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.
If only you could catch a hint at what the late war was all about.
But by fishing in the river of denial or in a constant state thereoff, your hook is bound to always come up empty.
Enjoy the fish you did catch. Neat outfit, by-the-way.
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
way too much racism in this country in 1861-65 to make a convincing argument that southern soldiers in a majority were fighting for slavery.
In effect, they all were fighting for slavery. The percentage of individuals who realized they were and admitted it is quite separate from those who went in knowing what was at stake.
You are looking for a percentage of individuals who denied fighting for the right to keep slaves in their place--not being free and being next door. Such thoughts and commitments changed from month to month, if not week to week, and Channing's book attempts to track the changes more than to prove that X percent could be said to be fighting for slavery and that Y percent were not.
The guy early in the war who said he fought for freedom and returning to the real constitution might be saying, six months later, that he didn't want free blacks sitting by his children in church or school. Ms. Channing's main interest is in tracking the changes--not in proving that the majority fought for this or that reason.
Quote:
way too much racism in this country in 1861-65
In this, I think you shoot your own foot. Johnny may not have been fighting to maintain slavery for slaveholders. He may not have been fighting for the right to own one or two. But he may well have been fighting to keep the blacks separate, under control, subjugated, away from himself and his family. Sounds like the racism of which there was way too much. And it sounds like the last category was also "fighting for slavery."
I'll submit that early on--during the first months after Sumter--that no one thought of invasion or protecting hearth and home. That no one expected the Yanks to put up much of a fight. That the war would be over after the first battle.
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'll submit that early on--during the first months after Sumter--that no one thought of invasion or protecting hearth and home. That no one expected the Yanks to put up much of a fight. That the war would be over after the first battle.
Not just that early. In 1862, they were still unsure how long the war would last, with many still thinking one big victory would make it all stop. This attitude was still around as late as September, when initial reports of a great Federal victory at Antietam led to a surge of relief and a very short-lived belief that it would all be over now.
With hindsight, it is pretty obvious the war would be a long one. But few people want to see that at the start, and probably every war in history was sold as a short one to those who would fight it. Even in mid-1862, we can find comments about how US industrial expansion/inestment is being paralyzed by uncertainty over how long the war might last. People simply didn't want to peer through the mist and imagine the horror of Gettysburg and Chickamauga and the Atlanta Campaign and the Overland Campaign and the siege of Petersburg/Richmond and everything that went with that.
The more the war stretched on, the more time and reason to ponder where this was going and why they were fighting. In the words of a song, from the Broadway play Shenandoah, "What was the dying for?".
Regards,
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.
Looks pretty fishy to me... ummm trout fried up w/ a touch or worchershire sauce. W/ a Sam Adams on the side to wash it down.
I don't think any self respecting southerner would be caught drinkin Sam Adams
__________________ "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
OzarkIronJohn,
As for 'Yankee 101' did it feel good to get off a cheap shot? Or do they teach that in 'Lost Cause' defense class. "Defend no matter what the truth or the message, defend!"
By-the-way, ever try what I suggested about typing 'slave whippings' into your search engine? Or would that be too much effort to see what that was about?
Unionblue
The Lash
The slave was probably the most common recipient of the lash...but if a free black committed a crime in Ohio or New York he could get it too.
It was a common form of punishment in the 19th century (North and South) and also used on whites- in prisons, the army and navy (into the 20th century), and on petty criminals.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
The slave was probably the most common recipient of the lash...but if a free black committed a crime in Ohio or New York he could get it too.
It was a common form of punishment in the 19th century (North and South) and also used on whites- in prisons, the army and navy (into the 20th century), and on petty criminals.
Uh-huh. Just to clarify what you mean, how many whites do you think were whipped in a given year in the US between, say 1820 and 1860? How many blacks? How many slaves vs. free men? Do you think there is any significant difference betwen the percentages of each? Do you think it was a far more common punishment for free men or slaves?
How much protection did slaves have under the law against this punishment? How much protection did free men have under the law against this punishment? Do you see any significant difference betwen the two? Or is the situation that slaves had so little protection under the law that they effectively had none, while whites were protected by all the normal procedures of due process under the law? Could a slave be whipped simply because his master said so, while a white could only whipped after being convicted of a crime?
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.
Uh-huh. Just to clarify what you mean, how many whites do you think were whipped in a given year in the US between, say 1820 and 1860?
Don't know. Were they keeping stats on that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
How many blacks? How many slaves vs. free men? Do you think there is any significant difference betwen the percentages of each? Do you think it was a far more common punishment for free men or slaves?
See first sentence of previous post for answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
How much protection did slaves have under the law against this punishment? How much protection did free men have under the law against this punishment? Do you see any significant difference betwen the two? Or is the situation that slaves had so little protection under the law that they effectively had none while whites were protected by all the normal procedures of due process under the law? Could a slave be whipped simply because his master said so, while a white could only whipped after being convicted of a crime?
Tim
What about free blacks in the North? Did they have this protection? Could a free black be whipped for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
I've never claimed brilliance nor a lack of a foolish move occasionally. What I still don't comprehend is why a man with no slaves, a family to feed, his home territory being invaded by an 'alien' army, and his general life in danger would give a hoot about slaves or their condition at the moment. I know you keep trying to tell me and I appreciate that. I just don't believe it. There was way too much racism in this country in 1861-65 to make a convincing argument that southern soldiers in a majority were fighting for slavery.
The book details why. You will continue to fail to comprehend it because you will continue to be willfully ignorant of what's detailed in the book.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
