Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I'm trying to find a handle on Frank Conner. I've found copies of his book. No other mention. Although I'm beginning to class him right along with E. Merton Coulter who at least has a mention. (We'll not bother to look into DiLusional or the Saints Kennedy.)
Just evaluating the quoted sources.
ole
What would you like to know? I shall be glad to get you the answers to any questions you might have...
The leadership of the south (slaveholders) would not. of their own volition, emancipate their slaves, even to save the confederacy. They would sacrifice their lives and money for the south, they were willing to sacrifice the blood of their sons and daughters on the altar of southern indepence; but not their slaves.
If they would not give up their slaves to save the confederacy, how can one logically argue that they would have freed the slaves, if they had won???
P.S. Logically, the actions above indicates which was more important to the southern leadership, southern independence or their slaves.
I have a question for you, as an obviously practicing member of the Yankees-were-Right Coalition.
How do you derive that the South could have survived, let alone 'won', simply by them 'giving up their slaves' ? Or by putting the lot of them in uniform and making them fight for a war in which they had no quarrel, for a country in which they were not citizens, and thus, were not expected, nor required, to die for the Cause??? (Unlike the North, who indiscriminately (drafted) put 'contrabands of war' (slaves, still) into uniform for slaughter against the Southern War machine...)
Many Southerners knew going into this thing that it was a Spartans '300' proposition, for which they were willing to be destroyed (THAT thought never seems to get into the
propaganda, does it?!) outright.
If the war had been 'over slavery', then giving up the slaves might have meant some sort of 'truce' or 'armistice'?
You don't make any sense to me with this, I fear.
If, as your side eternally bleats, the invasion was over the North refusing the right of secession, how would freeing the slaves have changed the Northern policies concerning the invasion?
Was the change of 'attitude'; towards an attitude now more favoring the Radical Republican Liberal's Abolitionist agenda (near the end of the war) and away from Lincoln's Northern capitalists and their 'needs'... was that enough to
make a difference?
You aren't making sound sense here, I am afraid. The South was sacrificing itself for its beliefs. It refused to live under tyranny unless forced upon it at bayonet point, and in the process, leaving a flag (or flags) which proclaim, for all time, that sacrifice... What has the negro slave to do with that?
You really think that upsetting Cotton Whig Liberal (closet unionists) like Stephens with negroes in the regular army (more than the almost ten percent which were actually there, all along).. you really think that would have made a difference?
Or are you just implying RACISM in your conjecture?
The idea that slavery was some sort of transition to something better from barbarism to civilization is so...let's just say if you buy that idea, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.
American slavery hummed along pretty well for over two centuries. The legal, and economic condition of the enslaved people never changed. Slavery is not a stage, its salient characteristic is its permanence. It is an unchanging, indeed, unchangeable condition. Changes only can occur when slavery ends.
As an Irish American living next to the most Irish city in America, where my Irish boss can say without irony describe Boston College as "an Irish college you have here in Boston," this stuff about Celts and Anglo Saxons sounds like a lot of hooey. People live in their own time and are responsible for their own actions. I don't think much of subscribing to some sort of ethnic determinism.
Oh, come on, Matthew! This nonsense about how "THE SOUTH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INVENTING SLAVERY" garbage simply has got to end, sometime! It is no longer the period known as Reconstruction, and Thaddeus Stevens and his Liberal thugs are long dead!
Of course SLAVERY was "some sort of transition", since way back to its inception...
(which was not, by the way, the fault of the Conservative Confederate South! HATE to break it to you, like this!)...
Think about it, if you can...
SLAVES were condemned persons who were sent into exile, to banishment, and were held so they could not return home again!
It was an alternative to Capital Punishment for whatever crimes they had done!
(Think of the history of Australia, and the defense rests!).
The price of them assured the sellers of this fact; without the price being paid, none could be manumitted!
Over the generations, (which there obviously were), each
generation born into slavery handles it accordingly. Some work towards manumission. Some stay as slaves. Some revolt, and are killed. Some escape.
One such slave, in the Bible, (Joseph), became Pharoah of Egypt!
I realize that, like a lot of those attitudes on the left, the idea of ethnic influences is taboo, and verboten (mostly because of the precious VOTE!) but if it acts like a CELT, or
behaves like an ANGLO-SAXON, why would you call it anything else? The cultural influences of these two cultures cannot be denied...
Not easily.
