Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Gents; I can see both positions. A woman alone, white or black, on the frontier had a very rough life ahead of her. That said; the further west a woman went the more precious commodithy she was. There are ample stories of men hanging other men simply because said man spoke poorly of or to a woman.
Life for a woman on the frontier was as harse as it gets and a woman gladly took what protection she could get. Would she better as a slave? No, but she would at least be in a situation she was familiar w/.
Would I free any slave I owned? Absolutely, but that is me a man of the 20th century.
We're talking about Virginia. He said
Quote:
"My paternal ancestors (G4 & G5) crossed the Mississippi River and settled Missouri before Missouri was a state. They came from Virginia via Kentucky. G5 earned a pension during the War of 1812. Like his father (G6) had done in the Rev. War.
They brought slaves with 'em. They had too. They had inherited 'em and couldn't just sell 'em down the river. Lord knows what would've happened to 'em then."
I said they could have freed those slaves before they left. We're not talking about Missouri or the frontier. We're talking about Virginia. There were plenty of free folks who were able to survive, so why couldn't they? There were even other free blacks in Virginia at the time, over 630,000 in 1820.
The idea that they cared for those slaves is BS, pure and simple. They cared for the money they'd get from exploiting them.
Slaves in other States with other owners had been given their freedom at other times. I don't understand why this could not have been an option.
You and Larry are right. I'm not seeing this, even with the use of the English language. But perhaps I'm not the one seeing with 21st century eyes either.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
The government's right to coerce its citizenry. The government's right to tell the People, what we may and what we may NOT do.
My ancestors did as much for the founding of this Republic as ANY of your'n and more than most.
MY Founding Fathers set up a limited form of national government with tight restrictions and plenty of checks and balances becasue they knew first hand the hazards of a strong national government. The Constitution doesn't grant US rights, it limits our national government's rights. EVERYTHING ELSE to the States and the PEOPLE.
When Lincoln's minions saw fit to violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Lincoln became a Tyrant and it was their/our Duty to Resist. Duty to Rebel. DUTY to Seccede!
When Fremont sent them Radical Black Republicans from Illinois and Iowa to INVADE Missouri .....
When Lane sent them Jayhawker killers to INVADE Missouri .....
It was their/our Duty to Resist. Duty to Rebel. DUTY to Seccede!
I don't expect any of you all to understand that either.
Last edited by Ozark Iron John : 05-04-2007 at 12:04 PM.
The southern leadership (aristocrats?) rejected the strong case to be made for the 'right' to rebellion, which did exist and instead, chose the flimsy 'right' to secede, the existence of which was problematic, at best.
In regards to names associated with violence, who knows 'Border Ruffians'?
The leaders of the south fomented violence to suppress Republican electioneering in the south during the Election of 1860. Violence so effective that Lincoln name appeared on no ballots in the south.
When the southern leadership saw fit to proclaim their unilateral 'right' to decide whether the Union would be broken up or not and not shrink from a war to sustain the break up the union, is telling evidence as to who, really, sustained violence as the arbiter of their actions.
Let's take this thread along a different course. Excellent suggestion -- and presented in short points which are easier to address individually.
The government's right to coerce its citizenry. The government's right to tell the People, what we may and what we may NOT do. I'm assuming you're talking about the relative handful of abolitionists who wanted slavery abolished immediately. Like all reformers, their demands were politically unattainable. If you're referring to not allowing slavery in there territories, you might have a case. But then you'd have to show that the government didn't have the right to govern its territories as it saw fit -- Roger Taney notwithstanding.
My ancestors did as much for the founding of this Republic as ANY of your'n and more than most. Probably true, but irrelevant.
MY Founding Fathers set up a limited form of national government with tight restrictions and plenty of checks and balances becasue they knew first hand the hazards of a strong national government. The Constitution doesn't grant US rights, it limits our national government's rights. EVERYTHING ELSE to the States and the PEOPLE. Also true. But aren't you referring mostly to the right to secede? If you wish to pursue that angle, there are somewhere over 2000 posts on the subject on another thread. If you are referring to some other right unconstitutionally denied to the people, I will expect you to provide examples.
When Lincoln's minions saw fit to violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Lincoln became a Tyrant and it was their/our Duty to Resist. Duty to Rebel. DUTY to Seccede! Exactly to which Constitutional provisions are you referring. (Nice literary setup, by the way.)
When Fremont sent them Radical Black Republicans from Illinois and Iowa to INVADE Missouri ..... Naturally, this was without provocation, wasn't it?
When Lane sent them Jayhawker killers to INVADE Missouri ..... Naturally, this was without provocation, wasn't it?
