Southern Aristorcracy

[larry_cockerham]

I have you on my calendar. I'll check a couple of places in Thompson Station (that would be the whole 'town') and see if they have beverage license. Do you have reservations at a particular inn or are you planning to sleep near the cow manure?

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by ole

The entire idea of returning to the original intent of the original principles of the original idea of the Declaration of Independence was just so much postwar smoke.

You're probably right. I don't think too many of 'em could spell self-determination and/or constitutional authority let alone discuss the vargaries thereof.

They was probably just fightin' for a fight. They were men, afterall.

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by cash

You're the one who compared slaves to dogs.

See! There you go again.

[cash]

Originally Posted by Ozark Iron John

See! There you go again.

Wasn't it you who wrote Post #21 in this thread? In that post didn't you liken the situation of those slaves to that of dogs being dumped?

Maybe I'm awfully confused, but if so, I'm confused because of what you're writing.

Regards,
Cash

[unionblue]

Ozark Iron John,

From your post #21 of this thread:

Out here in the country, we're always having to deal with dogs that dumbarses from town have dumped on us. Lazy bastards that aren't willing or able to take care of their own. Over the course of my life, I bet I've seen 25 or 30 of 'em. Wild. Feral. Starving to Death. I believe dogs are man's best friend, Cash. I love dogs. I could NEVER dump my dog in the country. NEVER! I could take it out back and shoot it in the head, but I could NEVER dump it in the country.

How much more do you think I value human life Cash? How much more do you think my ancesters valued them young black girls?

Way more, sir. Way more!

Ain't no way they could've "cut 'em loose to fend for themselves." Ain't no way they could've "sold 'em down the river" either.

You people need to wake up and smell the coffee. Slavery was a bad thing. All Around!

Sir, unless I have read this entire post wrong, you are comparing the 'dumping' of slave girls to those who 'dump' dogs in the country or have I read this entire post wrong?

My reply was slaves are not dogs. Perhaps the idea that human beings held in bondage might have taken their chances at being free, rather than continue to be held in bondage by those who felt sorry for them or felt it inhumane to free them to a life they were not prepared for. After all, humans do have higher brain functions than a dog, they do seem to have aspirations and hopes that a dog might not be able to comprehend.

It sounds as though, this being my own personal view of your story, that your ancestors had the same attitude as Lee did when it came to the institution of slavery, that in God's good time, 'someday' far in the future, slavery would work its way out of its present condition.

In other words, wistful thinking, best keep the girls in the condition they have known all their lives and the condition most whites were comfortable with. And I am sure this was the easy way out of a dilemma for all around and was a good way to justify keeping the girls in bondage.

If you did not wish to compare human beings being held as slaves to dogs, I would suggest you use another way or story as an example and try not to be offended nor offer insults to those who are trying to understand your story of comparisons.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Larry,

In your post #43 above you state:

My old friend (only small pun intended) Ole and his yankee buddies can't ever seem to remember that only a very SMALL percentage of southerns owned slaves or gave a hoot in hades for those who did. You keep harping on a minority faction of the populace. Please move on.

We always seem to come back to this excuse, this point, this endless point about slave ownership, that somehow because the entire population of the South didn't own slaves that somehow it cannot be the reason for the war.

Yet we continue to ignore the large body of historical evidence that points to the idea that the institution of slavery was indeed supported by the vast majority of white Southerners, even those who did not own slaves, but hoped to or by those who felt it was needed as an engine of social control over four million blacks in bondage.

It seems to me that a very LARGE percentage of southern whites gave a great hoot in hades about slavery, its place in Southern society and the concern Southern whites had in its continuing existence. The continual effort to downplay slavery's importance and the historical evidence that shows it was the main concern of the South and the coming of the Civil War is exactly why most can NOT move on when the subject is treated as a minor or unimportant part of the debate.

Look at Ozark Iron John's posts above and we now all know why slavery could not move on. How dare we free slaves who aren't ready for freedom? That would be the same as dumping dogs in the country, wouldn't it? Just another excuse for our slaveowning ancestors to keep people in bondage and to feel good about them and their actions somehow.

