LE: Miller and the Culture of Morality in American Politics

When reading the chapter on Miller, and seeing the stance of the Liberty Party in the election of Clay vs. Polk, their moral reasoning cost Clay the election.  This was certainly not the only time that a third party cost the election for the party that it actually had more in common with.

The idea that "morally speaking," one should not vote for a given candidate, for reason 'x,' and (supposing this person is against reasons x,y, and z) causing a different candidate of whom supports reasons x,y, and z (and not just x, as the given candidate did) seems to be a deeply flawed concept, which places more emphasis on deflecting personal responsibility (wiping the hands clean, if you will) than actually acting in a way that ensures the greatest moral outcome, relative to the voter's moral system.

I think Miller, in dissecting the moral argument of the Liberty Party, via Licoln's original argument, unearths an important aspect of American Politics; that is seems, the only way to introduce a 'moral' theory, or idea into a party platform involves great oversimplification, and inevitably, ruins the moral principle that originated the idea.

It seems that most politicians do not attempt to integrate any sort of complex moral reasoning into a party platform, because it either cannot be digested by the average voter, or because it can easily be taken out of context by political pundits.  Any 'moral' theory that survives this scrutiny becomes thwarted by simplification and quite often, becomes a prideful and dogmatic 'do' or 'do not' imperative.  Thoughts?

LE: Solutions for Slavery: Gopnik vs. the Whig Party

We've discussed a lot in class that suggests that Lincoln, as a good Whig party member, thought that slavery could be extinguished simply by containing it, and letting it die out.  Obviously, the science of fertilizers could have proved Lincoln very wrong.

Nonetheless, I got the feeling from the packet by Gopnik that he personally thought that Lincoln would have been able to deal with slavery using legal strategy, if the Union stayed together- this idea is clearly a little different than the Whig party's more indirect way of extinction- could both factors have been possible ways that Lincoln planned on dealing with slavery, had the country stayed intact?

Clearly, the Whig extinction theory would still have needed to involve legal theory, but once again, (to me) it seems that Gopnik was trying to say that Lincoln could've (eventually) ended slavery by actually living up to the phrase 'equality under the law,' and not by implementing a strategic and indirect plan which the Whigs had championed at the time.  Thoughts?

LE: The Power of Legacy, Legend, and Idealism

We've discussed at length in class about the 'legend' of Abraham Lincoln.  Many of the founding fathers also fall into this category, and are even called 'demi-gods' by some historians.  The legacy that a person leaves can often create the legend that future generations will come to know, and from legend, rises idealism.  When looking at the 'legend' of any person, the muddiness of their true human life is swept under the rug, and idealism fits the person who wishes to 'model after,' said person.

Perhaps, this is why many historians, scholars, and people often go through great lengths to debunk legends, not out of malice for that person, but out of fear, that the truths they stood for, the ideas that they championed, would become distorted or superimposed on others, solely due to the nostalgic and favorable weathering of time.

Why does this happen so often?  Historical figures never cease to be idealized, enshrined, and immortalized.  It seems to me, that the human mind has a remarkable capacity to believe that a given person was or is or will be great, in every way possible.  This capacity is coupled with a second remarkable capacity- the ability to become surprised every time we discover that every human life is inherently messy, and every decision, person, and idea, is always more complex than it seems.

LE: Mill on the Voice of the Slaves

I think Mill had a great point in his letter, that the voice of the South was championed by very few, and very wealthy aristocrats.  Mill goes on to say that even if slaves in the South were not to be counted as full humans, their suffering should still be taken into account.  With that being said, Mill clearly recognizes the slaves in the South as fully functioning and unequivocally equal to all other human beings.

What strikes me is this; that even if Mill were to hold the opinion that many people had at the time, that the slaves were not equal to free men, his philosophy still lead him to believe that the South was not justified in seceding or simply in speaking for them.  Thoughts?