It was their/our Duty to Resist. Duty to Rebel. DUTY to Seccede! Let's pick that apart. Duty to Resist. Most certainly! And the Constitution makes ample provisions for resisting. Duty to Rebel. Never heard of a duty to rebel. Perhaps the next step up from resist? Had Martin Luther King not been assassinated, would his next step have been armed rebellion? (This is not a allusion to race; just the only example I can think of at the moment of resistance that might turn to rebellion.) Duty to Secede. I believe it was Robert E. Lee who said secession is rebellion. Other Confederate leaders probably felt the same thing, but they were too concerned with the implications to call the spade a spade. In any event, legal or not, secession isn't really relevant, is it?
I don't expect any of you all to understand that either. Is this another, "If you're not southern, you can't understand," attitude? I'll submit that it's not a matter of where and when you were born, but an anthropological understanding of human nature that's important here. Northern provocations and southern reactions are quite understandable in that context. You push me and I'm either going to run or knock you down. From there, it gets a bit more complicated.
John, your heritage has obviously given you strong feelings about US history. Mine has not. At my first exposure to USCW study, I knew only that the South lost, the North won, and slavery went away. I would like to understand your point of view, but I'm handicapped by being anal retentive about "what really happened."
I hope you don't mind that I've singled out your post as a starting point in what might be a discussion contrasting what we all were told with what actually happened.
Respectfully,
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
I hope you don't mind that I've singled out your post as a starting point in what might be a discussion contrasting what we all were told with what actually happened.
No. Sir. You are right on the money. I do want to contribute to a healthy discussion contrasting what we were told with what actually happened.
I know I was fed a heathly dose of .... un-reality growin' up. Heck, I grew up thinking Republican********ers was one word. If I heard it once, I heard it a thousand times. I didn't know it was two (or is it three?) until I got to highschool and I didn't know it was offensive until I got to college.
There's no doubt, my uncles were dumb and they filled my head full of BS. BUT, I ain't the only one who growed up with dirt in my eye and rose colored glasses.
I reckon them that are in power today lie to US about just about everything. I reckon they've been lieing to US for a long long time. I ain't saying I beleive black is white and white is black, but I don't believe anything THEY tell US. Especially about the American Civil War and the Power-Brokers Pulling the Strings in Washington.
I don't hate you guys. Heck, I love you. You ARE Me! We are ....
The southern leadership (aristocrats?) rejected the strong case to be made for the 'right' to rebellion, which did exist and instead, chose the flimsy 'right' to secede, the existence of which was problematic, at best.
In regards to names associated with violence, who knows 'Border Ruffians'?
The leaders of the south fomented violence to suppress Republican electioneering in the south during the Election of 1860. Violence so effective that Lincoln name appeared on no ballots in the south.
When the southern leadership saw fit to proclaim their unilateral 'right' to decide whether the Union would be broken up or not and not shrink from a war to sustain the break up the union, is telling evidence as to who, really, sustained violence as the arbiter of their actions.
It is indeed, them fellers that bear most of the blame for kicking off a shooting war instead of hashing out the diffences in the forums provided in the Constitution.
I'll have to admit, though, that were I in their position, I might have had the same attitude, if not reacted in the same way. I'm inclined to watch the status quo changed through some natural progression of events. I would not be inclined to go immediately to a nationalized health care situation, for example,without trying a few interim steps or at least trying to fix the way things are. It would seem, however, that the slaveocracy is not interested in progress in any form -- they wanted the clock to stop where it was so they could continue to enjoy the good life in the manner to which they had become accustomed. A selfish attitude for which an entire region suffered and, in the opinion of a few, still suffer.
Just a thought.
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
It is indeed, them fellers that bear most of the blame for kicking off a shooting war instead of hashing out the diffences in the forums provided in the Constitution.
I'll have to admit, though, that were I in their position, I might have had the same attitude, if not reacted in the same way. I'm inclined to watch the status quo changed through some natural progression of events. I would not be inclined to go immediately to a nationalized health care situation, for example,without trying a few interim steps or at least trying to fix the way things are. It would seem, however, that the slaveocracy is not interested in progress in any form -- they wanted the clock to stop where it was so they could continue to enjoy the good life in the manner to which they had become accustomed. A selfish attitude for which an entire region suffered and, in the opinion of a few, still suffer.
Just a thought.
Ole
I think it had a whole lot to do with their dad's and their grand dad's having fought a War of Rebellion themselves.
I don't think they understood the "Frog in the Pot of Boiling Water" metaphore. Or perhaps they did and figured they'd be better off if they "Jumped Out!"
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
I didn't know it was two (or is it three?) until I got to highschool and I didn't know it was offensive until I got to college.
Linear Mode
