The entrenched humanitarians of an older generation might deplore, as Lord Denman did in 1848, the fact that public opinion on the subject of slavery had suffered "a lamentable and disgraceful change". They might note as evidence of a narrowing of sympathy the remark of the Economist of July 25, 1846, that "the duty of England is to its own subjects, not to the natives of Africa or the slaves of the Brazils" and its yet more forthright assertion on February 26th that the slave trade was "the only practical mode which has yet been discovered by which a communication can be opened and maintained between Africa and the civilized world".Context: Parliament abolished the slave trade in 1807 and abolished slavery everywhere in the Empire in 1833. The issue here, as Burn notes, was the future of the West Africa Squadron, which (per Wiki), "[b]etween 1808 and 1860, ... seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard."
---
ETA: Off-topic but not perhaps enough for a separate post so I'll stick it here. I was at the Boston Review site just now and on their "most read" list there's a piece by James Galbraith from 2003 arguing the JFK-had-ordered-a-withdrawal-from-Vietnam thesis. I didn't take the time to read it, just scrolled through, but was interested given the persistent harping on this point by a particular Crooked Timber commenter who doesn't seem to be posting there anymore. Call me a snob or something, but a lengthy piece by James Galbraith makes me take notice a bit more than a pseudonymous blog commenter does. Not expressing a view on the substance.
Posts
7 comments:
The Economist - wrong on everything since 1843, but still the favourite read of the VSPs.
Ha, yes. I've never taken a subscription to it but have read it v. occasionally. The reporting is sometimes v. good I guess, when it isn't obvs. filtered through their editorial lens (which I imagine it sometimes is).
Just discovered I made a mistake re Civil War history in an LGM thread -- the details of the mil. hist. of the CW not my thing, obvs. In the great tradition of Internet courtesy (cough), I typed "thks, I stand corrected." The matter was a Union general, Pope, taking command of 'the Army of Virginia,' which I assumed must be wrong -- but it's right. A mite confusing, though, imo.
I used to read it for work - to discover what the higher-ups would have on their minds in the coming week. It was good for that. The reporting was so-so - not as bad as the Murdoch press, which filters everything through its ideological lens - but still slanted.
LFC
I skimmed through the Galbraith article.
Interesting. While conceding that the Majority opinion is tha Johnson just continued Kennedy's policies, he points to a very thin strand evidence that Kennedy decided to make a gradual withdraw a month before his assassination.
A problem I see with his argument.
Such a withdrawal would require Kennedy to tell people in the defense and state departments who would need to do a good bit of advance work which would leave a large (if classified) paper trail. He does not point to any such evidence even though it would strengthen his argument.
I think his argument that Kennedy make a withdrawal decision is possible but highly unlikely. At most he makes a case that Johnson did not make a straight line continuation of Kennedy's policies.
-----------------
Like may other authors he seems to see the Vietnamese (North and South) as inanimate objects that just respond to US action, rather than people with their own objectives and ability to choose courses of action and change them to circumstances. Things would not have happened as he envisions. Both North nd South would have reacted when they realized the US was in effect abandoning the south. Actually this was a common problem of both left ad right during the war and in post war analysis.
The result of such a decision would have been tragic though not as tragic as what happened.
Hank
Hank's Eclectic Meanderings
Well Hank, I didn't really even skim it, so you've done more than I have w/ it. As for the substance of your comment, must wait till tomorrow, as I've been on the computer for a while and have to get off.
Such a withdrawal would require Kennedy to tell people in the defense and state departments who would need to do a good bit of advance work which would leave a large (if classified) paper trail. He does not point to any such evidence even though it would strengthen his argument.
Seems like a good point. As I say, though, I didn't read the piece.
Another thing to factor in, maybe, is that James G's father, the economist J.K. Galbraith, knew JFK and served as his ambassador to India. Whether this family connection is relevant to James's view here, I don't know. But thought I'd mention it anyway.
Post a Comment