Southern Aristorcracy

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by cash

Yes, they were. As long as those slaves were slaves and not free, paid labor, they were being exploited.

Regards,
Cash

Cash has a valid point here. Slavery was exploitation. That exploitation for numerous reasons was slowly tapering off as the civil war began. None too soon. Yes, people of all three races in the South were learning to live together and still are. It ain't over yet. John and I both know there were instances of respect between slave and masters for what it was worth. Until freedom came, it wasn't worth much, but it was certainly a meager step in the right direction.

[cash]

Originally Posted by Hanny

I see i tread, im dishonest because i recommend the slave narratives to you,

I didn't say you were dishonest. I said you were grossly misusing the source. I assume it is not out of dishonesty but rather because you don't understand its limitations.

Originally Posted by Hanny

because they unlike you set out to illustarate a balanced pespective,

You must not have read my post, then, because I showed very clearly it was NOT a balanced perspective. The WPA narratives are not representative in any way, shape, or form, and I gave the reasons why.

Originally Posted by Hanny

as a source that does what you claim no reputable historian does,

Once again, you are grossly misusing the source. It does no such thing.

Originally Posted by Hanny

any historian who disagrees with you is also unreptable i take it then?.

Any historian who would make the claim you made is unreputable.

Originally Posted by Hanny

You seem to have forgotten that the salve naratives is used in the USA and other countries to educate pupils on the conditions of slavery,( http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/literature/winter.html )

I never said they were completely worthless. But your claim that 70% of the slaves were happier in slavery is, as I have said before, a gross misuse of the source.

Originally Posted by Hanny

sure there are problems with any data, but it does quantify former slaves opinions,

No, it doesn't, and if you had read my entire post you would have seen why it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Hanny

and they do not agree with you and your claims, so instead you attempt to show the data used in education is wrong.

I said your use of it was wrong, which is a big difference.

Originally Posted by Hanny

says a lot about you

Actually, your misuse of the source says much more about you than it says about me.

Originally Posted by Hanny

and very little about the conditions of slavery, dont like the data, change it so you do like it, wonderful aproach to statistical inpretation.

You're the one making the errors here, not me. If you were as skilled in statistical interpretation as you are implying above, you wouldn't have made the claim you made, since the WPA narratives are not a statistically valid sample from which to draw the conclusions you drew.

Originally Posted by Hanny

There you go again with absolutes!. I mention your using a book to support that which its contects do not support, and you return with im dishonest and unreputable,

You're the one mischaracterizing the book, not me.

Originally Posted by Hanny

Any work done before the advent of computers and modern statistical methods is outdated and error ridden, and any conclusion based on faulty data are equally unsound is what i was driving at.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by Hanny

Fogel did that in the 70s and won Nobel prize for empitrcaly answering questions we had used ancedotal acounts to surmise.

While Fogel did some good work, his methodology was flawed because he was overly dependent on a couple large plantations.

What is really that simple is that Stampp has stood the test of time, Fogel's methodology has been exposed as flawed, which is why many of his statistics can't be used, although his book isn't entirely worthless either.

Originally Posted by Hanny

Agree on Berlin and Davis being worth while books to own, so is Ransom and others, What none of them flat out say is what you implied because unlike you they dont deal in absolutes.

Actually, they do support what I say. I'm on the road right now and limited to what I brought with me, but as soon as I get back I can post the relevant source material.

But both Davis and Berlin support Stampp's conclusions.

Regards,
Cash

[cash]

Originally Posted by Hanny

Im using the federal law system that allows such things,

There was no such federal law.

Originally Posted by Hanny

there are 000s of such cases in USSC records,

No, there were not thousands of such cases in the records of the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by Hanny

it was the basis of DS in the first palce, MO had granted DS freedom on those grounds.

Wrong. The Dred Scott case was based on state laws. Scott had been taken into free states and was claiming that he was free as a result of those STATE laws.

Originally Posted by Hanny

i can post other such cases for you if you like, it was after common place in almost every state.

Please do, since it was not what you are claiming.

Regards,
Cash

[cash]

Originally Posted by Texas2nd

Of course the majority of Southerners did not fight for slavery...neither did all the Union Soldiers.

Before ya'll all poison pen me, all this is well documented and you don't have to agree with it.

Actually, what we have found out is that the majority of confederate soldiers were indeed fighting for slavery, and they knew it. And the majority of Union soldiers were fighting against slavery, and they knew it too.

Originally Posted by Texas2nd

Young Southern men were fighting just because there was a fight.

They were fighting because they believed slavery was in jeopardy and they believed maintaining slavery was protecting their families.

Regards,
Cash

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by cash

Actually, what we have found out is that the majority of confederate soldiers were indeed fighting for slavery, and they knew it. And the majority of Union soldiers were fighting against slavery, and they knew it too.



They were fighting because they believed slavery was in jeopardy and they believed maintaining slavery was protecting their families.

Regards,
Cash

Cash, I'm willing to bet you haven't interviewed, taken dispositions or otherwise had input from the majority of Southern soldiers. This is the same propaganda that Neil believes and promotes. Us Cornfeds just don't believe it to be generally true of anywhere near the majority of soldiers. Just an humble opinion. Very few soldiers tripped over slaves on their way to war. The didn't like yankees very much.

