Southern Aristorcracy

[larry_cockerham]

Good morning, Sir.

The most I've ever desired in this exercise was a little recognition for what you've termed the SMALL CORNER. The "small corner" existed. That's part of history, not wishful thinking. You are welcome to manage the rest of your debate as you see fit. I have no doubt that will happen and encourage you to do so.

I think your rambling discussion fussing about Ozark and the dogs is still a bit off his point. Animals and humans both, at some point in their existance, simply have to face the world with it's ugly parts, prepared or not. Freedom is a natural right and a most desirable status. Defending it, as you well know, ain't so easy. Pushing a bird from the nest prior to wing and bone development offers a chance to fly but has all the anticipation of a resultant thud.

[unionblue]

Larry,

As you will, sir.

As Ozark Iron John wills.

I would rather try my wings at freedom and fail than be locked in a cage all my life 'for my own good.'

But that is what I will.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[ole]

Haven't quite yet figured out what the flack is about. Someone back then decided his slaves would be better off retained rather than turned loose. I can't say, not having been there, what might have been best for them. I can say that, if the girls weren't prepared for freedom, I would be remiss in cutting them loose if, in my opinion, they may have been helpless. I may be wrong in that opinion, but I might also be right.

A great many freed slaves immediately found their own way. A great many did not. Some starved, some prospered, and many simply survived by whatever means was available to them. It was not a time when could've, would've or should've played a significant role. The newly freed slaves sorted themselves out according to the rules of "survival of the fittest." The Freedman's Bureau helped some, but not the utopian all.

Lincoln, when he said, "root hog, or die," probably came closest to the situation. The situation had spiraled far beyond anticipated and truly came down to abandonment of the incapable. There was simply no way to cope with freed slaves in a number approaching 4 million -- each and all must take care of themselves. Happily, most of them did. They belied the idea that none of them was capable of work without the lash. Most made their own way in the troubled years. Some didn't. How much different is that situation from today's situations? Most do. Some don't. And that applies equally across the board.

Ozark Iron John's ancestors decision to keep the girls rather than freeing them is in keeping with a compassionate caring for the welfare of the girls. It is nowhere near within my judgement that theirs was faulty.

At the time, livestock, pets, or human property, there was caring about their welfare. As reprehensible as it might be to us, there was concern. As we might not dump a dog or cat on the roadside, they might not dump a person to the same fate. Sell them? Yes. But at least they were going to someone you might trust to at least take care of them.

At the time Iron John's family decided not to sell, downriver meant bad times. We might at least recognize that keeping them was very likely kinder than turning them loose. Don't know. Wasn't there. Were you?

Ole

[larry_cockerham]

Ole, you have the concept surrounded. Neil is speaking from his debating team notes, not his heart perhaps.

Now, freedom was a legal right at some point, about 1867 or so, so at that time it made no difference. What WAS important was the simple fact that some of the folks from two or three races (don't forget my native American cousins) wound up being friends and yes, family members. Caring existed, even after the horrible four years of the early 1860s.

That's my take, at least.

[cash]

Originally Posted by ole

Haven't quite yet figured out what the flack is about. Someone back then decided his slaves would be better off retained rather than turned loose. I can't say, not having been there, what might have been best for them. I can say that, if the girls weren't prepared for freedom, I would be remiss in cutting them loose if, in my opinion, they may have been helpless. I may be wrong in that opinion, but I might also be right.

"Prepared for freedom?" Why isn't simply being a human being "prepared for freedom?"

How is the white illiterate daughter of an illiterate dirt farmer more "prepared for freedom" than a young black woman?

How is one "prepared for freedom," and maybe more importantly, what were these folks doing to "prepare" them for freedom? My guess is absolutely nothing, but then again nothing was required for freedom at the time except a white skin. As long as you were considered a white person you were a free person. It didn't matter how "prepared" you were for that freedom.

I can understand white folks in the 19th Century making that claim, because almost all of them believed blacks were inferior. I cannot, however, understand a person in the 21st Century making that claim and trying to defend holding people in bondage using those terms, especially when they claim to believe blacks are not inferior.

I think it's time to face up to what we're talking about here in clear and unmistakeable terms.