Slavery would have ended, sooner than it did, had the Abolitionist North not been in charge of emancipation, nor become a part of a half-baked political coup to Federalize the United States by force of arms.
The Industrial Revolution would have gotten it, for sure.
(However, there is reportedly, right now, an estimated 27 million slaves in the world, right now! I don't hear anyone complaining about that! Guess that since the antebellum South can't be made a target for it, any longer, then it's okay?).
In order to get this thread back on track, I would like to ask Battalion and Beowulf a question.
What evidence do you have that the South paid 75% - 80% of the federal tariff and what evidence can you provide that 3/4 of the tariff was expended in the North at the expense of the South?
Now, I would like to see something to the effect of actual records or source documents, but I know that I am unlikely to get it.
We have already researched and disproven the idea that Tausing? made the claim that the South was paying 80% of the tariff prior to 1860.
We ALL know that the tariff in effect at the start of the war was the lowest in history, in effect, a free-trade tariff.
So where does this legend begin that the South was so put upon by tariffs as to bring on the war?
I await your replies, gentlemen.
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
Do not, I repeat, DO NOT, hold your breath while waiting.
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
[quote=Beowulf;78960]Oh, come on, Matthew! This nonsense about how "THE SOUTH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INVENTING SLAVERY" garbage simply has got to end, sometime! It is no longer the period known as Reconstruction, and Thaddeus Stevens and his Liberal thugs are long dead!
Of course SLAVERY was "some sort of transition", since way back to its inception...
(which was not, by the way, the fault of the Conservative Confederate South! HATE to break it to you, like this!)...
Think about it, if you can...
Dear Beowulf,
If you look at my post, which you helpfully quoted, you will see I didn't write that the South invented slavery. Your stating that I did, then arguing against that position is known as using a "strawman argument."
I used the term "American Slavery." This is because slavery was a country wide practice in the 18th century, although concentrated for economic reasons, in the South.
The type of slavery practiced in the United States was not based on criminals being condemned and transported(such as Australia), or prisoners of war being seized as booty(as in Ancient Greece). American slaveowning was based on the idea that an entire group of people can be dismissed as fit only for menial tasks. Edmund Morgan argued that slavery actually created racism in "American Freedom, American Slavery" Racist beliefs mean there can be no "transition." That is, aside from the greed of the slaveowners that would make them cling to their means and source of wealth with a death like vise.
American slavery is horrifying because it was based on a "monstrous tissue of lies" as one slaveholder candidly noted.
Also, Joseph did not become Pharoah, but was an official in Pharoah's court.
Last edited by matthew mckeon; 02-09-2008 at 09:37 AM.
The south was dying from the want of soldiers, willing to fight for the confederacy. The ONLY large pool of manpower available to the south was its slaves.
If the arming of the slaves was not important why was Davis and Lee proposing it and why did their own gov't reject the only part of proposed legislation that would have made the south worth fighting for by it's slaves i.e., their freedom?
At the beginning of the War, the southern gov't had some problems with the idea of conscription for a nat'l army, but was able to rationalize it as necessaary for the survival of the south. in 1865, the war was being lost yet the southern gov'ts could not, logically, rationalize freeing their slaves, 'even' as a matter of national survival.
The fact that Beowulf is barely intelligible in his posts leaves more than a little doubt that he is capable of recognizing 'sense', even if he fell into it.
Oh, come on, Matthew! This nonsense about how "THE SOUTH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INVENTING SLAVERY" garbage simply has got to end, sometime! It is no longer the period known as Reconstruction, and Thaddeus Stevens and his Liberal thugs are long dead!
Of course SLAVERY was "some sort of transition", since way back to its inception...
(which was not, by the way, the fault of the Conservative Confederate South! HATE to break it to you, like this!)...
Think about it, if you can...
Dear Beowulf,
If you look at my post, which you helpfully quoted, you will see I didn't write that the South invented slavery. Your stating that I did, then arguing against that position is known as using a "strawman argument."
I used the term "American Slavery." This is because slavery was a country wide practice in the 18th century, although concentrated for economic reasons, in the South.
The type of slavery practiced in the United States was not based on criminals being condemned and transported(such as Australia), or prisoners of war being seized as booty(as in Ancient Greece). American slaveowning was based on the idea that an entire group of people can be dismissed as fit only for menial tasks. Edmund Morgan argued that slavery actually created racism in "American Freedom, American Slavery" Racist beliefs mean there can be no "transition." That is, aside from the greed of the slaveowners that would make them cling to their means and source of wealth with a death like vise.