[trice]

Originally Posted by trice

Originally Posted by trice
*Some* slaves appeared to willfully remain loyal to their masters when they had a choice. *Many* fled that life at great risk and hardship. *Many* others never had any realistic chance to make a choice, since they were in areas where no easy access to Union troops was possible.

Originally Posted by Hanny

Well you need to recall the distribution of the 180k, thats the number in April 65, and includes more neutral states former slaves than it does secesionsist states negros, and if you look back to 64 or 63 the number falls dramaticly as the Union had yet to gain the former CSA slaves into sevice. Which was not vol btw. So the 180 is made up A total of 178,892 Negroes officially served in the Union Army, of whom 134,111 were from slave states, with some 93,346 of these from seceded states, so your 94k from a pop of 3.5 million is less than Union desertertions, less than the number who joined the Uk to leqave the US the Colonies, and is as a % of the pop what again

This is about as misleading and incomplete a use of a few statistics as I have seen in years. I have to assume you went no further than a quick glance at a table somewhere, and decided nothing more was needed to understand the facts.

To begin with, you seem to have the impression that the number of colored troops listed next to a state name means the men enlisted came from that state. This is completely counter to what actually happened in the years of the Civil War. To illustrate this for you, here is the number of USCT soldiers credited to a few Northern states and the 1860 Black Male population, age 15-49, according to the US Census:

Massachusetts:
1860 black males: 2,434
1865 USCT troops: 3,966
Difference: -1,532

Iowa
1860 black males: 304
1865 USCT troops: 440
Difference: -136

Kansas
1860 black males: 151
1865 USCT troops: 2,080
Difference: -1,929

Minnesota
1860 black males: 72
1865 USCT troops: 104
Difference: -32

Rhode Island
1860 black males: 1,005
1865 USCT troops: 1,837
Difference: -832

Now I am sure you know that the 15-49 age group is larger than normal military age for that day and time, so please explain how these states were credited with substantially more enlistments for USCT than they had age 15-49 Black males in their territory at the start of the Civil War. Where did the men, non-existent according to the 1860 Census, come from?

To help you out, I will note that several Northern states set up recruiting stations down in the South, in the areas where they could find Black recruits and be protected by Federal troops. As a result, a man might be credited as a Massachusetts soldier and actually come from North Carolina, Virginia or some other state in the Confederacy In addition, many refugees (overwhelmingly composed of escaped slaves) were recruited in Northern states if they went there.

The point of all this is that your attempt to say that these men should not be counted as slaves deciding to escape is simply an empty one. You find it convenient to claim it, but it is obvious the numbers you are presenting are unreliable in proving your point.

Regards,
Tim

[cash]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

Cash, I'm willing to bet you haven't interviewed, taken dispositions or otherwise had input from the majority of Southern soldiers. This is the same propaganda that Neil believes and promotes. Us Cornfeds just don't believe it to be generally true of anywhere near the majority of soldiers. Just an humble opinion. Very few soldiers tripped over slaves on their way to war. The didn't like yankees very much.

Sorry Larry, but you're dead wrong. It was indeed the majority on both sides who were concerned about slavery. The average confederate soldier knew exactly why his state had seceded, and he supported that decision. There were hundreds of regimental newspapers published by and for the common soldiers during the war that have only recently been looked at by scholars, and they all show that the average confederate soldier knew the war was about slavery, and that the average soldier supported that position. Likewise, there were regimental newspapers on the Federal side, and they made it clear the average Union soldier knew slavery was behind the war and made up his mind very early in the war that in order for there to be a lasting peace, slavery had to be destroyed. We also have diary entries and letters written at the time that showed the average soldiers on both sides knew slavery was the main issue of the war. There's just no getting around it.

Regards,
Cash

[unionblue]

Larry,

Re you post #137:

This is the same propaganda that Neil believes and promotes. Us Cornfeds just don't believe it to be generally true of anywhere near the majority of soldiers.

Jeesh, Larry, propaganda? And I thought I was doing research and reading from those who actually were historians and such.

I will agree with the second sentence of your quote above, you and others just don't believe. No sense trying to debate a belief system based on fact and research as no amount of that is going to convince a true believer.

But the more I research and the more I study, it's going back to where you can't believe and I can't bring myself not to believe.

Sorry its turned out that way, I thought we might still be willing to learn from one another. But I realize as I get older, I am getting a lot less tolerant of those who can suspend historical evidence, research, and period documentation for their 'beliefs' about the ancestors they continue to view with such a strange devotion they are willing to overlook their part in history, good or bad.

History just is, not what some want or wish it to be.

That's on me and I'll have to live with it.

Unionblue

[Will Posey]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Sorry its turned out that way, I thought we might still be willing to learn from one another.
Unionblue

Sir, what do you expect when you trash someone's ancestors?

[unionblue]

Will Posey,

Sir, please go through my posts on this thread and any other thread I have been on and point out a specific post, thread, sentence, etc., where I have 'trashed' someone's ancestors.

Sincerely,
Unionblue