Sure...sure.....those Northern congressmen were wringing their hands over the welfare of the slave.
So much so that they wanted those territories reserved for free white labor. No blacks allowed.
No one says so around here. In fact, you seem to be the only one who even mentions it. Why is that?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
You are being obstinate and argumentative. Of course compared to our modern day standards of morality and decency, folks in the 19th century had it rough. All of 'em did. Not just the slaves, but the freedmen, free land owners, white yeoman's and artisans too. I would definetly agree w/ you there. Life is much easier today.
Don't think you're going to get off with saying that slaves were only farmhands either. That just ain't so. Black African slaves on plantations in the United States of America had all kinds of highly sought after and specialized skills. Sawyers, carpenters, wheelwrights, stone masons and black smiths just to name a few. No, I think them that ended up here got the fortunate end of the stick compared to their black brethren, 95% of whom ended up in the West Indies or Central and South America. To a degree i would agree w/ you on that point. The black man of the US got along quite well in comparison to his brethern in the Indies, Cuba Haiti etc.
Yes they did get room, board, clothing, transportation, healthcare, training, job security and retirement and no it wasn't CHEAP Labor! It was VERY cheap labor, IIRC I've seen the number of $20 a year for the average slave in 1860; though I don't recall where that came from. The slave cabins were haphazard at best generally built & improved upon by the slaves themselves at very little cost to the owner. Training was either on the job or apprenticeship... the most costly being apprenticeship. A gracious owner might allow a trained artisan slave to keep up to 10% of his wages, some more most less. Clothing was as cheap as possible, again this varied from owner to owner w/ extremes on both sides of the spectrum. Transportation... their own two feet generally. Job security... only so long as the slave was useful; then he was sold down the river or if financial difficulties came about he/she could be sold off w/ no respect to the slaves wishes or their families. Retirement... that is quite the quandry as some owners certainly provided quite well for their slaves until their death. Here's a hint have you ever seen a SC slave cemetery... no markers.
but FREE Labor is!
and another thing ....
I'm sick and tired of hearing about how evil American Slaveholders were and how they were so quick to beat their slaves and sell their families off. BULL-HOCKEY! Many were quite brutal, Howell Cobb to name just one, not all were so brutal but enough were to sicken the average soldier who saw their handiwork. Some of us grow tired of those who take every opportunity to slander the American soldier... welcome to the club of the frustrated.
American slaveholders were good to their slaves. They had to be good to 'em. they were too danged expensive not to take good care of 'em. American farmers take good care of their property. They always have and they always will. Do you think they rode their draft horses hard and put 'em away wet? Not Hardly! Maybe some did, once in a while, but they were far and away the exception rather than the norm. How much more so do you think they cared about their black African slaves? A lot more sir. A lot more. Personally, I believe that the average slaveowner treated his slaves like you or I would treat a car or truck.
Was American slavery as bad as Cuban or South American... not in general. But it was brutal and evil enough to make me sick and i assure you I do not have a weak stomach.
OIJ, there are a variety of degrees of brutality to slavery. Was the average slave well treated? IMO not only no but hell no. Illegal for them to learn to read, they had to ask permission of their owner to marry and their children were not their but their owners. Woman did not have the right to say no. Their own bodies were minds not their own but their owners.
Would you be willing to allow your children the life of a SC slave? I would die preventing such an abomination; others mileage may vary.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Would you be willing to allow your children the life of a SC slave?
You make it sound like I'm advocating for slavery johan_steele. I ain't advocating no such thing. I never have and I never will advocate for slavery.
I am opposed to the notion that this Great Unpleasantness was all about freeing the black man from the clutches of evil white slave traders who raped and beat 'em repeatedly and sold their families off down the river. That's just neo-abolitionist modern day reconstructionist rhetoric designed to put down the modern day white man with Southern ancestry. You all are still prosecuting reconstruction. You have been for 145 years.
Get off your friggin high horse. Slavery didn't start in Virginia and it didn't end there either. There's precedence FOR slavery in the Bible. It existed long before the United States of America was ever a glimmer in Patrick Henry's eye and it will exist long after we're dead and gone.
The war was NOT about slavery. It was about the financial domination and political control of this continent. It was about controlling Congress to advance Northern interests.
You all can tell yourself it was about freeing the black man, but that don't make it so.
You all can tell yourself it was about freeing the black man, but that don't make it so.
Virtually no one went to war to free the black man. However, quite a number went to war to keep him in chains.
Even the most benevolent owners believed in disciplining the slow or insolent slave. Fewer lashes, perhaps.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Virtually no one went to war to free the black man. However, quite a number went to war to keep him in chains.