Move on? How in hades are we supposed to do that when we can't acknowledge what really took place and for why?

Unionblue

[larry_cockerham]

Neil, my noble antagonist, glad to see you're paying attention, though still a bit confused in a sense or two. This paragraph troubles me a bit; could be my low reasoning capability?

"We always seem to come back to this excuse, this point, this endless point about slave ownership, that somehow because the entire population of the South didn't own slaves that somehow it cannot be the reason for the war."

From my humble perspective, a lack of slave ownership on the part of many, perhaps by far most, of those living in the South during the time of aggressive unpleasantness, has never been an excuse for anything. Simply a fact of life. Those folks didn't start the war; simply had to fight and provide the home field, not to mention cleaning up the mess afterward. Slavery, much as you love to do, should never be mixed up in that concept.

Slavery, being a huge part of the argument used to facilitate the war, cannot be denied. All were not part of that mess. They deserve some slack.

Slavery was a BAD thing. So was war.

The nation as a whole deserves the chance to share in that responsibility. The states north of the Mason Dixon line certainly shared in the guilt and the profits. Yes, time to move on. Cuss or downgrade us slow talking folks for bad grammar or a lack of industrial support to run a decent war, but please don't dump slavery on all the people of the South. They don't deserve it.

[unionblue]

Larry,

The support for the institution was too widespread not to be a part of life in the old South, whether one was a slaveowner or not.

The fear of four million souls held in bondage who had every reason to strike out against their condition, led to widespread support of that institution by a vast majority of those who resided in the South for fear of that possible retaliation.

While ALL may have not been 'part of that mess' far too much evidence of late is pointing in the direction that almost ALL supported having the mess a daily part of their lives for various reasons. This too, seems to be a simple fact of life for the times.

Again, these weren't pets or dogs being held 'for their own good' or because they couldn't handle freedom, etc. These people were being held in a condition to support a social order that put them on the bottom as property in order that the poorest white could maintain a social position superior to them that most all whites had been taught was right, honorable and justifed by God. It was the way things had to be and maintained, 'for their own good' and the safety of white society.

Ownership of a slave was not required. Maintaining the social order that permitted such ownership was.

Unionblue

[larry_cockerham]

Neil, you continue to miss my point and perhaps always will?

You wrote: "The support for the institution was too widespread not to be a part of life in the old South, whether one was a slaveowner or not."

The support of the institution of slavery was only widespread among the folks who were supporting it. Everyone else, a substantial portion of the folks who wound up in the Southern army were just trying to support themselves and their kin, not slavery. Beyond that concept you lapse into a gross generalization those folks don't deserve.

You then scribbled: "The fear of four million souls held in bondage who had every reason to strike out against their condition, led to widespread support of that institution by a vast majority of those who resided in the South for fear of that possible retaliation."

These four milion souls didn't have every reason to strike out, just a few very good ones. As many others on this forum have expressed, there was some harmony among the races in spite of the legal and moral issues. I know some folks have a problem with that concept when they generalize, but it was a fact of Southern existance. I don't and probably won't ever believe that a vast majority of those who resided in the South were in fear of blacks retaliating. Remember the part about racial supremacy?

Many folks grew up in the South never seeing a black person, much less being in fear. It was invading US army folks they didn't much care for.

More of your thoughts: "While ALL may have not been 'part of that mess' far too much evidence of late is pointing in the direction that almost ALL supported having the mess a daily part of their lives for various reasons. This too, seems to be a simple fact of life for the times."

Thank you for considering that "ALL" was possibly innocent of your misguided generalization. "Almost all" would likely be as challenging to define or prove as some of my rambling generalities. What this war needed for many reasons was a decent statistition! Too bad baseball wasn't created earlier.

"having the mess a daily part of their lives" simply didn't enter all lives. Too busy trying to survive to worry about slavery. That's my entire position in this little exercise.

This next one was a pretty good paragraph, all in all:

"Again, these weren't pets or dogs being held 'for their own good' or because they couldn't handle freedom, etc. These people were being held in a condition to support a social order that put them on the bottom as property in order that the poorest white could maintain a social position superior to them that most all whites had been taught was right, honorable and justifed by God. It was the way things had to be and maintained, 'for their own good' and the safety of white society."