American slavery is horrifying because it was based on a "monstrous tissue of lies" as one slaveholder candidly noted.
Also, Joseph did not become Pharoah, but was an official in Pharoah's court.
Very good. You caught that subtle distinction with Joseph. I am... gratified that you knew the difference! (I have been to Israel, and to Rachel's Tomb and the Church of the Nativity, et cetera). You pass. There.
However, the "South Inventing Slavery" line was as much of an exaggeration as what passes for American History today!
I understand that the North has always thought the South to be racist, in its slave-owning culture, but this is from the propaganda we were taught, as well as a few malcontents like Alexander Hamilton Stephens (whom "history" now takes great care to disassociate his name from Alexander HAMILTON, Liberal Extraordinaire, second only to the Great One, John Adams, in his collectivism...).
Of course, they both were Federalist/Whigs and both shown upon the currency of the realm, which they both greatly cherished! But, other than a fierce collectivist nature, and in the case of the party of the first part's... case, a definite Liberal tendency to die from gunshot wounds! (What is the deal with all these Liberals getting shot????), there is no other connection between these two men! Stephens apparently died from a wound received from a gate. (So, he got the gate).
(Little Alec Stephens was a racist, and a mouthy collectivist, even if it can ever be proven that he was not
named for a major Liberal! His speeches, as I have said, elsewhere, embarrassed Davis no end. Davis had other ideas on negro servitude, which 'historians' never seem to want to explore.)
As to 'slavery creating racism', only during Reconstruction, Negro Rule, and other subsequent attempts by the Liberals in charge to be 'generous' (all the way up to CETA and the hiring quotas of Jimmy Carter's era, and beyond)... THESE things, sir, bring racism.
These forms of tokenism, which cannot be laid upon slavery...
Sorry! The South admits to slavery, not the fantastic fiction which follows!
A monstrous tissue of lies, indeed.
But, if you had a bunch of Northern Collectivists trying to tax you out of existence and off your land, without compensation, or consideration, you might get a little overprotective of your 'people', as well!
As to 'slavery creating racism', only during Reconstruction, Negro Rule, and other subsequent attempts by the Liberals in charge to be 'generous' (all the way up to CETA and the hiring quotas of Jimmy Carter's era, and beyond)... THESE things, sir, bring racism.
Are you denying that negro slavery was an institution based on racism, or are you sticking with the 'banished criminal' basis?
The south was dying from the want of soldiers, willing to fight for the confederacy. The ONLY large pool of manpower available to the south was its slaves.
If the arming of the slaves was not important why was Davis and Lee proposing it and why did their own gov't reject the only part of proposed legislation that would have made the south worth fighting for by it's slaves i.e., their freedom?
At the beginning of the War, the southern gov't had some problems with the idea of conscription for a nat'l army, but was able to rationalize it as necessaary for the survival of the south. in 1865, the war was being lost yet the southern gov'ts could not, logically, rationalize freeing their slaves, 'even' as a matter of national survival.
The fact that Beowulf is barely intelligible in his posts leaves more than a little doubt that he is capable of recognizing 'sense', even if he fell into it.
Sir, you shall not throw that particular gauntlet at my feet!
In reviewing these posts, my spelling seems to be some of the best all around, to say nothing of my sentence structure and grammar. I would look to myself, first, before I began casting aspersions of that sort!
Whether you agree, or not, is not a matter of intelligibility!
And, as you are clearly so ONE SIDED in your views, I can also call into question your veracities upon various and sundry, as well! And more than one of you pro-Northern scholars has demurred over Davis and his 'tedious' speech.
That, alone, should give sober men pause. A great deal of it!
The South wanted to avoid empire, in its own practices, even if it cost them the war. Forcing the negro to fight was a Yankee practice, suh! Conscription of contrabands of war! Nothing 'noble' about that!
The South wanted to govern its own affairs, and not be overrun with freed blacks who had no purpose, no natural protections, nor any livelihood. (Like the North forced upon them during 'Reconstruction').
The 60,000 freed negroes living in that area of the South during this time period would have concurred, as well.
They would not have wanted their jobs threatened, nor
(like East Germany's problems with West Germans, when the wall came down) have to be disdainful of their fellows for getting for 'free' what many of them had paid for... actual freedom.
This Liberalistic egalitarian "levelling out" would not have gone well with the more industrious of that particular race, I can assure you!
(To say nothing of those blacks in the South who were plantation owners!)
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
