Broken heart reacts only. 💔

Welp, time to get a shovelin'

Imagine living in a place like this

Issue has been resolved

No poor-cel can solve this problem

Me as a dog

Most hydrophilic city dweller

Why would you spend time listening to podcasts when you could be reading letters written by 19th century men regarding the institution of slavery?

In reading the opening of Hammond's letter to Clarkson, I find myself struck by the rhetorical skill on display. Hammond begins by acknowledging Clarkson's long engagement with the subject of slavery, noting that "Familiar as you have been with the discussions of this subject in all its aspects, and under all the excitements it has occasioned for sixty years past, I may not be able to present much that will be new to you." This respectful nod to his interlocutor's expertise is a savvy way to open the dialogue, even as the phrase "under all the excitements" subtly suggests that Clarkson's passion may have clouded his judgment.

Hammond then pivots to sowing doubt about Clarkson's ability to fully comprehend the southern situation: "While there are peculiarities in the operation of every social system, and special local as well as moral causes materially affecting it, which no one, placed at the distance you are from us, can fully comprehend or properly appreciate." Here he implies that Clarkson's geographical remove from the American South limits his understanding of the complex realities on the ground. This is a clever move, as it allows Hammond to position himself as the voice of experience and firsthand knowledge.

Finally, Hammond presents his pro-slavery stance as a "novelty" to Clarkson, describing himself as "one who conscientiously believes the Domestic Slavery of these States to be not only an inexorable necessity for the present, but a moral and humane institution, productive of the greatest political and social advantages, and who is disposed, as I am, to defend it on these grounds." By framing his position as principled and even morally enlightened, Hammond sets the stage to argue for slavery as a positive good, not merely a necessary evil for productivity in the South.

I find myself wanting to absorb some of these techniques into my own rhetorical arsenal, to learn how to begin a persuasive letter with such a deft mix of courtesy and cunning.

Hammond eloquenty explains that we ought not seek to correct century old problems of justice long after all those involved have passed:

The wisdom of ages has concurred in the justice aud expediency of establishing rights by prenoscriptive use, however tortuous in their origin they may have been. You would deem a man insane, whose keen sense of equity would lead him to denounce your right to the lands you hold, and which perhaps you inherited from a long line of ancestry, because your noscript was derived from a Saxon or Norman conqueror, and your lands were originally wrested by violence from the vanquish- ed Britons. And so would the New England Abolitionist regard any one who would insist that he should restore his farm to the descendants of the slaughtered red men to whom God had as clearly given it as he gave life and freedom to the kidnapped African. That time does not consecrate wrong, is a fallacy which all history exposes ; and which the best and wisest men of all ages and professions of religious faith have practically denied. The means, therefore , whatever they may have been, by which the African race now in this country have been reduced to slavery, cannot affect us, since they are our property, as your land is yours, by inheritance or purchase and prenoscriptive right.

This argument reads like a more eloquent version of some rightoid Youtuber responding to rabid leftist demands to return American land to the Injuns. Funny how there's nothing new under the sun, eh?

It really do be like that sometimes

Shots fired:

It may be regarded as a mark of our want of excitability -though that is a quality accredited to us in an eminent degree-that fewof the remarkable religious isms of the present day have taken root among us. We have been so irreverent as to laugh at Mormonism and Millerism, which have created such commotions farther North ; and modern Prophets have no honor in our country. Shakers, Rappists, Dunkers, Socialists, Fourierists, and the like, keep themselves afar off. Even Puseyism has not yet moved us. You may attribute this to our Domestic Slavery if you choose. I believe you would do so justly . There is no material here for such characters to operate upon.

Hammond claims that one of the most common charges brought by abolitionists is that slavery produces "constant intercourse between white males and colored females," and that therefore slavery should be abolished. Anybody here read enough abolitionist literature to know whether his claim is accurate?

Guys... You're not going to believe this... But it looks like... Cities might be... Bad?!?

It is said [by abolitionists] that the licentiousness [of the slave owning South] consists in the constant intercourse between white males and colored females. One of your heavy charges against us has been that we regard and treat these people as brutes ; you now charge us with habitually taking them to our bosoms. I will not comment on the inconsistency of these accusations. I will not deny that some intercourse of the sort does take place. Its character and extent, however, are grossly and atrociously exaggerated . No authority, divine or human. has yet been found sufficient to arrest all such irregularities among men. But it is a known fact, that they are perpetrated here, for the most part, in the cities. Very few mulattoes are reared on our plantations. In the cities a large proportion of the inhabitants do not own slaves. A still larger proportion are na- tives of the North or foreigners.... After all, however, the number of the mixed breed in proportion to that of the black is infinitely small, and out of the towns next to nothing.