To argue slaves couldn't be freed because they weren't "ready" or "prepared" for freedom presupposes blacks are inferior. Nobody's arguing for the enslavement of any white girls who were illiterate and on their own. If keeping slaves in bondage was supposedly so compassionate, why weren't whites who would be in similar circumstances to newly freed slaves enslaved "for their own good?" Where's the so-called "compassion" for them?

Simple. If you define blacks as inferior you can justify enslaving them, and since you define whites as superior you don't enslave them because you presuppose they can survive on their own.

Oh, and the claim that blacks weren't "prepared" for freedom was just as bogus and invalid in the 19th Century as it is today, since very, very few of those masters ever did anything to "prepare" their slaves for freedom. It was nothing more than a rationalization for them to keep exploiting their slaves' labor for their own enrichment

Originally Posted by ole

A great many freed slaves immediately found their own way. A great many did not. Some starved, some prospered, and many simply survived by whatever means was available to them. It was not a time when could've, would've or should've played a significant role. The newly freed slaves sorted themselves out according to the rules of "survival of the fittest." The Freedman's Bureau helped some, but not the utopian all.

They survived just like white folks did. Those who were willing to work for a living worked and were paid and survived. Those who weren't willing to work for a living didn't work and weren't paid and would have to find some other way to survive.

Originally Posted by ole

Lincoln, when he said, "root hog, or die," probably came closest to the situation.

He was assuming they were equal to whites in their ability to function in society. I find his attitude enlightened for that time period, and simultaneously I'm saddened that some today aren't anywhere near his attitude.

Originally Posted by ole

Ozark Iron John's ancestors decision to keep the girls rather than freeing them is in keeping with a compassionate caring for the welfare of the girls. It is nowhere near within my judgement that theirs was faulty.

If one believes blacks are inferior and one is entitled to exploit their labor for one's own profit and call it "compassionate."

Originally Posted by ole

At the time, livestock, pets, or human property, there was caring about their welfare. As reprehensible as it might be to us, there was concern. As we might not dump a dog or cat on the roadside, they might not dump a person to the same fate. Sell them? Yes. But at least they were going to someone you might trust to at least take care of them.

What about all the black folks in Virginia who were functioning just fine as free people in 1820? Why couldn't the young ladies in question be freed and live among other free blacks?

Originally Posted by ole

At the time Iron John's family decided not to sell, downriver meant bad times.

They also decided not to manumit.

Originally Posted by ole

We might at least recognize that keeping them was very likely kinder than turning them loose. Don't know. Wasn't there. Were you?

I have no patience with this argument. It's a bogus argument. Just because we weren't there doesn't mean we don't have a valid viewpoint. None of us were there for any part of the Civil War, so we might as well just fold up the entire group and all stop discussing it if we can't make judgments on things that happened before we were born. Either we can make judgments or we can't. If we can't, then stop the group now and turn off the lights because there's nothing more to discuss about anything, since none of us were there.

We know what the conditions were like, and we know what the options were. It was stated they brought their slaves along because they "had" to do so. Well, no they didn't "have" to do so. They could have freed those slaves before they left for Missouri and let them stay among some free blacks. Instead, they opted to continue to exploit the labor of the slaves. It was a purely economic decision.

The problem is that John's into the ancestor worship that infests so much of the so-called "southern heritage" mindset and keeps people from acknowledging their ancestors did some things out of self-interest and stepped on others because it was in their interest to do so. Instead they construct this pseudo-world where their ancestors were always motivated by the best of intentions for everyone around them.

Well, I'm sorry but that's just poppycock. The people who lived in the 19th Century did some bad things. Slavery was recognized as an evil at the time. Indeed, the south had more antislavery organizations in the years between 1800 and 1830 than the north did, and a number of the aristocracy spoke out against slavery, but they owned slaves anyway. Why? Because it was in their economic interest to do so at first, and later when the black population got so large it was also in the interest of white supremacy to continue doing so. And that explains why nonslaveholding whites fought for the confederacy as well. They all knew what the confederacy was about, but they perceived a threat to their families if slavery were done away with.

Does that make them bad or evil people? No. It makes them human beings. But in the area of slaveholding there wasn't much "good." There was no such thing as a "good" slaveholder. There were some who were less cruel than others, but in the end nobody who owned slaves, not even George Washington, could be called a "good" slaveholder, since he still owned other people and treated them like any other possession.

