Talk:This Dust Was Once the Man

The foulest crime in any land or age
This seems more likely a reference to slavery itself - a crime, an institution found in many lands and many ages - against which both Whitman and Lincoln set themselves. 166.181.254.115 (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Obviously!!! I was surprised at how the article misses the mark on that one. In fact I came to the talk page to comment on it too, precisely. Apparently nowadays most people can't understand but the literal.RosameliaMartinezTorres (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There isn't really scholarly analysis establishing that connection. Feel free to present it, if I have missed it. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you actually read the article, Vendler does support this interpretation, but far more scholars consider it more likely he was talking about secession or Lincoln. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I also think whitman was much more concerned by secession and the breaking up of the union than slavery, to be completely honest. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it's absurd to say that Lincoln saved the Union from.... himself being assassinated? I guess everyone is tiptoeing around it, but although Lincoln was a great president, he was certainly assassinated, hence the elegy in the first place 2601:641:400:B2A:9496:C5FB:DBDD:E868 (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly my thought. Under his hand he saved the Union from his own assassination, makes absolutely no sense. None! I would be embarrassed to call myself a scholar after suggesting such an interpretation. It's frankly surprising that these other gentlemen could keep their demeanor around such nonsense. Furthermore, this to me is obviously a reference to slavery. Obviously! I mean, would Whitman have gotten so worked up about Brexit? Not everyone at the time thought secession was a crime. Even if it was a foul crime, good luck convincing anyone that it's "the foulest crime in history known in any land or age". Seriously! So yeah, I understand there can be differences of opinion, but to not so much as consider slavery is practically, for all intents and purposes, racist. Yet as we all know, there wasn't a single racist bone among the scholars of the day, right? DAVilla (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)