Thanks for your kind words ole. I'd say that lunatic John Brown went to war to free the black man but when it came time to fight he just cowered in the corner and died like a rat.
Other'n that, a whole lot of them boys fought for Wah-sheeen-tawn because Washington paid 'em.
I do believe there were honest hardworking freedom loving member's of Lincoln's Legions who went to the Southland to wage war in order to restore the Union. I don't mean to suggest that most of 'em were immigrant mercenaries fighting for profit and/or jayhawker privateers hell bent on foraging everything they could get their hands on. But alot of 'em were and a lot more of 'em were drunk. They didn't care two hoots for the plight of the black man and they most certainly didn't think he was their equal. They didn't want him in their neighborhood. They didn't want him in their school districts. They didn't want him setting on their juries and they most definitely didn't want him dating their daughters.
They were duped just like the rest of us. "Give 'em the Vote and they'll Win US a Nation!" and they did too. Sea to Shining Sea. The Union Pacific Railroad and CHASE Bank. Nine Trillion Dollars in Debt.
You make it sound like I'm advocating for slavery johan_steele. I ain't advocating no such thing. I never have and I never will advocate for slavery. Answer the question.
I am opposed to the notion that this Great Unpleasantness was all about freeing the black man from the clutches of evil white slave traders who raped and beat 'em repeatedly and sold their families off down the river. That's just neo-abolitionist modern day reconstructionist rhetoric designed to put down the modern day white man with Southern ancestry. You all are still prosecuting reconstruction. You have been for 145 years. Secession was about slavery, the US went to war to defend itself and to put down a rebellion. To free the slave? No, but that became a beneficial after effect when it was realized when it was realized that freeing the slave would destroy the CS. One side was fighting to defend itself (US) the other was fighting to defend slavery.
Get off your friggin high horse. Slavery didn't start in Virginia and it didn't end there either. There's precedence FOR slavery in the Bible. It existed long before the United States of America was ever a glimmer in Patrick Henry's eye and it will exist long after we're dead and gone. Slavery started well prior to Pax Romana. So it is in the bible, did Christ own a slave? No, are we as Christians not to emulate Christ?
The war was NOT about slavery. It was about the financial domination and political control of this continent. It was about controlling Congress to advance Northern interests. Balderdash, the tarriff issue is a smoke screen... Secession boils down to slavery.
You all can tell yourself it was about freeing the black man, but that don't make it so.
180,000 odd men of the USCT would disagree w/ you. 180,000 men of the USCT who fought for the Union... not the CS.
25,000 recently freed slaves who followed Sherman's Army for the hope of a glimmer of freedom. There were plenty more. The stars and bars did not mean freedom to those people, the soldiers of "Father Abraham" did. That a decade later they had been betrayed and were once again to be subjugated by their former masters is more the tragedy and it is an American sin, not just a southern one.
The men who did the fighting and dieing on the sharp end deserve my respect; the politicians and men behind the scenes of Secession deserve nothing more than my contempt.
That the names on my mind may be your heroes makes no never mind to me. Davis had tried for the Presidential nomination in 1860... he didn't get it yet a bit more than a yeart later he's President of the CS. Odd how well that worked out for him donn't you think; and the man didn't even have to worry about a legitimate campaign.
Do you even know what men like Yancy and Rhett were about and trying to accomplish? A feudal caste society the likes of which to make any decent man cringe and it certainly would not have benefitted the average Southern family... only the rich slaveowning plantation owner. Those are the men you idolize and defend, men w/ utter contempt for the men who worked for a living. If I am on a "high horse" because I hold such in contempt... I believe that high horse stands about sixteen hands and is a pale one; the death knell of slavery and of your heroes. My apologies to you for trampling upon them; but some deserve to be driven into the muck.
BTW welcome back.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
omg... did I seriously just read this? I mean.. I'm not hallucinating am I? I'm really biting my tongue right now but dude.. c'mon....
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
and don't mix up life as a black African slave on the North American continent in the 19th century with that of one in the West Indies and/or Central and South America. Talk about road hard and put away wet. Them people had it rough.
Modern day people want to gripe and complain about how bad the black African slaves had it in rural Alabama and Mississippi and how EVIL the Southern White Man was for beatin' 'em and sellin' 'em off down the river. I don't think they've got a leg to stand on.
If you took the black African slave with the very very worst Johnny Reb slaveowner in Lower Alabama and asked him if he wanted to swap places with his black African slave brothern in Brazil, even one who had the very best of situations goin' on, you'd find out very quicky, it weren't all that bad to be a black African slave in the United States of America.
You all need to get off your high horse. The Late Great Unpleasantness was NOT about freein' the black man. It was about enslaving US to their BIG government, Central government and Northern financial, industrial and transportation interests.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