We have to get beyond the simple ancestor worship and acknowledge historical truths. It's okay to acknowledge that your ancestors did something wrong. It's okay to acknowledge they exploited others in their own self-interest. After all, nothing they did reflects on what kind of person you are today, and doing those things didn't make them evil people. They were people of their times, nothing more and nothing less. They had entire lives and lifetimes of contributions. If they are going to be judged, they should be judged on their entire lives, not just one segment of it, and if the judgment is to be fair we have to acknowledge their faults as well as their strengths.

Regards,
Cash

[larry_cockerham]

Cash, I wouldn't give you an A for that essay, but I generally agree with it.

[Will Posey]

[quote=cashAfter all, nothing they did reflects on what kind of person you are today, and doing those things didn't make them evil people. They were people of their times, nothing more and nothing less. They had entire lives and lifetimes of contributions. If they are going to be judged, they should be judged on their entire lives, not just one segment of it, and if the judgment is to be fair we have to acknowledge their faults as well as their strengths.

Regards,
Cash[/quote]


Well said, sir! Perhaps those who are quick to condemn the ancestors of some of us will take note.

Thank you.

Will Posey

[unionblue]

Cash,

Thank you for saying what I could not glean from my 'debating notes' nor apparently, from my cold-blooded, yankee heart.

I appreciate it.

Unionblue

[unionblue]

Taken from the Richmond Daily Dispatch: January 21, 1864.

Runaways

1. 500 Dollars Reward.

--I will give $500 for the recovery of my servant girl Ellen, and $1000 for the recovery of one Richmond cross one set diamond ear rings, and two large fine cluster diamond rings, carried away by the said girl.

Ellen ran away from me at the Ballard House, on Wednesday evening, the 13th of January, carrying with her the above diamond jewelry.

Description--Ellen is very white, and may readily pass herself as a free white woman. She is about 26 years of age, slender and delicately formed, narrow face, light brown straight hair, eyes nearly blue, rather high forehead; weighs about 115 or 120 pounds.

She had on when she left, two black rigns and a gold ring. She dresses well and carries with her good and fine clothes. She is a superior seamstress.

Jno V. Wright.

One hundred Dollars Reward.

--Will be paid for the arrest and confinement in Castle Thunder of the negro boy Lewis, about 5 feet 5 inches in height, and about 15 or 16 years old. He is the son of Helen Tyler, who formerly lived near the corner of 18th and Marshall streets, Richmond, but who is now living in the employ of Mrs J. C. Pannill, Petersburg, Va.

Hunter Davidson

300 dollars reward.

--Runaway, on Sunday night, the 3d inst., about half past 9 o'clock, my servant girl, Louisiana. She is about 15 years old, but very large for her age. She is a bright mulatto, but her hair is not straight. She is very intelligent, and speaks more like a white person than a negro. I will pay the above reward for her apprehension and return to me at the Westham House, Sidney, or secured in any jail so I can get her again.

B. W. Totty

Two hundred dollars reward.

--Will be paid for the apprehension and delivery in jail of my boy Tom, who absconded about 3 weeks ago, and is supposed to be now in or near the city of Richmond. He is about 13 years of age, brown color, and very sprightly; had on when he left a new suit of mixed jeans, cap, and pegged shoes. Address Warren P O, Albermarle co, Va.

C L Wingfield, M D.

It seems that age seemed to be of little consideration when one wanted to be free or that preparation for freedom did not seem to be a big requirement for those who yearned for it enough.

Just an observation.

Unionblue

[william42]

Posted by Ole

Ozark Iron John's ancestors decision to keep the girls rather than freeing them is in keeping with a compassionate caring for the welfare of the girls. It is nowhere near within my judgement that theirs was faulty.

We would have to look into that man's heart, which of course we cannot do. John's ancestor - did he truly believe in his heart of hearts that freeing the girls would bring them into harm's way? If we take him at his word, then he was doing a good thing in his own mind, by not freeing them. Whether we think he was ignorant, misguided, patronizing, stupid, does not matter. Only that man and his maker knew the motive in his heart. Doesn't matter if it's 21st century reasoning, or 19th century. The intention at the core of his actions was noted and recorded, and rewarded or punished accordingly, by those who ultimately hold us all accountable for our actions.

Sure, it was morally wrong to hold them in slavery in the first place, but once placed in that position of "owner", this man sounds as though he had the girls' welfare as his primary concern, at that point in time, whether we agree with him or not.





Terry