Hammond is pretty wise regarding population dynamics. He's got some poignant economic analysis regarding slavery vs hiring laborers. You see, slavery seems to preferable only when the population isn't very dense, and so there's lots of land available for people to put to productive use. Once the population is dense, though, we end up in a situation where people will gladly work for the bare necessities since, given the dense population, they've lost the ability to be anywhere near self-sustaining:

In an economical point of view-which I will not omit-Slavery presents some difficulties. As a general rule, I agree it must be admitted, that free labor is cheaper than Slave labor. It is a fallacy to suppose that ours is unpaid labor. The slave himself must be paid for, and thus his labor is all purchased at once, and for no trifling sum. His price was in the first place paid mostly to your countrymen, and assisted in building up some of those colossal English fortunes since illustrated by patents of nobility, and splendid piles of architecture , stained and cemented, if you like the expression, with the blood of kidnapped innocents; but loaded with no heavier curses than Abolition and its begotten fanaticisms have brought upon your land-some of them fulfilled , some yet to be. But besides the first cost of the slave, he must be fed and clothed-well fed and well clothed, if not for humanity's sake, that he may do good work, retain health and life, and rear a family to supply his place. When old or sick he is a clear expense, and so is the helpless portion of his family. No poor law provides for him when unable to work, or brings up his children for our service when we need them. These are all heavy charges on slave labor. Hence, in all countries where the denseness of the population has reduced it to a matter of perfect certainty that labor can be obtained whenever wanted, and the laborer be forced by sheer necessity to hire for the smallest pittance that will keep soul and body together, and rags upon his back while in actual employment-dependent at all other times on alms or poor rates-in all such countries it is found cheaper to pay this pittance, than to clothe, feed, nurse, support through childhood , and pension in old age, a race of slaves. Indeed, the advantage is so great as speedily to compensate for the loss of the value of the slave. And I have no hesitation in saying that if I could cultivate my lands on these terms I would without a word, resign my slaves, provided they could be properly disposed of. But the question is, whether free or slave labor is cheapest to us in this country at this time, situated as we are. And it is decided at once by the fact that we cannot avail ourselves of any other than slave labor. We neither have nor can we procure other labor to any extent, or on anything like the terms mentioned . We must therefore content ourselves with our dear labor, under the consoling reflection that what is lost to us, is gained to humanity; and that inasmuch as our slave costs us more than your free man costs you, by so much is he better off. You will promptly say, emancipate your slaves, and then you will have free labor on suitable terms. That might be if there were five hundred where there now is one, and the continent , from the Atlantic to the Pacific, was as densely populated as your Island. But until that comes to pass, no labor can be procured in America on the terms you have.

Who's getting some donuts with their McGriddles tomorrow morning?

Yoopers are some wacky folks, eh

By some point in the 1970s, people began referring to residents of the Upper Peninsula as “Yoopers.” The word was phonetically derived from the abbreviation “UP’er.” Some­ thing about the growth of big government and its increasing interference in local affairs and the lives of ordinary citizens had many Yoopers riled up by the middle of that decade. The phenome­non of big government played a role in fostering the rise of renewed interest in separate statehood for the U.P.

Ted's former legal secretary said,

“The 51st State of Superior movement had already been es­ tablished by the time I arrived in October 1972. He talked about it, but I wasn't involved in any of the activity at that time.

“I do recall locals saying that we shouldn’t become a state, that we should secede from the Union and become an independent country known as Superior. That way, the story goes, we would receive foreign aid and be paid to allow U.S. military installations to guard against polar missile attacks from the Russians. In addi­tion, we would control the trade through entry into Lake Superior from the Soo locks, and develop our own minerals and expansive forests controlled by the state and federal governments! Folks were very angry about our double-digit unemployment rate at the time while watching millions of dollars go to third world countries.”

What a time to encounter this passage:

Mumford also revived the reputations of a number of American architects, engineers, and environmentalists, among them Henry Hobson Richardson, Louis Sullivan, Frederick Law Olmsted, George Perkins Marsh, and John A. and Washington Roebling, builders of the Brooklyn Bridge -"a poem," Mumford called it, "in granite and steel."