government are all in undisturbed and harmonious operation. The courts, State and Federal, are open and in the full exercise of their proper authority. Over every State comprised in these five military districts, life, and property are secured by State laws and Federal laws, and the National Constitution is every where in force and every where obeyed. What, then is the ground on which the bill proceeds? The title of the bill announces that it is intended "for the more efficient government" of these ten States. It is recited by way of preamble that no legal State Governments "nor adequate protection for life or property" exist in those States, and that peace and good order should be thus recitals, which prepare the way for martial law, is this, that the only foundation upon which martial law can exist under our form of Government is not stated or so much as pretended. Actual war, foreign invasion, domestic insurrection -- none of these appear, and none of these in fact exist. It is not even recited that any sort of war or insurrection is threatened. Let us pause to consider, upon this question of constitutional law and power of Congress, a recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in ex parte Milligan, I will first quote from the opinion of the majority of the Court: "Martial law can not arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present, the invasion real, such as effectually closes the courts and deposes the civil administration."

...cont'd