Here's where you seemed to blink at Ozark's point about not wanting to have seen young girls thrown into a world they couldn't quite handle perhaps. That would have been a probably predictable, though individually molded, result. Given a bit of education, a little help and an abundance of luck, survival might have been possible, hopefully. I rather imagine that the instance of youths being thrust into the world with more challenge than they can comfortably handle still exists today. Does that justify the continuation of slavery? Certainly not.

I don't much believe most whites had been taught your stated relationship of superiority to blacks. Was it widely held? Apparently so. I'm pulling for and defending the rest of us. God didn't do it. He didn't even condone the war in my humble opinion.

This is one of your more intriguing thoughts: "Ownership of a slave was not required. Maintaining the social order that permitted such ownership was."

I'll go with the first part, aside from the oft-stated notion that large land owner's "needed" the labor. That was more nearly personal greed and may have been, as you suggest, an intergral part of getting this dumb notion of secession through the Confederate Congress. That's the boys with money who played politics for dollars, NOT the southerner who fought the war and tried to protect only their hearth and family. Ol' hearth protector didn't, as I've said before, care much about slaves one way or the other. I'll bet he didn't even care too much about the South. Just a little. Hearth and family were far more of a constant reality.

Preservation of the Union was also an admirable concept, but not one that every Confederate or Union soldier had in his pocket. Thank the Good Lord for the few who carried that notion to it's eventual fruition.

As far as "maintaining the social order", that silly concept didn't equate to the folks who didn't have slaves, didn't want slaves, couldn't afford slaves, were morally opposed to slavery (seems everyone SHOULD have fit that mode, but alas didn't), and in the case of mountain folks, didn't meet many if any slaves. These folks weren't in a social order, unless you counted the livestock and perhaps the local minister.

Just as all yankees ain't bad, the same can often be said of the Confederate soldier, just a grunt carrying a musket (or it Forrest had been able to borrow one, a rifle). Kinda like Willie and Joe in Bill Maulden's world war II world. Don't blame the grunts for slavery or give them credit for trying to perpetuate the condition. They didn't earn it and don't want it.

Once again, thanks very much for contributing your overly generalized notions. I enjoy the opportunity to converse. I just wish more of it could penetrate your brainwaves? Enjoy your weekend. Raining here in sunny Tennessee. If some of the folks who stumble through this board ever read this stuff, at least we have looked at more than one facit.

Thank you Sir, for your patient replies.

[unionblue]

Larry,

I will always miss your point if you insist on me having to view it in such a fractured manner. You are locked in viewing it in such a way as to present the softest historical light possible when illuminating this period of history.

My 'overly generalized' & 'misguided' notions cannot extend to ignoring rather large chunks of recorded history, to include letters, diaries, newspapers, speeches, etc., of peoples feelings and thoughts on the matter of slavery.

Nor am I willing to give an 'out' of sympathy towards those so-called concerned souls who would treat others as mental midgets or dumb animals when it came to considering freedom or more enslavement when the end consideration was to simply keep one's property.

And I simply don't 'blink' at Ozark Iron John's point, I question if the point was really considered at all except for some lame explanation to keep and exploit human property. Freedom is man's natural condition, it is not some test of adaptability to be scored by those who feign sympathy or have no concept of the wrong of offering it like some sort of graduation present. The whole concept sickens me, comparing the plight of dogs abandoned with that of human beings being given freedom or not on the whim of their owners.

As for Southern fears over the actions of four million blacks over the condition of their enslavement, you are going to have to go a long way in showing me the purpose of black codes, slave patrols, Fugative Slave Laws, the pass system and in our own time, separate bathrooms, drinking fountains, and school systems. While all did not own slaves, all participated in the social order of slavery and the social segragation to come. And that basis of treatment was founded in the institution of slavery.

You wish to shove this off into a very small corner of slaveowners and big plantations. You want the Southern men to be fighting for home and hearth against an invading Yankee army. To me, that's the small corner. It ignores the rest of the room.

Sincerely,
Unionblue